Ted Rall -not nearly as nutty as people make him out to be.

Yahoo! News - THE (POSSIBLE) ASSASSINATION OF PAUL WELLSTONE
Ronald Reagan may have been a hard line conservative, but had Wellstone died during his watch you wouldn't have heard liberals asking whether the Gipper had had him offed. Bush is different. Asking mailmen to spy on ordinary Americans, creating military tribunals for anyone deemed an "enemy combatant," locking prisoners of war in dog cages, spending a decade's worth of savings in six months, allowing journalists to die rather than provide them with help in a war zone, smearing Democratic politicians as anti-American, invading sovereign nations without excuse--these are acts that transgress essential American reasonableness. A man capable of these things seems, by definition, capable of anything.

IThis is a true fact.

Independent News
A high-level delegation of European and North American election observers – including members from Russia and Albania – arrived yesterday for a week-long mission to watch Florida's mid-term elections, which take place on Tuesday.

Their task: to see if the world's most powerful democracy has learned anything from the disastrous 36-day showdown between George Bush and Al Gore in 2000, in which the world saw every wart in Florida's deeply flawed electoral system without ever discovering for sure who had won.

Certainly, the Russians and Albanians know a thing or two about flawed, rigged or fraudulent elections. After receiving a decade of lectures from Western democracies about overhauling their own systems, they also have a good idea how to overcome them. It remains to be seen whether Florida isn't too tough a nut to crack, even for them. "Whatever else it is, it will be an experience," said a tight-lipped Ilirjan Celibashi, head of Albania's Central Electoral Committee.

Nowarblog is a collaboration among bloggers who oppose the Bush Administration's head-long rush to war from both a left/liberal and libertarian perspective. The blog is the brainchild of Max Sawicky, whose blog MaxSpeak is one of the best. Other participants include the great cartoonist/blogger Tom Tomorrow, Atrios (of Eschaton) and Avedon Carol (Sideshow).

The Seattle Times: Editorials & Opinion: Reasons not to attack Iraq
Have we forgotten our real purpose here? Supporters of war say 9/11 changed everything. No, it didn't. If we isolate and examine Saddam's actions over the past four years (since inspectors left), we see that based on his actions, 9/11 does not happen. Why? Because he had nothing to do with it.

But somebody did, and they are the targets we should be focusing our sights on. As President Bush said over a year ago, "We'll get the people who did this and bring them to justice."

Fine. Let's do just that. Let's find Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar and irreversibly cripple al-Qaida — then we can go after Saddam and not be worried about al-Qaida launching attacks in Buffalo and Seattle while we launch ours in Baghdad.

Go, go, Mo Do!

Rummy Runs Rampant The faux Reagan is doing well projecting the image of Protector in Chief. But has he really done the hard work to protect us from anything? Osama bin Laden is still at large. We don't know who sent the anthrax letters. Another Qaeda attack could be coming at any moment. The economy is imploding. The crime rate is rising.

The only really bad guys who have been caught since 9/11 are the snipers, who left a trail of clues leading to their car, where they were asleep.

Salon.com Politics | Joe Conason's Journal
Our country lost a hero today. Paul Wellstone personified the progressive tradition at its most hopeful and humane. He was a tough but never bitter competitor, a passionate but always pragmatic advocate -- a smart, fearless, dedicated politician who stood up and fought for ordinary people. The sadness of his sudden death, along with his wife, daughter and staff members, is overwhelming.

What a mighty heart Wellstone had. To continue the struggle that defined his commitment, he had surmounted serious illness and was on the verge of winning yet another election that he was expected to lose. Despite a truly vicious campaign against him this year, and even though he started his third Senate campaign as a decided underdog, the Minnesota Democrat was pulling ahead on the day he died.

Wuss.

Washington Redskins quarterback Shane Matthews is moving his wife and kids to Florida to get them out of the sniper's range.

Paul Krugman on our corrupt Administration

Business as Usual
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In retrospect, it's hard to see why anyone believed that our current leadership was serious about corporate reform. To an extent unprecedented in recent history, this is a government of, by and for corporate insiders. I'm not just talking about influence, I'm talking about personal career experience. The Bush administration contains more former C.E.O.'s than any previous administration, but as James Surowiecki put it in The New Yorker, "Almost none of the C.E.O.'s on the Bush team headed competitive, entrepreneurial businesses." Instead they come out of a world of "crony capitalism, in which whom you know is more important than what you do and how you do it." Why would they turn their backs on that world?

And they say that lefties are humorless

This was posted on The National Review Online's group Weblog The Corner.

MIKE TAYLOR IS BACK IN THE MONTANA SENATE RACE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
His opponent, Senator Baucus, is leaking that Taylor's campaign theme song comes from the Pet Shop Boys.

This is of course, a joking reference to the contention that Democrat Baucus’ attack ad against Taylor implies that Taylor is gay. Not a great joke, but any Pet Shop Boys reference is welcome and amusing.

Six minutes later Lopez felt compelled to give a warning to the humor-impaired

BTW, THAT WAS A (BAD) JOKE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Just in case you either thought it was a good joke, or true.

Did anyone believe that it was true? Or was she just worried that her rapier wit would go over the heads of her readers?

Humor is a tough business. Leave it to the pros.

The bus driver shot today in Aspen Hill has died.

Dana Milbank isn't actually calling Bush a lying sack of shit, but he's coming close.

For Bush, Facts Are Malleable (washingtonpost.com) President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.

As Bush leads the nation toward a confrontation with Iraq and his party into battle in midterm elections, his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Statements on subjects ranging from the economy to Iraq suggest that a president who won election underscoring Al Gore's knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.

Richard Cohen on the Bushies' withholding of info on North Korea's nuclear program -- and the Administration's constant dissembling

Their Little Secret (washingtonpost.com) Not so, it turns out. An important piece of information was withheld -- from me, from you and from our representatives in Congress. I am reminded of the so-called secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Secret from whom? Not from the Cambodians. They surely noticed they were being bombed. Not from the North Vietnamese. They knew, too. The ones in the dark were the American people.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice deny that news about the North Korean program was withheld for political reasons. Bush needed time to study the matter, they insist. But he had plenty of time -- and some of that time Congress was engaged in the Iraq debate, playing the role of the oblivious board of directors. Bush is not that slow a learner. In fact, it was he -- remember? -- who included North Korea in his "axis of evil." What did he know then?

It would be one thing if this were an isolated example of the Bush administration either exaggerating threats -- the imminence of an Iraqi bomb, for instance -- or forgetting to mention one that already exists, such as the North Korean program. But this administration keeps one set of books for itself and another for the public and Congress. It's Enron on the Potomac.

I was going to watch Michael Moore on Donahue last night. I surfed on over to MSNBC -- and instead of Michale Moore, they had a special report on the DC sniper. Now, I live in DC, and was following the story most of the day yesterday. By the time 8 pm rolled around, here was the sum total of actual news to be reported:

1) the shooting near Richmond was by the sniper;
2) Chief Moose was sending cryptic messages to the sniper; and
3) two poor dumb bastards were arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's it. That should take, maybe, 10 minutes to report. But MSNBC had to hype the story. Bear this in mind: No one knows what they are talking about. It's all speculation and bloviation.

MSNBC could be reporting on the way that the President routinely lies to make his case for the war. Or to discuss the issues (rather than the horserace) in the election. But I guess, if it bleeds it leads.

Independent Argument Terrorists are scattered in different countries, relatively small in number, but capable of causing carnage and wrecking economies. While international leaders have been busy trying to link the war against terrorism to their obsession with Iraq, the terrorists have been regrouping. Last month Clare Short warned that already, only a year after 11 September, the attention of the US and to some extent Britain had wandered from Afghanistan in spite of commitments from President Bush and Mr Blair. According to Ms Short, the warlords are functioning again outside Kabul. With good cause she fears that Afghanistan could become a breeding ground for terrorists once more.

The old-fashioned notion of deterrence has worked in the case of Iraq. Saddam has not used weapons of mass destruction outside his country partly because he knows he would provoke a deadly response from the US. The tyrant shows every sign of preferring power to committing suicide. Yet the US and Britain seek a possible war that threatens to destabilise regions that are already terrorist breeding grounds. Consider the impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, let alone the Middle East, of the US military occupation of Iraq that would follow the defeat of Saddam. War against Iraq is a perverse priority when it is already the terrorists who present much the bigger threat to international security.

As my brother Eric points out below, today is my birthday. I share it with the following people:

Jean-Claude Van Damme
Pam Dawber
George C. Scott
Wynton Marsalis
Chuck Berry,
Mike Ditka
Jesse Helms
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Klaus Kinski.

Adam and Samantha

I'm the one with the beard.

What's the difference between a presidential election in Iraq and one in the United States? In an Iraqi election, only 11,425,638 votes don't count. In the Unted States, it's over 50 million. In either case, the election results don;'t affect who becomes President.

The Guardian on how to win the War on Terrorism

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Leader: A chance to change
But new ideas are badly needed. An overall review of "war on terror" strategy is urgently required before yet more ground and lives are lost. It is time to concede that Islamist extremism is the overriding, top-priority threat, not the Baghdad bogeyman. It is time to let the weapons inspectors go back and do their job. It is time to accept that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of tension between the Muslim world and the west and act to resolve it (as Mr Blair urges). It is time to curb the bellicose, petulant nationalism that alienates European and other allies from the US, halt cynical manipulation of the UN, keep promises in Afghanistan and stop conniving in anti-democratic fraud in Pakistan. It is time, say, to use even a fraction of the new US defence budget of $355bn to address the roots of economic and political dispossession in Islam's heartlands, shut (not open) military bases, and show real, not pretended, respect for cultures and traditions not our own.

It is time to understand that erosion of civil liberties, discrimination on racial grounds, stifling of open debate, lies, fear, propaganda and constant threats of violence are not the best way to win what Mr Blair called a war of values. In other words, start again. Rather than just deploring the effects, it is time to tackle causes - for far too much time has already been wasted. Or else sit back and wait for the next disco to blow.

Happy days Aren't Here Again

MadKane has a new theme song for the cowardly congressional Democrats

Watch For Gills!!!

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | From Bali to Baghdad, truth is all
Saddam Hussein is stupid ... but not that stupid. He won't, as he did before, set his armies scarpering across open desert as the skies above grow thick with bombers and missiles. Nor, thanks to the Taliban learning curve, will he even think of stopping to fight in plain view. He will not head for the hills, but for the teeming alleyways of the cities. This, prospectively, is Black Hawk Down Again, not Heartbreak Ridge (or even Rambo). This is Mogadishu 1993, the bloody, futile game of hunting Mohamed Farah Aideed replayed on a bigger screen - except that Baghdad (at seven million souls plus) is eight times more populous than the Somali capital: and that Iraq has seven other cities of more than half a million. More alleys than there can be allied troops.

We're back, inevitably, with the scenario that gave George senior pause. Not too many American (or British) troops getting killed. That, from the Gulf to Kabul, is more likely to be from friendly fire or simple accident again. No: the devil here is too many local victims. Too many conscript peasant soldiers roasted. Too many innocents mown down along the side of the road. Too many hospitals and childrens' homes razed for real. Too many innocent lives and images to haunt us. City and suburban storm.

Here's some info on the Bush-Cheney Occupation Plan

U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report The revelation of the occupation plan marks the first time the administration has described in detail how it would administer Iraq in the days and weeks after an invasion, and how it would keep the country unified while searching for weapons.

It would put an American officer in charge of Iraq for a year or more while the United States and its allies searched for weapons and maintained Iraq's oil fields.

For as long as the coalition partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, nearly 11 percent of the total. A senior administration official said the United Nations oil-for-food program would be expanded to help finance stabilization and reconstruction.

Administration officials said they were moving away from the model used in Afghanistan: establishing a provisional government right away that would be run by Iraqis. Some top Pentagon officials support this approach, but the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and, ultimately, the White House, were cool to it.

"We're just not sure what influence groups on the outside would have on the inside," an administration official said. "There would also be differences among Iraqis, and we don't want chaos and anarchy in the early process."

Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military occupations of Japan and Germany. But they stressed a commitment to keeping Iraq unified, as Japan was, and avoiding the kind partition that Germany underwent when Soviet troops stayed in the eastern sector, which set the stage for the cold war. The military government in Germany stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.


In a speech on Saturday, Zalmay Khalilzad, the special assistant to the president for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs, said, "The coalition will assume — and the preferred option — responsibility for the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."

"Our intent is not conquest and occupation of Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "But we do what needs to be done to achieve the disarmament mission and to get Iraq ready for a democratic transition and then through democracy over time."

Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council, would assist an American-led military and, later, a civilian administration, a senior official said today. Only after this transition would the American-led government hand power to Iraqis.

He said that the Iraqi armed forces would be "downsized," and that senior Baath Party officials who control government ministries would be removed. "Much of the bureaucracy would carry on under new management," he added.

We lost the fight to prevent Congress from authorizing whatever military action the Bush-Cheney junta wishes to take against Iraq. I have no doubt that the UN Security Council will enact a resolution that will, sooner or later, authorize a US-led invasion of Iraq. And when that day comes, the US will, eventually, at some cost, defeat and occupy Iraq. I believe that these events are inevitable.

Therefore, I suggest that we concentrate on deciding on and arguing for ideas and principles regarding the occupation of Iraq. Anyone who has done any reading on the occupation of Japan and Germany after WWII knows that our military governments were not as benevolent, even-handed and virtuous as many would have us believe. Of course, there was an explosion of prostitution, black-markets and other unfortunate aspects of economic and political upheaval. The truly horrifying sex slavery going on in the Balkans is the kind of exploitation of the victims of war and misery that we should avoid. What will happen in Iraq when thousands of foreigners – not just soldiers but all of the support services the occupation will need, oil company workers, business people and others – are let loose in a war-torn and economically-depressed Iraq?

Moreover, I fear that the commitment to democracy is just a façade. Do you think that a military government will allow left-wingers and Islamists to participate in the new government? Will labor unions be allowed to organize and strike? How long will anti-US papers and radio stations be allowed to operate? How many anti-occupation demonstrations will Tommy Franks allow in Baghdad? And when we need a stable Iraq to aid us in our next invasion – Iran, Pakistan, who knows? – do you think they’ll hesitate to allow Saddam’s cronies to re-assert control, as long as they are on our side?

Oh, by the way, are there any example of Western occupation of Arab lands that we can follow? Oh yes, the Israelis haven’t had any problems. Maybe we can learn from Sharon.

Another reason not to invade Iraq anytime soon -- It helps the terrorists

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Al-Qaida Message Focuses on Iraq
After a summer of silence, al-Qaida leaders are back on the Mideast air waves, framing their latest anti-American message around a possible war with Iraq.

Experts say the terrorist network is on a renewed public relations campaign aimed at keeping itself in the public eye and associated with events which could turn the Arab public against the United States.

U.S. counterterrorism officials believe the tapes - coinciding with the one-year anniversary of the war in Afghanistan - are a sign of al-Qaida's leadership asserting it is still viable to its rank-and-file followers.

The recent taped statements prompted the FBI to issue a new warning to state and local law enforcement agencies that a new al-Qaida attack on the United States has been approved by the terror network's leadership. But the agency said it did not have any specific information detailing where and when an attack may occur.

Presumably, in lieu of KP or pushups.

Salon.com Arts & Entertainment | Tommy Lee offers to play at military bases as punishment

Jimmy Carter finally won the Nobel Prize for Peace. Next on his list, the one for literature.

They are lying.

HoustonChronicle.com - Some administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq
While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Why I oppose this President's war

A statement from California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark.

Salon.com Politics | "The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"
"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

Robert Fisk on our lying government

Independent Argument But now let's list exactly what we really must forget if we are to support this madness. Most important of all, we absolutely must forget that President Ronald Reagan dispatched a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein in December 1983. It's essential to forget this for three reasons. Firstly, because the awful Saddam was already using gas against the Iranians – which is one of the reasons we are now supposed to go to war with him.

Secondly, because the envoy was sent to Iraq to arrange the re-opening of the US embassy – in order to secure better trade and economic relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. Thirdly, because the envoy was – wait for it – Donald Rumsfeld. Now you might think it strange that Mr Rumsfeld, in the course of one of his folksy press conferences, hasn't chatted to us about this interesting tit-bit. You might think he would have wished to enlighten us about the evil nature of the criminal with whom he so warmly shook hands. But no.

Strangely, Mr Rumsfeld is silent about this. As he is about his subsequent and equally friendly meeting with Tariq Aziz – which just happened to take place on the day in March, 1984, that the UN released its damning report on Saddam's use of poison gas against Iran. The American media are silent about this too, of course. Because we must forget.

Please leave a comment so it looks like someone is reading this.

I also wish I was as smart and as good a writer as Michael Kinsley

Get Serious By Michael Kinsley

The CIA makes this obvious point in a document made public this week. The agency's assessment is that Iraq is unlikely to use biological or chemical weapons against the United States unless we attack Iraq and Saddam concludes he has nothing to lose. The administration disagrees, naturally. Whatever small basis either side may have for its conclusion, we who must follow the dispute in the papers have even less. Who knows who's right? But Bush cannot have it both ways. He cannot insist that Saddam Hussein is able and eager to do so much harm to the United States that we must go to war to remove him, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge the increased risk of such harm as one of the costs of going to war.

The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting. Arguments that stumble into each other like drunks are not serious. Washington is abuzz with the "real reason" this or that subgroup of the administration wants this war. A serious and respectful effort to rally the citizenry would offer the real reasons, would base the conclusion on the evidence rather than vice versa, would admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties, would be frank about the potential cost. A serious effort to take the nation into war would not hesitate to interrupt people while they're watching a sitcom.

They lie the way most of us breathe.

Link via Tapped.

HoustonChronicle.com
Rumsfeld said on Sept. 26 that the U.S. government has "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaida members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintain a presence in Iraq.

The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls, in which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.

Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime has offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

While technically true, that also is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaida training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said bin Laden rejected the offer because he didn't want Saddam to control his group.

In fact, the officials said, there's no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida, with whom he has deep ideological differences.

I wish I was as smart and as good a writer as Joe Conason

Red-Hot Rhetoric Getting Dangerous Now, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant who aspires to be dangerous, both to his neighbors and the United States. He must be curbed, and if that is impossible, he must be overthrown. But the justifications for immediate, unilateral action to bring him down are no more convincing today than the first few times they were repeated by the President.

It is still difficult to understand why Saddam’s brutalities against the Kurds and the Iranians, which occurred well over a decade ago and didn’t disturb the Reagan or Bush administrations then, should motivate an invasion of Iraq now. It is puzzling that Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, which the United States and its allies repulsed after the Bush administration did so little to discourage that aggression, should now justify pre-emptive war. It is disturbing that four years after the U.N. inspectors left Iraq, political preparations for war have so suddenly become the administration’s overriding imperative in the weeks leading up to a national election.

He may have no influence in the halls of power, but he can heave his mighty thunderbolts at evildoers everywhere.

Not that I'm expecting anything, but my birthday is a week from tomorrrow.

This little piggy update

Josh Marshall wonders:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall
I can't do an extensive review of the book here since I've just completed a formal magazine review of it which will be appearing in a few weeks. And I don't want to step, as it were, on my own toes. Or more to the point, the magazine's toes -- if magazines have toes.

Yes, we do have toes. If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle our toesies, do we not laugh?

October 16 is Boss' Day. Shoot me now.

I'm guessing this may win the award for most understated headline of the year:

Maryland parents anxious about sniper

From the Washington Post

'Ladies': Minor Moliere But a Major Success (washingtonpost.com) There isn't a bad performance among the 11-member cast, right down to fine comic portrayals by Roseanne Medina and Eduardo Placer in their bit roles of servants. Add in Adam Magazine's sharply rendered living room, which evokes a fashion sense located somewhere between Rodeo Drive and Target, and Kate Turner-Walker's fitting (in more ways than one) costumes, and it's easy to see why the still relatively young Catalyst Theater, in only its third production, is one to keep watching.

Paul Krugman points out that the Repubs are already undercutting accounting reform.

By the way, do you remember when accounting reform was something we cared about? Oh yeah, that was before Bush decided we needed to go to war with Iraq right this very minute.

Fool Me Once
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act created the new board to replace the accounting industry's previous, spectacularly ineffectual self-regulation. Since the purpose of the board is to restore investor confidence, it's crucial that its head be someone forceful, with unquestioned integrity. The job was first offered to Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. When Mr. Volcker turned it down, the focus shifted to John Biggs, head of the T.I.A.A.-CREF pension fund and a strong advocate of reform. Indeed, some news reports indicate that Mr. Biggs believed that he had been offered the job, and had already been making arrangements to retire early from T.I.A.A.- CREF.

But apparently it is not to be. Let me just quote The Wall Street Journal on this: "The big accounting firms won't dare speak on the record. . . . All signs suggest they're working instead through Republicans in Congress, specifically Ohio's Mike Oxley. . . . They don't want pension fund chief John Biggs to lead the new accounting board because they fear he might actually force the industry to shape up." What The Journal doesn't point out is the obvious: The accounting industry may have a lot of clout, but this wouldn't matter if the White House made it clear that the S.E.C. must choose an independent board. There's only one possible conclusion: The administration doesn't really want corporate reform.

Scott Ritter on Bush's War

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Help us to stop the war am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war. All require authority of the security council, either through an invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under chapter seven of the charter (collective security).

President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to meet any of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such poses a threat to international peace and security. The president declared that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, without conditions, with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's failure to allow inspectors to return to work since their withdrawal in December 1998 has prompted fear in many circles (recently demonstrated by the UK government's dossier on Iraqi weapons programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening time to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled under UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible to know for certain what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and, given Iraq's past record of deceit over these weapons, the US and others were justified in presuming ill intent.

But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return, unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing crisis of international law peacefully.

B ut President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution states that international agreements entered into by the United States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter. Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is unconstitutional.

I wonder how long it will take for Bush to start a coup against him.

washingtonpost.com: Leftist Takes Big Lead In Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a former labor leader, held a commanding lead in Brazil's presidential election tonight, signaling a major shift to the political left in Latin America's largest nation.

With 76 percent of the ballots counted, Lula, as the 56-year-old onetime factory worker and prominent leftist is widely known, had 47 percent of the national vote, short of the 50 percent plus one vote required for an outright victory. Lula is almost certain to face a runoff on Oct. 27 against his closest competitor, ruling party candidate and political centrist Jose Serra, who had 24 percent of the vote.

Lula, who is making his fourth bid for the presidency, has been leading in opinion polls here for months, but surged in popularity in recent weeks as his populist campaign tapped into an anti-globalization backlash sweeping Brazil.

The prospect of a Lula presidency has panicked foreign investors and fueled a mounting financial crisis in the world's eighth-largest economy that could further damage the already sluggish global economy. Lula's opposition to U.S. policy in Latin America, from U.S. aid in Colombia's drug war to the embargo against Fidel Castro's Cuba, has also raised alarm in Washington.

His populist campaign and promises to defend domestic industry from foreign competition also echoed widespread frustrations here over high unemployment and lingering social inequality after a decade of U.S.-backed free market reforms. More recently, however, he has sought to assuage fears that he would be a leftist firebrand, saying he had "moderated and matured" and has backed away from threats to default on Brazil's $260 billion national debt.

On the other hand, I could probably use something from this site.

Hey my birthday is in a couple of weeks. But I don't think I need one of these.

Krugnan's Economic Plan

My Economic Plan
The answer is that we should have a sensible plan for fiscal stimulus — one that encourages spending now, to bridge the gap until business investment revives. Some of the elements of such a plan are obvious, and were described by Jeff Madrick in yesterday's Times. First, extend unemployment benefits, which are considerably less generous now than in the last recession; this will do double duty, helping some of the neediest while putting money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it. Second, provide aid to the states, which are in increasingly desperate fiscal straits. This will also do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts demand.

If these elements don't add up to a large enough sum — I agree with Mr. Madrick that $100 billion over the next year is a good target — why not have another rebate, this time going to everyone who pays payroll taxes?

And how will we pay for all of this? You know the answer to that: Cancel tax cuts scheduled for the future. The economy needs stimulus now; it doesn't need tax cuts for the very affluent five years from now.

This isn't rocket science. It's straightforward textbook economics, applied to our actual situation. It's also, I'm well aware, politically out of the question. But I think we're entitled to ask why.

Lest we forget.

Independent Argument
Now Bush Jnr implies that the UN will also be debris if it doesn't come to heel and follow America's demand to invade Iraq. He wants to use it for his project of "regime change" – which will change the map of the Middle East, produce a tide of oil wealth for US companies and reduce Israel's enemies to impotence. We are supposed to believe that this is about weapons of mass destruction – and forget that the US sold botulinum toxin, anthrax and vials of West Nile virus to Iraq between 1985 and 1989. For most of that time, Iraq was fighting Iran – a war which the UN had tried to end.

By all means, let's change our focus to Iraq.

Guardian Unlimited Observer | Special reports | Bin Laden still alive, reveals spy satellite
Osama bin Laden is alive and regularly meeting Mullah Omar, the fugitive leader of the Taliban, according to a telephone call intercepted by American spy satellites.

In the conversation, recorded less than a month ago, Omar and a senior aide were discussing the American-led hunt to track them down. The two men, using a mobile Thuraya satellite phone, spoke about tactics for several minutes. Omar then turned to a third person who was within a few yards of him, voice analysis has revealed. After exchanging a few words, Omar said that 'the sheikh sends his salaams [greetings]'. Senior Taliban figures habitually refer to bin Laden as 'the sheikh'.

Voice analysis appears to corroborate the identification of bin Laden. 'It shows he was alive recently at least,' said a senior Afghan intelligence officer. 'Some people might like to think he is dead, but that's just wishful thinking.'

Read this perceptive article about the imperialist dreams of the Bush Administration

LRB | Anatol Lieven : The Push for War
It's far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood and bringing with it no possibility of economic growth and prosperity.

How intelligent men can believe that this will work, given the history of the past fifty years, is astonishing. After all, the Israelis have defeated Arab states five times with no diminution of Palestinian nationalism or Arab sympathy for it. But the dominant groups in the present Administrations in both Washington and Jerusalem are 'realists' to the core, which, as so often, means that they take an extremely unreal view of the rest of the world, and are insensitive to the point of autism when it comes to the character and motivations of others. They are obsessed by power, by the division of the world into friends and enemies (and often, into their own country and the rest of the world) and by the belief that any demonstration of 'weakness' immediately leads to more radical approaches by the 'enemy'.

Sharon and his supporters don't doubt that it was the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon - rather than the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories - which led to the latest Intifada. The 'offensive realists' in Washington are convinced that it was Reagan's harsh stance and acceleration of the arms race against the Soviet Union which brought about that state's collapse. And both are convinced that the continued existence of Saddam Hussein's regime of itself suggests dangerous US weakness and cowardice, thus emboldening enemies of the US and Israel across the Middle East and beyond.

I thought Jeb was the smart one. I thought wrong.

It is America's Finest News Source!

The Onion | Bush Seeks U.N. Support For 'U.S. Does Whatever It Wants' Plan As a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, America has inspired the world," said Bush in his 25-minute address. "With its military might, it has kept the peace and bravely defended the unalienable [sic] rights of millions around the globe. In this spirit, I call upon the world's nations to support my proposal to give America unrestricted carte blanche to remove whatever leaders, plunder whatever resources, and impose whatever policies it deems necessary or expedient."

Review of Catalyst Theatre Company's The Learned Ladies

Catalyst Theater Company Wit, rather than mere comedy, is a rare commodity on stage today but it is in abundance in Jeffery Skidmore’s staging of Moliére’s 1659 skewering of upper class pretensions. Under his direction, the excellent cast brings intelligence, style and energy for a fast paced but never frenetic performance. It provides just the right amount of time to savor individual lines and twisted development but moves right along without seeming to pause for effect. The result is an evening with more laughs and more smile inducing moments than many contemporary comedies.

Storyline: Henriette has a domineering mother, a dominated father, a jealous older sister and a truly strange aunt, but she has found true love with her older sister’s rejected suitor. They want to wed but her choice of groom becomes a contest between her parents and subterfuge is required to bring about the desired end.

The translation of Moliére’s 1659 comedy by Richard Wilbur provides Skidmore’s cast with crystal clear verse and they make the most of it. Well constructed verse like this helps rather than hinders the communication of meaning while adding layers of humor and imagery. For many performers, however, it is difficult to avoid slipping into a sort of sing-song rhythm which can damage the delicate creation of the poet. That all of the performers in the cast successfully avoid the trap must be credited to director Skidmore both in his coaching and in his casting.

Peter Wylie and Diane Cooper-Gould make a convincing central pair of lovers while Tim Carlin’s alternation between in-command head of the house to hopelessly henpecked husband is hilarious. Ellen Young is wildly wacky as the self-absorbed aunt, while Cam Magee is a tower of righteous ego as the mother and Jessee Terrill stops just short of overdoing the officiousness of the pretentious poet she has selected for her daughter’s hand. Terrill also provided the original music for the production including two tracks reminiscent of Henry Mancini at his wittiest in his Pink Panther scores. Skidmore uses these tracks as background for some sublime silent bits.

Adam Magazine’s sleek set places the action in a modern Los Angeles where intellectual pretensions are hardly unknown and Kate Turner-Walker provides costumes that are as slyly humorous as many of the nicer bon mots of Wilbur’s rendering of Moliér. Carlin’s Garfield-the-cat slippers, Young’s high-end casual ensembles and Eduardo Placer’s entire wardrobe as first houseboy then exercise coach then lawyer are a kick but Turner-Walker avoids going overboard, exercising just the right amount of restraint with the severe look for Magee and a would-be-wedding dress that is just right for Cooper-Gould.

An excerpt from Clinton's speech to New Labour

The Labour Party - New Labour and the Third Way works The West has a lot to answer for in Iraq. Before the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians there was hardly a peep in the West because he was in Iran. Evidence has now come to light that in the early 1980s the United States may have even supplied him with the materials necessary to start the bio-weapons programme. And in the Gulf War the Shi'ites in the South East of Iraq were urged to rise up and then were cruelly abandoned to their fate as he came in and killed large numbers of them, drained the Marshes and largely destroyed their culture and way of life. We cannot walk away from them or the proved evidence that they are capable of self-government and entitled to a decent life. We do not necessarily have to go to war to give it to them, but we cannot forget that we are not blameless in the misery under which they suffer and we must continue to support them.

This is a difficult issue. Military action should always be a last resort, for three reasons; because today Saddam Hussein has all the incentive in the world not to use or give these weapons away but with certain defeat he would have all the incentive to do just that. Because a pre-emptive action today, however well justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future. And because I have done this, I have ordered these kinds of actions. I do not care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off innocent people will die.

Weighing the risks and making the calls are what we elect leaders to do, and I can tell you that as an American, and a citizen of the world, I am glad that Tony Blair will be central to weighing the risks and making the call. For the moment the rest of us should support his efforts in the United Nations and until they fail we do not have to cross bridges we would prefer not to cross.

The Bull Moose is wrong

He says :

The Project for Conservative Reform America's hegemony in the world means more liberty, more freedom and more order.

Liberals recognized that in Kosovo, Serbia and Haiti. Now, when direct American security is threatened by Iraq, some liberals are faint of heart.

In what way is "direct American security" threatened.
Oh, now I remember, because the President told us it is. But he can't tell us why.
They lied about the link to al Qaeda.
They lie about their intentions.
They lie about the fact that they lie.

A BBC Correspondent visits our troops.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Doubts set in on Afghan mission Every soldier I spoke to was the same, proud, committed, raring to go. But a few minutes later I was wandering towards a long line of plastic portable toilets.



I was hailed by two young soldiers lounging in one of those huge American Humvee jeeps.

Clearly these two were not part of the guided tour.

"Excuse me sir," they asked. "But do we really have to say this baloney?"

The actual word they used was a little more colourful.

"What baloney?" I asked. They handed me a small laminated card.

On it were instructions on how to deal with journalists. Every soldier had been given one.


The two young soldiers were far from delighted to be in Afghanistan. In five-and-a-half months at Bagram they had been allowed off the base once

These were not just general ground rules. It actually listed suggested answers:

"How do you feel about what you're doing in Afghanistan"?

Answer: "We're united in our purpose and committed to achieving our goals."

"How long do you think that will take?" Answer: "We will stay here as long as it takes to get the job done - sir!"

Call me naive, but I was amazed. What could they be afraid of? Perhaps of a bit too much honesty. The two young soldiers were far from delighted to be in Afghanistan.

In five-and-a-half months at Bagram, they had been allowed off the base just once. One day inside was enough for me. Five-and-a-half months sounded like a prison sentence.

Joe Klein -- praising Gore, and asking good questions

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Democrats can't duck this fundamental shift in policy Gore's speech wasn't a masterpiece. It seemed hastily composed and rewritten (he has an unfortunate habit of putting in sweaty all-nighters before a major address). The tone was resentful and it was filled with sloppy, contradictory thinking. An argument can be made that there was politics involved - that Gore was positioning himself for 2004, currying favour with Democratic activists, who tend to be more dovish than most Americans. But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. He was followed to the podium, several days later, by Senator Ted Kennedy, who delivered a more eloquent and tightly argued version of the same message (and, yesterday in Blackpool, by a somewhat more cautious Bill Clinton).

Furthermore, Gore made a crucial distinction: a war against Iraq and the campaign against terrorism are not identical. Indeed, an immediate attack (in January, one assumes) on Saddam Hussein could complicate the larger cause. A successful war against Iraq raises at least three nettlesome questions. Will it increase or decrease the threat of a biological or chemical attack on the US? Will it increase or decrease the stability of the region? Will it increase or decrease the number of young Muslims who believe the propaganda about America's satanic role in the world?

Do we really want to rule the world?

I got this link to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constiutution from Altercation, who in turn got it from Tapped. The writer does an exellent in jopb in discussing the imperialist underpinnings of our current foreign policy. Read this article, and follow the links.
ajc.com | Opinion | Bush's real goal in Iraq
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

Robert Scheer is 100% correct.

Salon.com News | The truth about American foreign policy Imperialist greed is what "regime change" in Iraq and "anticipatory self-defense" are all about, and all of the rest of the Bush administration's talk about security and democracy is a bunch of malarkey.

In the laundry list of reasons the Bush team has been trotting out in defense of a unilateral invasion of Iraq, oil is never mentioned. Is the fact that Iraq holds a huge pool of oil a piddling footnote to this debate?

Adam Magazine -- from obscurity to the stars.

Thanks to Sideshow for the kind words. Yes, I have updated my blogroll. And see what happens if you type "Adam Magazine" into Google.

I don't know why comments aren't up. I'm working on it.

Not for the faint of heart.

Please do not follow this link. It will offend you. It has nothing to do with politics. Really. It's sacrilegious and sick. DO NOT GO THERE!

Football and Shakespeare -- Two of my favorite things

ESPN.com - Page2 - Always read the fine print
So Donovan McNabb signed a "12-year, $115 million contract." TMQ has two observations. First, wasn't "McNabb" a minor character in Hamlet?

Page: Rosencranz, Gildenstern and McNabb are here to see you, sire.

Claudius: Privily bring them unto me, that I may examine their contracts.

Later, upon the parapet:

Hamlet How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, seem to me all the uses of this world. Fie on it, ah, fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature possess it merely.

McNabb Bunch right! Twenty-six strong! Blue! Hut one! Hut two!

Al Gore and Iraq

I've been too busy too really study Al Gore's Iraq speech, but I've finally got around to it. The very beginning of the speech seems right to me.

Transcript of Al Gore's Speech "Iraq and the War On Terrorism" begin with, I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another.

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

I don't think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. The fact that we don't know where they are should not cause us to focus instead on some other enemy whose location may be easier to identify.

Sophisticated political commentary

With a beat.
-- Mr Joel