Dr Menlo mentioned he'd come across a book to which I wrote the Introduction, Ernst Friedrich's WAR AGAINST WAR and here's the Intro to the book which I think is now out of print from the Website ILLUMINATIONS that I helped produce
Ernst Friedrich's Pacifistic Anarchism by Douglas Kellner

Well, like a pundit I admire, Max Sawicky, I'm going to go over what I got right and wrong about Moveon's online primary. (By the way, this is very unlike Instapundit and Pejman "Soon I Will Be Named The King of Persia!" Yousefzadeh who never admit they're wrong, at least not in public.)

I was right that Dean would probably win the vote. I was right that he probably wouldn't hit 50 percent. That was just too high. However, here at American Samizdat where I've been debating Dean Vs. Kucinich (You just have to scroll down. You know how blogger is with permalinks.), I made it clear that I wasn't that impressed with Kucinich's online efforts thus far. I was wrong. He came in second. That's pretty impressive or it was a sabotage vote from the usual Freeper suspects, but to believe in a fair and loving world for a moment, that's still pretty impressive. Hey, the guy beat Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt. Not bad. I also remarked where's the guy's blog? Well, Kucinich does have a blog here. In fact, Kucinich seems to be doing more original posting than Dean. So, while I don't think Kucinich has outperformed Dean on the net, it's clear that the former Cleveland mayor has outperformed every other candidate.

It also proves that the net offers a level playing field. Where would we be without this wonderful form of expression and change...Let's hope that will be enough.

Here we go again, possible splintering of progressive forces may be on the horizon
Nader considering another try at White House in 2004

Feb. 6, 1993
Here is a collection of MP3s that include the best of this legendary show from 1993. Also included is a bonus track of a pre-show interview on KUSF radio, San Francisco with several of the participants .

The roster includes; Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Nick Herbert, Rob Brezsny and Joseph Matheny.

Download them and enjoy!

Note: A couple of spots in the tapes that these MP3s were made from were on the deeper end of a degradation process, therefore the quality is as good as it can be while also keeping file size in mind. Do a right click and "Save As"to save these files to your hard disk.

A new voice has emerged in the re-election campaign of President Bush, that of Dennis Miller, who is gaining a reputation as a conservative comic by attacking Democrats with biting humor.

Miller flew on Air Force One from San Francisco to Los Angeles with the president on Friday, and later gave a stand-up routine at a Bush fund-raiser in Los Angeles. [more]

More enemies he has proclaimed,
He's lined them up he's naming names.
He says the fight will never end
He asks the nation to spend and spend
Why should we?

Safety for the homeland says he,
But words are all that we can see
And the money he takes from all of us
He gives to friends and leaves us bust.
How could he?

But money is not all that's there
Our sons and daughters die, we care
Soon more will die than died before
He said that we had won the war.
Why would he ?

He lied to us the record's clear
Americans die it's what we fear
He should be impeached, or just resign
It's what we need, he's crossed the line.
But will he?

Bush rakes in the bucks in quick rush to California, is met by protestors
Bush Raising Millions in Quick Trip to California
Excerpt: "Hundreds of anti-Bush demonstrators lined up behind barricades at the entrance to the Marriott, but the crowds around the hotel, where the roads had been barricaded for hours, did not approach the large sizes that had been predicted by the White House and local authorities. Still, a long cordon of police in riot gear guarded the hotel from protesters who waved signs that said 'Bush lies, Iraqi people and G.I.'s die!' and 'Leave No Millionaire Behind.'"

Link

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

(via MaxSpeak)

Israel calls this a fence.

"For me the question is not so much whether or not to support Dean or Kucinich but whether or not radical forces should support a Democrat at all. If the radicals are going to support a Democrat Kucinich is certainly more radical than Dean. I do not give the slightest hoot as to which of them is more photogenic or more "electable" in the eyes of the corporate media."

Let me make it clear that I still worship Ralph Nader and think that he is the greatest journalist that ever lived. But I didn't and wouldn't vote for him, at least not on some Third Party ticket. Yet there are those of you who voted for Nader and now you know that there is in fact a difference between even evil DLC democrats and the Resident in Chief. Let's not make the same mistake twice. By the way, I'll take on Bob Harris and Tom Tomorrow as well just to make this interesting. Bob argued that this particular vote doesn't matter that much so you may as well vote your conscience. Keep in mind that if a candidate gets 50 percent of the vote they get the Moveon endorsement. That kind of matters. Moveon was able to raise $600000 for Wellstone during the campaign. In theory, they could lead a public financing initiative that could mean independence for a Dean or Edwards or even a Kucinich candicacy. In other words this vote matters. The only thing I wish they had done is used a mixed balloting system. Where's Norm in all of this...?

But why would I support somebody who doesn't agree with me totally? Because I think that modern elections rest on the 20 percent of swing voters out there. And, and this is a gut thing, I think that Dean could reach those voters more effectively than Dennis. It's not just some of his centrist policies, I think Dean is just a much better and more charismatic speaker. That matters in the age of television. Even if we get a kind of perfect compression over the net before the election, you'll have to look good on netcasts. It will take a superior politician to beat Bush. It's that whole Kennedy/Clinton thing, charisma counts. Oh, and for his centrism, keep in mind that the DLC is already attacking him. That certainly makes him left enough for me...I just think that Dean is the most electable "anti-war" candidate.

"Anyway, I think you can see where I am coming from here. For what I would like to accomplish politically, Kucinich is a far better candidate than Dean. Incidentally, he also is running a kick-ass internet campaign."

How are we defining kickass? You know who leads in the grass roots internet efforts called Meetup? Howard Dean far and away. Edwards comes in a distant second. Where's your kickass guy on that list? Where's his daily blog? Dean has one. Where are the links on Kucinich's imaginary blog to the Internet movers and shakers? I don't like Dean's link to Instanpundit but I think I know why he put it there...(oh lawdy don't let it be his position on Israel..) And this thing about the Internet is that it's not a money thing. It's clearly an intelligence thing. Dean didn't have that much more money than Kucinich when this thing started. He's getting lots of individual donations. That's just better, smarter campaigning. I think the net can be a decider, especially if we can create an alternative media out here that's just more compelling than the usual network idiocy...but it will take a smarter, more competent to take advantage of the net's exponential advantages. Right now, that Dean guy looks a lot like that smarter, more competent guy whatever his faults.

With that said, there's a very good chance that no one will get 50 percent of the vote and we will continue to have this debate in the future, because there will be other Moveon votes. I will take another look at Kucinich. Policy wise he is closer to what I stand for...But my vote for Dean stands for now.

For me the question is not so much whether or not to support Dean or Kucinich but whether or not radical forces should support a Democrat at all. If the radicals are going to support a Democrat Kucinich is certainly more radical than Dean. I do not give the slightest hoot as to which of them is more photogenic or more "electable" in the eyes of the corporate media. ANY Democratic candidate who addresses the real issues in this political/economic climate stands a good chance of beating Bush. My strategy is to help elect the most radical of all possible Democrats. It will not be a cure-all for the problems that are of concern to radicals in the US, and most of the people in the rest of the world, but we will stand a better chance of substantiating changes in various policies with a more enlightened administration. I really believe we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world to stop the court appointed despot in the white house before he does any more irreparable damage.

I would like to inform everyone, just incase you all were wondering about this seeming contradiction, that Kuchinich has a long piece on his web site about how he came to support Women's Right to Choose. I am glad he decided to support Choice because if he didn't support it then I would not vote for him no matter how "on" he is about the other issues. I am not going to sacrifice women's equality for a "mostly progressive" agenda. Choice is definitely a litmus test. A progressive against Choice would show a significant lack of continuity in world view. But Choice, Healthcare and the Iraqi War are not the only issues of current contention. Also of concern are: Affirmative Action, Racial and Gender Discrimination, Nuclear Disarmament, Campaign Finance Reform, Civil Liberties, Clean Water, The Right to Drinkable Water, Lack of Corporate Accountability, The Death Penalty, Private Prisons, Corporate Imperialism, GATT and NAFTA, The Drug War, The Out of Control Deficit, Education, The Wack Tax Cuts, The Environment, WTO/World Bank Manipulation of Entire Countries, Gay Rights, GMOs, Military Spending, Nuclear Safety, Farmer's Right to Farm, Farm Worker's Right to a Living Wage, Access to Prescription Drugs especially for the Elderly, Social Security and Pension Protection, Fair Trade, Universal Health Care, Weapons & Non-Proliferation, Workers Rights...and probably a dozen other things I am not thinking of right now. Kucinich is down with all of that. Dean on the other hand does not yet seem to understand that all of these issues are connected. He is progressive on three or four--maybe also gay rights--issues. But he has not built a convincing world vision of peace, freedom and liberty for all people in a sustainable, nature preserving environment. Dennis Kuchinich has, slow as he may have been to come around on Choice. The difference becomes apparent when you visit each of their web sites.

An example of Dean's lack of coherent world view came across my email today from supporters of Kucinich. The issue was the military budget and here is the story vebatim:

> WHO IS THE PEACE CANDIDATE?
>
> Beginning Tuesday, activists who've joined the peace and justice group
> MoveOn.org will be able to vote online. If you are one of the many
> planning to vote for a "peace candidate," please read this email
> closely, and forward it to others.
>
> An interesting exchange occurred at yesterday's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
> Candidates' Forum, in answer to a question about the "Digital Divide"
> that separates minorities and the poor from middle class whites in
> computer access. Congressman Dennis Kucinich received warm applause
> when he declared: "As long as we're spending so much money for the
> Pentagon, and so little money for education, we're going to have all
> kinds of divides in this country…The only way we're really going to
> close the divide in this country is to start cutting the Pentagon budget
> and put that money into education."
>
> Howard Dean spoke next and commented: "I don't agree with Dennis about
> cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of a difficulty
> with terror attacks."
>
> That's a stark contrast on one of the biggest questions facing
> Democrats. Dean describes himself as a fiscal conservative adamant
> about balanced budgets. But if the soaring Pentagon budget is
> untouchable, are we being candid with voters about delivering them an
> enhanced domestic agenda of which Democrats can be proud?
>
> With Democratic candidates promising increased spending in such areas as
> healthcare, education and the environment, how can the federal budget be
> balanced while Pentagon cuts are deemed off-limits?
>
> Dennis Kucinich has made cuts in the bloated military budget central to
> his campaign. He has repeatedly pointed out that Pentagon spending will
> soon rival the military budgets of all other countries in the world
> combined, that unneeded and Cold-War era weapons are still being
> produced, that Star Wars missile defense is a boondoggle, and that the
> Pentagon has a trillion dollars in irreconcilable accounts.
>
> Kucinich's commitment to fundamentally shift our nation's budget
> priorities toward civilian needs like healthcare, schools, cities,
> retirement security and environmental cleanup has attracted thousands to
> our campaign, and last week helped earn the endorsements of progressive
> Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey and leading peace activist and businessman
> Ben Cohen. (Text of endorsements at http://www.kucinich.us.)

An ironic, white-haired gentleman once said "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Sage thought. This military logic makes about as much sense as keeping a loaded gun in your cookie jar to make sure your family is "safe." No safety nor peace ever came from a warrior mentality. In fact the opposite is true. A candidate for peace must understand that weapons make war, always and only war. Peace is achieved through cooperation regarding resources. Gestures of cooperation create trust which is a necessary condition for peace. Military gestures create the opposite of trust. The fact that our government is bent on spending unfathomable amounts of money on weapons undermines trust between nations thereby derailing this definitive condition for peace. If Dean is a "peace candidate" then why does he not know this?

Anyway, I think you can see where I am coming from here. For what I would like to accomplish politically, Kucinich is a far better candidate than Dean. Incidentally, he also is running a kick-ass internet campaign. I know that means something to you. And we have a group in Pittsburgh that "meets up" for Kucinich. Don't underestimate him, Phil, he's real. He also is not accepting corporate contributions. His entire campaign is grass-roots, which speaks volumes in itself. Look. If you think the internet can tip the playing field back to something resembling democracy, why are you bent on dissing the more radical candidate in favor of the one that is practically endorsed by the Washington Post? (MoveOn ariticle from a few days ago.) Work with me here, Shropshire, forget the dazzle and look at the issues. Then vote for Kucinich in the MoveOn Primary.

Under the umbrella of an EBO campaign, "the goal of war is to get an adversary to act according to our strategic interests", in the view of Gen Deptula, even to the point of "being able to achieve one's objectives without combat".

But EBO can, if he is right, produce even more dramatic results. "I want to see a set of integrated physical and cognitive effects models that could help [the US] achieve its national security objectives without the adversary even knowing he's been influenced."

Hmm, instead of trading in vinegar for honey, the military wants to employ secret vinegar. Does anybody know what this means? Does the military?

Link

Paul Krugman keeps up the fierce attack on Bush lies and deception and media silence and public apathy in the face thereof
Denial and Deception

Guardian Unlimited | Cartoons | 24.06.03: George Bush feels the heat over Iraq

I'm voting for Howard Dean on Tuesday. My vote isn't etched in stone and I may change my mind before the Pennsylvania primary. Yet Dean to me has a few qualities that I think stand out. One: he's one of the two candidates that opposes the Iraq war. I believe that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are nightmarish and that American casualties will probably mount. I believe Dean, who is by far the most photogenic and dynamic of the Democratic speakers, can best exploit and explain this position. Two: He's run a brilliant campaign so far and he's the only candidate that I believe understands the net and understands it's potential. Why is this important? Because traditional politics poisoned by hard money combined with the decided FCC lean of the corporate media will give the Republicans a decided Orwellian advantage. Yet on the net, where Dean's Meetup sign-ups are nothing short of astonishing, it can be a fair vote. Let a thousand Three River Techs bloom, all of which endorse Howard Dean. I think we can make a fight of it out here. Three: Looks count and see one again. It matters how you look on television. Whenever I see Howard speak I feel like saying "Give 'em Hell Howard". Four: A vote for Kucinich is a vote for Graham or God help us Leiberman. I have nothing against Dennis (well his history as a pro lifer frightens me just a bit...) in fact I think he would be a great secretary of labor. But after watching him in debates, I just think that Dean can reach more voters. That's just a gut feeling. My gut told me the same thing about Bill Clinton. Charisma matters. He will also clean Bush's clock in a debate, decisively. It will be the guy who can talk against the guy who can't. I can't wait.

I don't agree with Lisa's choice. I'll explain why in my next post. But I think Lisa should be blogging more. I hope this encourages her.

Listen folks,

I have not supported a democrat since the 1988 primaries when I was 19 years
old and down with Jesse Jackson. (Please don't laugh, at that time he was
the vocal candidate for national healthcare and childcare.) Since then my
politics have become far more thoughtful than anything I have seen come out
of the Democratic party and I have regarded the Democrats as wavering,
spineless second placers in the political contest to kiss corporate ass.
And for the most part, over the years they have been.

I am faced with a tough decision this election year. There is a fascist
running our country who is holding the whole world hostage (except France,
of course) to oil companies, gmo producers and self appointed World Bank and
IMF policy makers. Women's reproductive choice is seriously at risk of
being overturned. We are in a state of continual war perpetuated by
continual lies and being forced to spend record dollar amounts on the
military. The military money, by the way, is not going to support the
families of our people overseas. The rich are enjoying unprecedented tax
cuts while the country racks up unprecedented deficit. The poor have been
conveniently iced out of the new tax benefits as services to the needy are
being axed back a couple of centuries. Environmental concerns are being
laughed out of Congress while the Court Appointed Despot proposes 1200 new
nuclear power facilities to disgrace our landscape.

I imagine you can guess my tough decision. There is no third party that has
established itself at the lower levels of government sufficiently that the
Left can count on popular support of that party's Presidential candidate.
Yet it is is vital that we change the scene in Washington this year.
Because there is so much at steak and because the whole rest of the world is
counting on us to stop our government from defending and perpetuating
ubiquitous corporate and military exploitation of all places, things and
beings--down to our DNA!--I think we should pick the best of all possible
Democrats and put her or him in office. I never thought I would ever say
this, but I am saying it. Unless the Greens come on the scene with a huge
splash, like, yesterday, I am going to support a Democrat for President in
2004.

I had been leaning toward supporting Howard Dean but the AntiWar committee
has turned me on to this other dude, Dennis Kucinich. He is a Rep from Ohio
and was Mayor of Cleveland. Very popular in California and Wisconsin. His
opinions on the issues are posted on his web site and I am seriously
impressed. Kuchinich is right on about everything, Iraq, the so called "war
on drugs," GMOs, women's right to choose, campaign finance reform, et.
cetera.

So I'm joining the Pittsburgh Anti-War committee in supporting Dennis
Kucinich for President in 2004. Howard Dean is a ray of hope of a few
issues I care about but Dennis Kuchinich may well represent the span of
progressive interests. Please check him out before you vote in the Move-on
Primary, his campaign is grass roots and he could use the kudos. He could
also use some cash if you have some.

http://www.kucinich.us/

Of course, part of me is looking forward to the total collapse of
civilization that George Bush is pushing us toward. In bankrupt Argentina I
learned recently the workers are collectivizing the factories, not in the
style of the Soviets but as independent collective enterprises. Perhaps the
total devastation of the US economy would do the world some good. If you're
looking forward to the post-apocalypse George Bush is your AntiChrist.

Peace Out,
Lisa S.

Bush campaign contributers know that Bush will steal from federal coffers to pay them back. Here's the scam: big contributers give money to Bush, he pays back with corporate favors and tax cuts, we get screwed, in effect paying for his scams....[in multiple ways...]
The Money Magnet:
Excerpt: "I'm sure there's no connection between fat-cat fund-raising and, say, federal tax policy. But there was some particularly interesting information about the Bush tax cuts in an article yesterday by The Times's David E. Rosenbaum. Citing data from a study by Citizens for Tax Justice, Mr. Rosenbaum pointed out that the richest 1 percent of Americans will get an average tax reduction of nearly $100,000 a year, while 'the tax relief most people will receive is quite meager.'
Half of all taxpayers will get a cut of less than $100 this year. By 2005, three-quarters will get less than $100."

More claims that Hussein is hit, we'll see....
Senators Are Optimistic That U.S. Hit Hussein's Convoy

It's dangerous for reporters in Iraq! UK journalist tells of encountering danger from US troops
Observer | Dangerous liasons

Fuck the Centrists: How to Win Back the White House in 2004 Number One.

Not content merely in (the recommending of) bullying the governments of the world around, now the American Enterprise Institute wants to go after NGOs, too.

Well, now, I think it's nigh time to issue the AEI new britches--are ya with me, world!?

World?

See also: Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths, by the uber-beauty: Naomi Klein.

As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it's Mr. Bush's outsourced brain.

Taken together with Mr. Natsios's statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the good-hearted charity wing of the military, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate for policy solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and fair-trade movements pushing for real political change. [more]

Globalize Revolution.

I, George Dubya

I.

I think there is some methodology in my travels
There's no question that the minute I got elected,
the storm clouds on the horizon
were getting nearly directly overhead.
There may be some tough times here in America.
But this country has gone through tough times before,
and we're going to do it again.
There's no cave deep enough for America,
or dark enough to hide.
If you're sick and tired of the politics
of cynicism and polls and principles,
come and join this campaign.

I understand how difficult
It is to put food on your family.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
where wings take dream.
When I was coming up
it was a dangerous world
and you knew exactly
who they were,
It was Us vs. Them,
and it was clear who them was.
Today, we are not so sure
who the they are,
but we know they're there.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses
We're concerned about AIDS
inside our White House—
make no mistake about it.
And, you know, hopefully,
condoms will work,
but it hasn't worked.
I also understand how tender
the free enterprise system can be.
It would be a mistake for
the United States Senate
to allow any kind of human cloning
to come out of that chamber.
We have nothing to fear but—
Ourselves.

More

Global Eye -- Cry Freedom

By Chris Floyd

They were digging mass graves in Iraq last week.

No, not the mass graves that George W. Bush now reflexively invokes to justify his murder of up to 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and the needless deaths of more than 200 American soldiers in the aggressive war he launched on the basis of proven lies and outright fabrications. Those mass graves, containing victims of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, were dug years ago, back when powerful U.S. officials like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz were pursuing "closer ties" to the Saddam regime at the signed, insistent order of another president named George Bush. (more)

A funny thing happened while following the money trail of the neoconservatives who have hijacked U.S. foreign policy. The path led to a network of financial and intellectual resources that also is dedicated to neoracism.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has been the economic fount for the neoconservative notions of global affairs now ascendant in the Bush administration. According to a report by Media Transparency, from 1995 to 2001 the Milwaukee-based foundation provided about $14.5 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the think tank most responsible for incubating and nourishing the ideas of the neocon movement.

The Bradley Foundation also made grants totaling nearly $1.8 million to help fund the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the influential group that had urged an invasion of Iraq since its 1997 founding.

. . .

The Bradley Foundation is the right’s economic fount for ideas promoting neoracist empire. [more]

I should have posted this sooner, but it's better late than never.

Steve Perry of Bush Wars is currently collecting and enumerating lies told by the Bush administration throughout the course of their term in office. These lies are intended to be the backbone of an article for the City Pages, the largest of Minneapolis' local weekly newspapers.

He's asking readers of his blog to send him all the lies they recall, and so far, he's collected 36 discrete whoppers. Surely, there are more.

So read what's already there:

How to Beat Bush, Part 1
The Bush Lies Marathon, Day 2
The Lies Marathon: How You Can Help
The Bush Lies Marathon, Day 3

Then send him what isn't:

sperry@citypages.com

President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing "revisionist historians" and saying Washington acted to counter an imminent a persistent threat.

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

A striking finding in the new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll is that many Americans are unaware that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq. While 59% of those polled correctly said the US has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, 41% said they believed that the US has found such weapons (34%) or were unsure (7%).

So shout it from the rooftops, fellows.

Link via Joerg Colberg

Rand Beers, the former top dog at the NSC who resigned a few months ago, has broken his silence and started talking to the Washington Post.

"The [Bush] administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

...In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism...Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."

The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."

"I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."

He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said.

Beers has apparently signed up to help John Kerry's presidential campaign. According to one observer, Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution, this is an idication that "the way he [Beers] wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."

While Beers is hesitant to explicitly diss the Bush administration, his wife offered this comment about the clique that's running Washington these days: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

8:48-8:53 Stay behind to talk to W about nickname problem: stress overwhelming preference for "Boy Genius" over "Turd Blossom."

8:54 - 8:55 Walk back to West Wing (feel chafing; regret earlier choice re underwear).

8:56 Call Darby, ask her to bring over boxers (the ones with American flags).

9:14 - 9:16 Call Ari Fleischer. Tell him to blackball next reporter who asks about lack of Iraqi WMD.

9:17 - 9:47 Meet w/lobbyist for tobacco industry. Swap war stories from my Philip Morris days. Smoke two Marlboro Reds (old time's sake). [more]

Moreover, if conservatives did not feel welcomed by academia, they compensated by setting up their own policy shops, and think tanks became and remained largely the province of conservatives.

it's starting to rear its ugly head in the mainstream media.

what? monkey pox?

no. full-scale doubts about bush's veracity when it came to the reasons to attack iraq.

cbsnews: americans more skeptical on wmd

more than four in ten americans say the bush administration overestimated the number of weapons of mass destruction in iraq, but despite recent scrutiny of the administration's pre-war claims about those weapons, most americans express confidence that the u.s. will eventually uncover those weapons, according to a new cbs news poll…

finding those weapons does matter to most americans. so does finding saddam hussein. fifty-eight percent say it matters whether the u.s. finds weapons, and even more - nearly two-thirds - say it matters whether the u.s. is able to find saddam hussein.

the nytimes: the boys who cried wolfowitz:

what the bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. the president himself gave credence to the claim that iraq was trying to buy uranium in africa, a story...based on transparently fraudulent information. colin powell...insisted that those famous aluminum tubes iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the department of energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. and as james risen disclosed in the times this week, two top qaeda planners in custody told american interrogators — one of them well before the war was set in motion — that osama bin laden had rejected the idea of working with saddam. that inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful iraqi connection to the fanatical war on america.



the queens chronicle: where are the weapons (and saddam?)

the president still insists the weapons are there, but more questions are being asked as to why our nation’s leader and its first line of defense disagree, much to the consternation of those being called into question. they say weapons of mass destruction will be found eventually. but that will not appease the families of soldiers who died, nor a public deserving the truth.

the oregonian: the ides -- and weapons -- of march:

but march, if you remember, was all about urgency. that was why we couldn't wait around for the united nations, not another month, not another couple of weeks. fundamentally, that's why we're now virtually alone in iraq, with tens and tens of thousands of u.s. soldiers trying to maintain order and defend themselves. it's why the rest of the world is not only not with us in baghdad, but also deeply dubious about what we're doing next -- and why.

and although truthout is not considered mainstream media, we definately love william rivers pitt's title for his op/ed piece: the dog ate my wmd's.

How do we know the war in Iraq isn't over? We read it in the Army Times:

When President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended in Iraq, there was little discussion of what he meant. for all practical purposes, it seemed the war was over.

It is not.

Since the President made his statement to waves of applause from sailors aboard the carrier Abraham Lincoln, 45 American servicemen have died in Iraq. Commanders say there is much more fighting ahead.

The total number of American deaths in Iraq since the war began march 19 is 183, according to the pentagon’s count. the number stood at 138 on may 1; two weeks ago it was at 171.

Although large parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful and u.s. military control overall is not in doubt, an amalgam of shadowy resistance forces, including unknown numbers of non-Iraqi fighters, are carrying out almost daily hit-and-run attacks against the American occupation forces.

We'll believe it's over when we read about it in the Army Times, an excellent source for military news.

No, we're not reporting new American casualties, thank God. And we assume you've heard elsewhere about Operation Peninsula Strike, which has claimed over 100 Iraqi lives (presumably bad Iraqi's, because we've already killed a huge number of innocent civilians).

Rather, we are talking about an Iraqi oil pipeline in the north, which is currently on fire, after a series of explosions, as reported by Bloomberg.com.

An oil pipeline in northern Iraq is on fire after two bombs exploded 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the refinery town of Baiji, Agence France-Presse reported, citing its correspondent and local residents.

The pipeline, which carries oil north to turkey, was on fire in two places, the news agency said, citing its reporter. The pipeline is close the main highway linking Baghdad and Mosul, the northern regional capital.

Good thing we won!

Which man is stupider? The guy that called 911 and reported his own plans to assassinate the leader of the free world?

Or the leader of the free world?

Hm, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and Oxfarm, or the American Enterprise Institute, the Lockheed Martin's Heritage Foundation and the PNAC--which would you choose? The global rhetorical war has already been enjoined, folks, Marshall Mcluan-style: which side are you on?

By Greg Palast, who recently completely ignored yours truly while casting serious goo-goo eyes at Pagan.

Still, he is a remarkable bulldog perpetually sicced on the pantleg of evil.

From what I saw of the Seattle police, I share the concern of my fellow protesters about a police state. The job of a police force is to maintain order, not to incite unrest.

See also: nobigbrother.net

I have heard from a reliable yet unnameable source that some Bechtel employees who were slated to go to Iraq for an extended work-spree have been indefinitely delayed from their mission because some of their fellow Bechtel employees (amount unknown) have already gone missing.

The Anti-Rove is on his way. I hear galloping.

See also: Our Endangered Ocean
And: Everyone's in the Ocean Business

BUZZFLASH: The title of your book is pretty provocative – Bush's Brain. Where are we supposed to go with that concept?

JAMES MOORE: Well, originally I didn't intend for it to be pejorative. I wanted it to strictly speak to what Karl Rove's role was, and that was his nickname. It was one of three nicknames that he had from the press corps and from Governor Bush. Governor Bush called him Boy Genius. And the press corps -- when everybody referred to him in the thirty party -- we said: Oh, he's Bush's Brain.

And it was meant as he's a brainy guy, a brainy fellow. But the title of the book is sort of two-fold; I wanted it to cut both ways. I wanted it to be a little pejorative, but I also wanted it to directly refer to Karl. The other nickname for Karl, which the President has, which is a sort of Texas colloquialism, is Turd Blossom, which means something wonderful that grows up out of a cowpie.

I plan to buy this book soon, if only to feed "The Anti-Rove"--coming soon!

The veteran reporter, who spent time with American forces in Tikrit, praised British troops for their conduct during the war but said in an interview with Soldier magazine that the Americans "lost control".

"They lost all control - screaming, shouting and kicking people," Simpson said, adding that US soldiers' fear of snipers led to a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude.

"One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped," said the BBC reporter.

"Americans, still reeling after Sammy Sosa was ejected from a baseball game for using a corked bat, now have another corking story to face. Doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital announced that a routine brain scan of Vice-president Dick Cheney revealed that he was corked." BBspot [via walker]. Yeah but, as with Sosa's bat, expert testimony suggests it didn't really do anything for his performance.

According to the results of the Pew Center's recent "Views of a Changing World 2003" poll, the "war in Iraq has widened the rift between the United States and the rest of the world, with a steep plunge in Americans' views of their traditional allies and a further surge of anti-Americanism in Muslim countries," Meg Bortin of the International Herald Tribune reports.

The poll of more than 15,000 people in 20 countries and the Palestinian Authority, conducted in May by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center...forcefully supported the finding of an earlier survey that a U.S. war with Iraq would fuel anti-American sentiment.

As could be expected, this feeling is strongest in the Muslim world, where negative attitudes toward the United States have soared since the war on Iraq began March 20 with a wave of American air attacks over Baghdad.

One of the most extreme shifts was seen in Turkey, where the government, heeding popular sentiment, decided not to allow United States to use its soil as a base for attacks on Iraq although Washington and Ankara are partners in NATO.

The poll found that 83 percent of Turks now have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, up from 55 percent last summer.

...In fact, feelings are so intense in the Islamic world that Osama bin Laden was chosen by five Muslim publics - in Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority - as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said he had been surprised by the extent to which "the bottom has fallen out" in the Muslim world.

"Anti-Americanism has deepened, but it has also widened," he said. "You now find it in the far reaches of Africa - in Nigeria, among Muslims - and in Indonesia. People see America as a real threat. They think we're going to invade them."

Can't say we didn't warn them...

Federal regulators relaxed decades-old rules restricting media ownership Monday, permitting companies to buy more television stations and own a newspaper and a broadcast outlet in the same city.

The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 - along party lines - to adopt a series of changes favored by media companies. | Say goodnight Gracie.

With a record-setting 2 million people locked up in American jails and prisons, the United States has overtaken Russia and has a higher percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country.

...During the 1990s, the United States and Russia vied for the dubious position of the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

But in the past few years, Russian authorities have carried out large-scale amnesties to ease crowding in disease-infested prisons, and the United States has emerged unchallenged into first place, at 702 prisoners per 100,000 population. Russia has 665 prisoners per 100,000.

Today the United States imprisons at a far greater rate not only than other developed Western nations do, but also than impoverished and authoritarian countries do.

On a per capita basis, according to the best available figures, the United States has three times more prisoners than Iran, four times more than Poland, five times more than Tanzania and seven times more than Germany. Maryland has more citizens in prison and jail (an estimated 35,200) than all of Canada (31,600), though Canada's population is six times greater.