Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Jobs: The Media Begin to Catch UpThe jobs issue has been a spectacular example of the media’s tendency to reassure and mislead us. They suggest by omission /imply that the creation of no jobs in a given year is not a net loss, when actually at least 1,500,000 jobs need to be created each year just to keep up with the growing population. I commented on this twice in February:
Economists agree that the economy must produce between 125,000 and 150,000 jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. Thus, the Bush 4 years needed to create 6 to 7.2 million jobs in that period. Yet, we’re down over 2 million thus far. So, the net loss is about 8 million. You’re not going to see that figure in the media, as it’s too discomforting a frame.
But, finally, we’ve begun to see reality acknowledged. It begins with Paul Krugman. His math takes into account that job creation has finally occurred in the past months.
Here's one way to look at it. The job forecast in the 2002 Economic Report of the President assumed that by 2004 the economy would have fully recovered from the 2001 recession. That recovery, according to the official projection, would lead to average payroll employment of 138 million this year — 7 million more than the actual number. So we have a gap of 7 million jobs to make up.
And employment is chasing a moving target: it must rise by about 140,000 a month just to keep up with a growing population. In April, the economy added 288,000 jobs. If you do the math, you discover that President Bush needs about four years of job growth at last month's rate to reach what his own economists consider full employment. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?hp
Bush Speech:
It t’was a disaster. Meant for the domestic audience, it fell flat. Folks were harsh, including talk radio commentators such as Jay Severin (96.9 in Boston). It again demonstrated the basic disconnect between White House rhetoric and Reality. The Washington Post (Robin Wright, Mike Allen) was amongst the many critics:
But Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasingly macabre violence in recent weeks -- from the assassination of the president of Iraq's Governing Council and controversy over dozens killed by U.S. warplanes at a purported wedding party to the grisly beheading of an American civilian.
Nor did Bush try to answer some of the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety at home and abroad about the final U.S. costs, the final length of stay for U.S. troops, or what the terms will be for a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps," the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five-step plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53141-2004May24?language=printer
What’s Happening: Abuse!,,,in Afghanistan and Iraq:
The Pentagon folk now must investigate numerous deaths of detainees. So, despite Rush Limbaugh’s cries- “They’re just blowing off steam!”- even many a conservative now views this as serious, in every way. John Hendren in the LA Times:
Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison22may22,1,3407078.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It was the Same Military Intelligence UnitThey relocated from Afghanistan to Iraq in early 2003.
T
wo men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram detention center said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they had been tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers. They said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. "The 10 days that we had was a very bad time," said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times during his imprisonment. "We are very lucky." http://www.iht.com/articles/521473.html
Still another “Scandal”
One or more per week, seems about right. This one involves the infamous Chalabi and how he came to possess classified materials. Newsday (Knut Royce) reports, having already made it to TIME and NEWSWEEK:
But the big story is contained in this sentence: "An intelligence source confirmed to Newsday reports in Time and Newsweek that the FBI had launched an investigation into who in the administration had passed the classified material to his Iraqi National Congress."
Perhaps we'll find out that Chalabi got his classified info from some obscure analyst at DIA or a Colonel in the field. But both of those possibilities seem highly unlikely.
Chalabi's interlocutors in the US government were a fairly small and well-known group, stacked heavily toward the top of the totem pole and very much on the appointive, civilian side -- start with the acronyms OSD and OVP. For those who know the nature of the relationship it would, quite frankly, be hard to imagine that they weren't sharing highly sensitive information with him. "http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal243817001may24,0,2511169.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
And another: Iran Got Us to Invade Iraq?
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html
Lies, Big and Small
Since they lie as they breathe, they tell small ones as well as the large, deadly ones. So, when Bush fell off his mountain bike this weekend, the spokesperson put out that “It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose. You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
However, according to the Crawford, Texas records, they had .03 inches of rain 8 days prior to his fall, and none since. So, once again, lies that absolve Junior of any responsibility… http://www.dailykos.com/main/2
Limited Sovereignty: An example
Seems that the Iraqis won’t be able to sue “Coalition” troops over possible war crimes, as the military has received immunity. The Guardian (Kamal Ahmed):
British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.
The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.
'The legal situation in Iraq will be very difficult after 30 June, with some confusion over where jurisdiction lies,' said one Whitehall official. 'We wanted to ensure that British troops maintained the immunity they already have under Order 17.' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html
Environment:
Couldn’t pass up another fine essay by Bill McKibben:
But it must be said that criticizing Bush's policies on the environment is depressingly easy to do. For more than three years now, day after day and week after week, a small circle of political appointees at the EPA, the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and the Department of Agriculture have proceeded methodically to wreck the system of environmental oversight that dates back to the Nixon administration. Apart from their silence on global warming, they have overturned rule after regulation, largely ceased enforcement actions concerning pollution of the atmosphere and water, and reined in inspectors. Their work is not inspired by a grand ideological vision—it's not like Bush's foreign policy, say, with its idea of America dominating the world. Instead it's institutionalized corruption: a steady payback to the logging, mining, corporate farming, fossil fuel, and other industries that contributed heavily to put Bush in power.
The scale of this assault on the environment is so large as to be numbing. With a hundred battles occurring simultaneously and without a majority in either chamber of Congress to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, the environmental movement has been almost paralyzed. In Congress and the administration, loss has followed loss in such steady succession that even the most conventional environmentalists, usually bipartisan to a fault and reluctant to jump into electoral politics, now find themselves with a single goal: defeating Bush in November. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17179
Not Accepting the Nomination in Boston?
Thoughts? Mine are that it’s great that the Kerry Campaign is trying to win, not just fight the good fight. Why should they have a disadvantage through their holding their convention 5 weeks before the Bushies, and thus be forced to tap the limited (by law) funds prematurely.
This makes me think back to 2000 when aside from the miserable campaign the Gore folks conducted, they also had a severe financial disadvantage. Aside from their miserable effort and lack of fight in Florida, they were outspent by almost $200 million. Of course that wasn’t mentioned in the media or on Democratic web sites / letters.
Nader: He’s clearly articulated an Out Now position and has again called for Bush’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He has a good point, regardless of the non-viability of it. And he made a notable foray into this over-played “war on terrorism.” A very rare foray…
Mr. Nader also accused President Bush of exaggerating the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest," he said. But he said it was time to raise "the impertinent question" about whether the threat had been "exaggerated for a purpose."
Mr. Nader said he believed such a deception had taken place, and had been intended in part to draw popular support for more militaristic policies and to generate military contracts for companies with close ties to the Bush administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25nade.html
Nader and Election Strategy:
Those who have been effectively propagandized over the last 3 ½ years to demonize Nader as the principal reason for Bush’s 2000 election should not forget what a common sense position could be for 2004.
As Bush will get in the vicinity of 35% in Massachusetts, one can safely vote for their progressive positions by casting one for Nader while working in swing states for Bush’s ouster. That would accomplish progressive objectives- ousting Bush, pressuring Kerry to not move TOO far to the Right while educating the country that there are progressives and progressive positions. Such a stance would help prevent a replay of 1992 when so many focused on electing Clinton and not pressuring him during 1992 and after, allowing Clinton to move Rightward. Folks in NY and California are similarly safe to employ this line of thinking.
Gore Speech:
His latest outspoken effort scheduled for Wednesday. According to moveon.org, he is scheduled to focus on “a link between the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Bush’s policies. He will call for the resignation of the dirty seven top officials in Bush’s cabinet responsible for the mess--no doubt leaving Bush off the list for us to decide in November”.
Polls: Will his reading of speeches help? The emerging consensus is that it’s too late. He’s down to 48% in the Fox poll, 47 in ABC’s, 41 in the CBS poll, down mucho since January, regardless of the source.
(1) Zogby tends to be the most negative for Bush; bearing that in mind, Zogby has Kerry ahead in 12 of 16 states that are “battleground”, or thought to be contested. Locally, Zogby has Kerry ahead by 9.6% in New Hampshire. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html
(2) ABC: While it reassuringly shows Bush to have dropped, the details of the poll (there are more than 2 dozen questions involved) indicates that the dumbing down continues. Case in point: STILL, after all we’ve heard, a majority of Americans believe that Bush generally tells the truth. Plus the following:
Yet while concerns are high, the bottom has not fallen out for Bush on Iraq. The public's division on whether the war was or was not worth fighting has been essentially even since February. Fifty-eight percent say U.S. forces should remain until civil order is restored even if that means sustaining further casualties. And — despite skepticism about the current situation — most are maintaining a positive outlook: Fifty-five percent say they're optimistic about the situation in Iraq over the next 12 months, not much different than it was in January.
Also better for Bush, approval of his handling of terrorism — while at a new low — remains much higher than his other ratings; 58 percent approve. (But it's the first time this has inched below six in 10.) And Kerry has drawn only modest benefit from the president's troubles. Bush still leads in most personal attributes and in trust to handle Iraq and terrorism, and, as noted, the contest between them is a dead heat. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Polls/bush_iraq_poll_040524.html
Again, it’s only May.
Ingenuity, again, to secure more troops:
The latest:
As part of an aggressive recruiting effort, Army and National Guard officials have warned inactive reservists that they could face being sent back to Iraq unless they re-enlist in the active reserves or join their local Guard units, according to a published report.
MariAnn Curta told the Chicago Tribune in a story published Sunday that a recruiter called her last weekend, saying her 22-year-old son Bill — who recently completed a nine-month tour of duty in Iraq — could be headed back there unless he enlisted in the Illinois National Guard.
“It’s devious, it’s deceptive, it’s dishonest, it’s valueless.,” she said. “I can’t believe they’d pull this kind of fast trick on kids who have already served.”http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/print.php?f=1-213101-2944867.php
-R
Economists agree that the economy must produce between 125,000 and 150,000 jobs each month just to keep up with the growing population. Thus, the Bush 4 years needed to create 6 to 7.2 million jobs in that period. Yet, we’re down over 2 million thus far. So, the net loss is about 8 million. You’re not going to see that figure in the media, as it’s too discomforting a frame.
But, finally, we’ve begun to see reality acknowledged. It begins with Paul Krugman. His math takes into account that job creation has finally occurred in the past months.
Here's one way to look at it. The job forecast in the 2002 Economic Report of the President assumed that by 2004 the economy would have fully recovered from the 2001 recession. That recovery, according to the official projection, would lead to average payroll employment of 138 million this year — 7 million more than the actual number. So we have a gap of 7 million jobs to make up.
And employment is chasing a moving target: it must rise by about 140,000 a month just to keep up with a growing population. In April, the economy added 288,000 jobs. If you do the math, you discover that President Bush needs about four years of job growth at last month's rate to reach what his own economists consider full employment. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?hp
Bush Speech:
It t’was a disaster. Meant for the domestic audience, it fell flat. Folks were harsh, including talk radio commentators such as Jay Severin (96.9 in Boston). It again demonstrated the basic disconnect between White House rhetoric and Reality. The Washington Post (Robin Wright, Mike Allen) was amongst the many critics:
But Bush did not provide the midcourse correction that even some Republicans had called for in the face of increasingly macabre violence in recent weeks -- from the assassination of the president of Iraq's Governing Council and controversy over dozens killed by U.S. warplanes at a purported wedding party to the grisly beheading of an American civilian.
Nor did Bush try to answer some of the looming questions that have triggered growing skepticism and anxiety at home and abroad about the final U.S. costs, the final length of stay for U.S. troops, or what the terms will be for a final U.S. exit from Iraq. After promising "concrete steps," the White House basically repackaged stalled U.S. policy as a five-step plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53141-2004May24?language=printer
What’s Happening: Abuse!,,,in Afghanistan and Iraq:
The Pentagon folk now must investigate numerous deaths of detainees. So, despite Rush Limbaugh’s cries- “They’re just blowing off steam!”- even many a conservative now views this as serious, in every way. John Hendren in the LA Times:
Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases, including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37 deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-prison22may22,1,3407078.story?coll=la-home-headlines
It was the Same Military Intelligence UnitThey relocated from Afghanistan to Iraq in early 2003.
T
wo men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram detention center said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they had been tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers. They said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. "The 10 days that we had was a very bad time," said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times during his imprisonment. "We are very lucky." http://www.iht.com/articles/521473.html
Still another “Scandal”
One or more per week, seems about right. This one involves the infamous Chalabi and how he came to possess classified materials. Newsday (Knut Royce) reports, having already made it to TIME and NEWSWEEK:
But the big story is contained in this sentence: "An intelligence source confirmed to Newsday reports in Time and Newsweek that the FBI had launched an investigation into who in the administration had passed the classified material to his Iraqi National Congress."
Perhaps we'll find out that Chalabi got his classified info from some obscure analyst at DIA or a Colonel in the field. But both of those possibilities seem highly unlikely.
Chalabi's interlocutors in the US government were a fairly small and well-known group, stacked heavily toward the top of the totem pole and very much on the appointive, civilian side -- start with the acronyms OSD and OVP. For those who know the nature of the relationship it would, quite frankly, be hard to imagine that they weren't sharing highly sensitive information with him. "http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uschal243817001may24,0,2511169.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
And another: Iran Got Us to Invade Iraq?
An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html
Lies, Big and Small
Since they lie as they breathe, they tell small ones as well as the large, deadly ones. So, when Bush fell off his mountain bike this weekend, the spokesperson put out that “It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose. You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
However, according to the Crawford, Texas records, they had .03 inches of rain 8 days prior to his fall, and none since. So, once again, lies that absolve Junior of any responsibility… http://www.dailykos.com/main/2
Limited Sovereignty: An example
Seems that the Iraqis won’t be able to sue “Coalition” troops over possible war crimes, as the military has received immunity. The Guardian (Kamal Ahmed):
British and American troops are to be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraq after the crucial 30 June handover, undermining claims that the new Iraqi government will have 'full sovereignty' over the state.
Despite widespread ill-feeling about the abuse of prisoners by American forces and allegations of mistreatment by British troops, coalition forces will be protected from any legal action.
They will only be subject to the domestic law of their home countries. Military sources have told The Observer that the question of immunity was central to obtaining military agreement on a new United Nations resolution on Iraq to be published by the middle of next month.
The new resolution will lift the arms embargo against Iraq, allowing the country to rearm its 80,000-strong army in readiness for taking over the nation's security once coalition forces finally leave.
'The legal situation in Iraq will be very difficult after 30 June, with some confusion over where jurisdiction lies,' said one Whitehall official. 'We wanted to ensure that British troops maintained the immunity they already have under Order 17.' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1222817,00.html
Environment:
Couldn’t pass up another fine essay by Bill McKibben:
But it must be said that criticizing Bush's policies on the environment is depressingly easy to do. For more than three years now, day after day and week after week, a small circle of political appointees at the EPA, the Forest Service, the Interior Department, and the Department of Agriculture have proceeded methodically to wreck the system of environmental oversight that dates back to the Nixon administration. Apart from their silence on global warming, they have overturned rule after regulation, largely ceased enforcement actions concerning pollution of the atmosphere and water, and reined in inspectors. Their work is not inspired by a grand ideological vision—it's not like Bush's foreign policy, say, with its idea of America dominating the world. Instead it's institutionalized corruption: a steady payback to the logging, mining, corporate farming, fossil fuel, and other industries that contributed heavily to put Bush in power.
The scale of this assault on the environment is so large as to be numbing. With a hundred battles occurring simultaneously and without a majority in either chamber of Congress to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, the environmental movement has been almost paralyzed. In Congress and the administration, loss has followed loss in such steady succession that even the most conventional environmentalists, usually bipartisan to a fault and reluctant to jump into electoral politics, now find themselves with a single goal: defeating Bush in November. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17179
Not Accepting the Nomination in Boston?
Thoughts? Mine are that it’s great that the Kerry Campaign is trying to win, not just fight the good fight. Why should they have a disadvantage through their holding their convention 5 weeks before the Bushies, and thus be forced to tap the limited (by law) funds prematurely.
This makes me think back to 2000 when aside from the miserable campaign the Gore folks conducted, they also had a severe financial disadvantage. Aside from their miserable effort and lack of fight in Florida, they were outspent by almost $200 million. Of course that wasn’t mentioned in the media or on Democratic web sites / letters.
Nader: He’s clearly articulated an Out Now position and has again called for Bush’s impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He has a good point, regardless of the non-viability of it. And he made a notable foray into this over-played “war on terrorism.” A very rare foray…
Mr. Nader also accused President Bush of exaggerating the threat of terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest," he said. But he said it was time to raise "the impertinent question" about whether the threat had been "exaggerated for a purpose."
Mr. Nader said he believed such a deception had taken place, and had been intended in part to draw popular support for more militaristic policies and to generate military contracts for companies with close ties to the Bush administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/politics/25nade.html
Nader and Election Strategy:
Those who have been effectively propagandized over the last 3 ½ years to demonize Nader as the principal reason for Bush’s 2000 election should not forget what a common sense position could be for 2004.
As Bush will get in the vicinity of 35% in Massachusetts, one can safely vote for their progressive positions by casting one for Nader while working in swing states for Bush’s ouster. That would accomplish progressive objectives- ousting Bush, pressuring Kerry to not move TOO far to the Right while educating the country that there are progressives and progressive positions. Such a stance would help prevent a replay of 1992 when so many focused on electing Clinton and not pressuring him during 1992 and after, allowing Clinton to move Rightward. Folks in NY and California are similarly safe to employ this line of thinking.
Gore Speech:
His latest outspoken effort scheduled for Wednesday. According to moveon.org, he is scheduled to focus on “a link between the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Bush’s policies. He will call for the resignation of the dirty seven top officials in Bush’s cabinet responsible for the mess--no doubt leaving Bush off the list for us to decide in November”.
Polls: Will his reading of speeches help? The emerging consensus is that it’s too late. He’s down to 48% in the Fox poll, 47 in ABC’s, 41 in the CBS poll, down mucho since January, regardless of the source.
(1) Zogby tends to be the most negative for Bush; bearing that in mind, Zogby has Kerry ahead in 12 of 16 states that are “battleground”, or thought to be contested. Locally, Zogby has Kerry ahead by 9.6% in New Hampshire. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html
(2) ABC: While it reassuringly shows Bush to have dropped, the details of the poll (there are more than 2 dozen questions involved) indicates that the dumbing down continues. Case in point: STILL, after all we’ve heard, a majority of Americans believe that Bush generally tells the truth. Plus the following:
Yet while concerns are high, the bottom has not fallen out for Bush on Iraq. The public's division on whether the war was or was not worth fighting has been essentially even since February. Fifty-eight percent say U.S. forces should remain until civil order is restored even if that means sustaining further casualties. And — despite skepticism about the current situation — most are maintaining a positive outlook: Fifty-five percent say they're optimistic about the situation in Iraq over the next 12 months, not much different than it was in January.
Also better for Bush, approval of his handling of terrorism — while at a new low — remains much higher than his other ratings; 58 percent approve. (But it's the first time this has inched below six in 10.) And Kerry has drawn only modest benefit from the president's troubles. Bush still leads in most personal attributes and in trust to handle Iraq and terrorism, and, as noted, the contest between them is a dead heat. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Polls/bush_iraq_poll_040524.html
Again, it’s only May.
Ingenuity, again, to secure more troops:
The latest:
As part of an aggressive recruiting effort, Army and National Guard officials have warned inactive reservists that they could face being sent back to Iraq unless they re-enlist in the active reserves or join their local Guard units, according to a published report.
MariAnn Curta told the Chicago Tribune in a story published Sunday that a recruiter called her last weekend, saying her 22-year-old son Bill — who recently completed a nine-month tour of duty in Iraq — could be headed back there unless he enlisted in the Illinois National Guard.
“It’s devious, it’s deceptive, it’s dishonest, it’s valueless.,” she said. “I can’t believe they’d pull this kind of fast trick on kids who have already served.”http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/print.php?f=1-213101-2944867.php
-R
