Thursday, September 30, 2004
Post Debate:
Republican Preparation: They were ready:
The Bush campaign has set up a network of Web sites to carry instant analysis of tonight's debate.
The "Debate Feed" will provide the GOP spin in real time to as many as 5,000 conservative Web outlets, according to Wired News. "Our rapid response effort is based on the premise that no attack or no misstatement will go unchallenged," Michael Turk, director of the Internet campaign, told the Web site. A "war room" is outfitted with 15 computers and two TVs, monitored by two dozen staffers, ready to send out a Republican response or comment, Wired added.
The Kerry campaign is not so well organized. It has e-mailed supporters who work with local newspapers and media, telling them the Kerry campaign will provide a response after the debate, Wired reported. http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=23326967&brk=1
The Debate:
for now:
* Educated us would say that Kerry was more presidential, more articulate, less weird. Bush sighed, looked annoyed, even tired.
* But, Kerry ran from chances to call Bush a chronic misleader or worse. He was too polite and didn’t grab the many opportunities to deal with the $87billion vote and his shifting position, and he allowed Bush to impugn his patriotism and judgment re the ‘wrong war at wrong time’ repetitive comment. Finally at 10:07 he said that Bush again ‘slipped by’ the question. And, at 10:14, re Bush’s rigidity, though not using that line. [And good on nukes.]
* How it plays with the average voter, the uncommitted is what matters. Bush repeated well, attacked well (though he sighed) and while not presidential did his ‘protect the American people’ thing which has played well with that population.
* One conclusion could be that it’s a draw, and it protects Bush’s lead; the other way to look at it is that a draw helps Kerry as Bush has a ceiling and people want to see if they trust Kerry enough so as to vote for him…instead of sitting it out. In sum, I think Kerry will gain a point or two and Bush will stay the same. Then, the question is whether Kerry can develop momentum. And the spinning…we’re about to find out. Hopefully many of us have answered poll questions and/or called talk radio, etc.
What’s Happening, Iraq: The deterioration is so profound that I’m at a loss for something ‘new’ to say. Needless to say, it will worsen over the next 33 days, but Cheney will hold firm so Bush will spout the optimism. What then? As noted previously, they’re considering increasing the bombing and even ground attacks post-election, but by then…?
Negotiating with Terrorists: Confusing.
So much for not negotiating with terrorists.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he was ready to open up contact with captors of a British hostage in Iraq shown on video begging Blair to save his life. holding several Brits hostage. Italy paid $1 million to release two captive women. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040929/ts_nm/iraq_dc
In fact, those weaklings, the French, don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Return to 1798?
What could I be referring to? The Alien and Sedition Acts, obviously. It came to mind when hearing the latest ‘aid and comfort’ reference from the Bushies, this time from Ken Mehlman,
"President Bush's campaign manager yesterday accused Sen. John Kerry's campaign of parroting the rhetoric of terrorists, signaling a new level of aggressiveness in advance of tomorrow's presidential debate. 'The enemy listens,' Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters on a conference call. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
Bye, Bye, CBS:
They were golden back when Walter was the host, a plethora of quality journalists gave thoughtful reports / analysis. Now, the Viacom entity is muffled. The canceling of the wmd report is only one sign. And, as Sumner Redstone told the Asian Wall Street Journal,
"From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on . . . from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
We’ll see about reverberations.
Oh, yes that program we won’t see (until maybe after the election)
That strange explanation raises the question of whether the right-wing government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had helped manufacture evidence that his ally, Bush, could use to persuade Americans to support an invasion. Burba passed on the documents to the U.S. embassy in Rome at the instruction of her editor at Panorama, a news magazine owned by Berlusconi. An alternative theory, floated in corners of the conspiracy-minded European press, is that Martino was working for the antiwar French, who hoped to discredit the Bush administration by getting American officials to swallow obviously forged documents.
Whatever the case, the CBS producers apparently decided to concentrate on what could be nailed down: the Bush administration had, either intentionally or with breathtaking credulity, relied on patently false intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq.
"Two years ago, Americans heard some frightening words from President Bush and his closest advisers," Bradley said in his introduction of the now-shelved report. "Saddam Hussein, they said, could soon have a nuclear bomb. Of course, we now know that wasn't true." Not only did Saddam not have a nuclear program, Bradley said, but "he hadn't for more than ten years. How could the Bush administration be so wrong about something so important?"
The answer, Bradley was to have told viewers, "has a lot to do with a single piece of evidence: A set of documents that appear to prove Saddam was secretly buying uranium ore."
In his closing, Bradley explains how fiercely the White House fought his report. Administration officials and Republicans in Congress turned down "60 Minutes'" requests for interview. So did former Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican whom Bush has appointed as the new director of the CIA.
"60 Minutes" defied the White House to produce this report. But it could not survive the network's cowardice -- cowardice born of self-inflicted wounds. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/print.html
Big Media Refuse Fahrenheit Advertising From the LA Weekly
ON ANY GIVEN DAY, the major TV networks rarely demonstrate good judgment, much less morality, when it comes to accepting a litany of nauseating advertisements. Hemorrhoid creams. Vaginal ointments. Erectile dysfunction. Army recruiting ads that portray war as a gee-whiz video game. KFC’s claim that fried chicken is the new health food. And, lest we forget, Bud Light’s farting horse during the Super Bowl.
But ads for the October 5 release of the new Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD?
Now that makes Big Media gag.
L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks’ news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.
“They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no,” one Sony insider explains. “It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting.” http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/deadline-finke.php
Repression? Not hysteria; just looking for signs as to what is replacing our democracy.
An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.
The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/military_justice/index_np.html
Repression, II Eric Boehlert for Salon
By adopting divisive rhetoric suggesting terrorists are working to elect John Kerry, Republican leaders are posing a challenge not only for the Democratic presidential candidate but also for the press. For the first time in decades journalists find themselves reporting on a kind of public character assassination that's reminiscent of McCarthyism, according to several distinguished journalists and historians.
The former Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., gave his name to an "ism" by accusing people in the federal government of being communists -- without any evidence. CBS correspondent Edward R. Murrow helped expose his methods in an hour-long documentary. McCarthy's inquisition collapsed when he attacked the U.S. Army and President Eisenhower.
Half a century ago, most of the press was slow to unravel McCarthy's vicious and reckless charges of treason, as reporters instead simply amplified them. "The press served as transmission belt for McCarthy's charges, making it more difficult for the truth to catch up," says Edwin Yoder, former editorial page editor of the Washington Star, once the major daily newspaper in the capital…
The accusations that the Kerry campaign is aiding terrorists and that terrorists would prefer that he be elected president hark back to the ugliest period of the early Cold War. "It's reminiscent of red-baiting," Yoder says. He notes one significant difference, however: "McCarthy specialized in wild accusations and character assassinations, but he didn't get involved with electoral politics. [What's happening] today is something of a novelty." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/30/kerry_terrorism/print.html
Missile Defense: You can be sure Bush will claim this to be another success. Lying liars…
President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.
But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.
The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58080-2004Sep28?language=printer
Investing in War Maybe it’s not too late to cash in.
On Sept. 21, 2001, the American Stock Exchange created the Amex Defense Index, a measure of the stock prices of 15 corporations that together account for about 80 percent of procurement and research contracting by the Department of Defense. The index, of course, includes the five largest military contractors: Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.
…With the Afghan war the arms index surged, gaining over 25 percent by April 2002. Then it slumped, along with the rest of the market. If you had invested $1,000 in a defense portfolio at the peak of the Taliban boomlet, by March 2003 you would have lost a third of your stake.
But then came Iraq. And it's been clover for contractors ever since. Total gains since March 2003 are above 80 percent. Even if you'd put your money in at the beginning, in September 2001, you'd be up over 50 percent. That isn't bad, considering.
This is no scandal, of course. War is naturally good for the arms business. The companies involved are public -- anyone can buy their stocks. Suppose that back in 2001 you'd had unlimited access to bank credit. And suppose you'd also had the certain knowledge that George W. Bush would take out Saddam Hussein, come what may. Well then you, too, could have made billions over the past three years. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/30/war_economy/print.html
AEI Moves Left? The End of the Unipolar Myth [Gautam Adhikari]
The American Enterprise has an unusual posting on its site, an essay that in part reminds us of how many are disenchanted with this Administration.
With American casualties in Iraq passing 1,000, and regions of the country descending into more destructive violence, the limits of U.S. military power are on display. The Bush administration's scramble to strike repeated compromises in Iraq, and its failure to achieve stability there, raise fundamental questions about the limits of American power.
Since the end of the cold war, the image of the United States as imperial hyperpower in a unipolar world has enjoyed wide currency. In fact, it's a myth that needs re-examination if we want to build a more realistic understanding of world power in a globalized era. There never was a unipolar world. The "unipolar moment" that commentators saw when the cold war ended was pretty much that--a hallucinatory moment in history. And describing the United States as the world's first "hyperpower" was little more than French hyperbole. These terms should be retired. Other possible descriptions such as "indispensable power" or "leader of the democratic world" might instead be re-examined to serve as credible definitions of America's status in the world today. There is a huge gap between America's military capacity and its actual ability to bend events according to its wish. America's installed capacity as the sole superpower at the end of the cold war was, and remains, beyond dispute. A $11 trillion economy that facilitates enormous technological prowess and a defense budget that exceeds the combined total of the next 25 powers should leave no doubt about the potential of the United States. http://www.aei.org/news/filter.all,newsID.21288/news_detail.asp
Follow-up: Congresswoman Seeks Re-Enlistment Probe (AP)
A Colorado congresswoman is seeking a congressional investigation into allegations that Iraqi war veterans near the end of their enlistments were given a choice between re-enlisting or being sent back to Iraq.
Democratic Rep. Diana Degette, in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked him Monday to look into whether the "White House or civilian Pentagon officials are pressuring the military to use coercive tactics to get soldier to re-enlist in order to maintain the force levels necessary to fight the war in Iraq and war on terror."
Kerry Haters for Kerry. Not a misprint. It’s for Those Who dislike Kerry and loathe Bush:
For example, Thank you. I was going crazy here in Tennessee, thinking there was nobody else who wanted to support Kerry without buying into his pompous, "I'm a war hero" campaign. I can't believe the Democrats nominated such a turkey. But if you want to do something about health care ....-- JK, Dickson TN
More at http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/
Polls:
Michigan: Kerry 48, Bush 46 (Free Press - RV)
Michigan: Bush 50, Kerry 48 (Free Press - LV)
North Carolina: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Mason-Dixon)
Virginia: Bush 49, Kerry 43 (Mason-Dixon)
Connecticut: Kerry 50, Bush 44 (Quinnipiac
Pennsylvania Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Gallup)
Florida: Registered voters: Bush 49 Kerry 44; Likely voters: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Gallup)
Ohio: Kerry 49-46 RV; Bush 49-47 LV (Gallup)
Ohio: Bush: 52% to 43% (Strategic Vision)
Ohio: Tie (Snell)
National:
Los Angeles Times: Bush leads 51% to 46%,
Harris Poll: Bush with a two-point lead over Kerry among likely voters, 48% to 46%.
-R
Republican Preparation: They were ready:
The Bush campaign has set up a network of Web sites to carry instant analysis of tonight's debate.
The "Debate Feed" will provide the GOP spin in real time to as many as 5,000 conservative Web outlets, according to Wired News. "Our rapid response effort is based on the premise that no attack or no misstatement will go unchallenged," Michael Turk, director of the Internet campaign, told the Web site. A "war room" is outfitted with 15 computers and two TVs, monitored by two dozen staffers, ready to send out a Republican response or comment, Wired added.
The Kerry campaign is not so well organized. It has e-mailed supporters who work with local newspapers and media, telling them the Kerry campaign will provide a response after the debate, Wired reported. http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=23326967&brk=1
The Debate:
for now:
* Educated us would say that Kerry was more presidential, more articulate, less weird. Bush sighed, looked annoyed, even tired.
* But, Kerry ran from chances to call Bush a chronic misleader or worse. He was too polite and didn’t grab the many opportunities to deal with the $87billion vote and his shifting position, and he allowed Bush to impugn his patriotism and judgment re the ‘wrong war at wrong time’ repetitive comment. Finally at 10:07 he said that Bush again ‘slipped by’ the question. And, at 10:14, re Bush’s rigidity, though not using that line. [And good on nukes.]
* How it plays with the average voter, the uncommitted is what matters. Bush repeated well, attacked well (though he sighed) and while not presidential did his ‘protect the American people’ thing which has played well with that population.
* One conclusion could be that it’s a draw, and it protects Bush’s lead; the other way to look at it is that a draw helps Kerry as Bush has a ceiling and people want to see if they trust Kerry enough so as to vote for him…instead of sitting it out. In sum, I think Kerry will gain a point or two and Bush will stay the same. Then, the question is whether Kerry can develop momentum. And the spinning…we’re about to find out. Hopefully many of us have answered poll questions and/or called talk radio, etc.
What’s Happening, Iraq: The deterioration is so profound that I’m at a loss for something ‘new’ to say. Needless to say, it will worsen over the next 33 days, but Cheney will hold firm so Bush will spout the optimism. What then? As noted previously, they’re considering increasing the bombing and even ground attacks post-election, but by then…?
Negotiating with Terrorists: Confusing.
So much for not negotiating with terrorists.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he was ready to open up contact with captors of a British hostage in Iraq shown on video begging Blair to save his life. holding several Brits hostage. Italy paid $1 million to release two captive women. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040929/ts_nm/iraq_dc
In fact, those weaklings, the French, don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Return to 1798?
What could I be referring to? The Alien and Sedition Acts, obviously. It came to mind when hearing the latest ‘aid and comfort’ reference from the Bushies, this time from Ken Mehlman,
"President Bush's campaign manager yesterday accused Sen. John Kerry's campaign of parroting the rhetoric of terrorists, signaling a new level of aggressiveness in advance of tomorrow's presidential debate. 'The enemy listens,' Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters on a conference call. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
Bye, Bye, CBS:
They were golden back when Walter was the host, a plethora of quality journalists gave thoughtful reports / analysis. Now, the Viacom entity is muffled. The canceling of the wmd report is only one sign. And, as Sumner Redstone told the Asian Wall Street Journal,
"From a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on . . . from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
We’ll see about reverberations.
Oh, yes that program we won’t see (until maybe after the election)
That strange explanation raises the question of whether the right-wing government of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had helped manufacture evidence that his ally, Bush, could use to persuade Americans to support an invasion. Burba passed on the documents to the U.S. embassy in Rome at the instruction of her editor at Panorama, a news magazine owned by Berlusconi. An alternative theory, floated in corners of the conspiracy-minded European press, is that Martino was working for the antiwar French, who hoped to discredit the Bush administration by getting American officials to swallow obviously forged documents.
Whatever the case, the CBS producers apparently decided to concentrate on what could be nailed down: the Bush administration had, either intentionally or with breathtaking credulity, relied on patently false intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq.
"Two years ago, Americans heard some frightening words from President Bush and his closest advisers," Bradley said in his introduction of the now-shelved report. "Saddam Hussein, they said, could soon have a nuclear bomb. Of course, we now know that wasn't true." Not only did Saddam not have a nuclear program, Bradley said, but "he hadn't for more than ten years. How could the Bush administration be so wrong about something so important?"
The answer, Bradley was to have told viewers, "has a lot to do with a single piece of evidence: A set of documents that appear to prove Saddam was secretly buying uranium ore."
In his closing, Bradley explains how fiercely the White House fought his report. Administration officials and Republicans in Congress turned down "60 Minutes'" requests for interview. So did former Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican whom Bush has appointed as the new director of the CIA.
"60 Minutes" defied the White House to produce this report. But it could not survive the network's cowardice -- cowardice born of self-inflicted wounds. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/print.html
Big Media Refuse Fahrenheit Advertising From the LA Weekly
ON ANY GIVEN DAY, the major TV networks rarely demonstrate good judgment, much less morality, when it comes to accepting a litany of nauseating advertisements. Hemorrhoid creams. Vaginal ointments. Erectile dysfunction. Army recruiting ads that portray war as a gee-whiz video game. KFC’s claim that fried chicken is the new health food. And, lest we forget, Bud Light’s farting horse during the Super Bowl.
But ads for the October 5 release of the new Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD?
Now that makes Big Media gag.
L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks’ news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.
“They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no,” one Sony insider explains. “It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting.” http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/deadline-finke.php
Repression? Not hysteria; just looking for signs as to what is replacing our democracy.
An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.
The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/military_justice/index_np.html
Repression, II Eric Boehlert for Salon
By adopting divisive rhetoric suggesting terrorists are working to elect John Kerry, Republican leaders are posing a challenge not only for the Democratic presidential candidate but also for the press. For the first time in decades journalists find themselves reporting on a kind of public character assassination that's reminiscent of McCarthyism, according to several distinguished journalists and historians.
The former Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., gave his name to an "ism" by accusing people in the federal government of being communists -- without any evidence. CBS correspondent Edward R. Murrow helped expose his methods in an hour-long documentary. McCarthy's inquisition collapsed when he attacked the U.S. Army and President Eisenhower.
Half a century ago, most of the press was slow to unravel McCarthy's vicious and reckless charges of treason, as reporters instead simply amplified them. "The press served as transmission belt for McCarthy's charges, making it more difficult for the truth to catch up," says Edwin Yoder, former editorial page editor of the Washington Star, once the major daily newspaper in the capital…
The accusations that the Kerry campaign is aiding terrorists and that terrorists would prefer that he be elected president hark back to the ugliest period of the early Cold War. "It's reminiscent of red-baiting," Yoder says. He notes one significant difference, however: "McCarthy specialized in wild accusations and character assassinations, but he didn't get involved with electoral politics. [What's happening] today is something of a novelty." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/30/kerry_terrorism/print.html
Missile Defense: You can be sure Bush will claim this to be another success. Lying liars…
President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.
But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.
The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58080-2004Sep28?language=printer
Investing in War Maybe it’s not too late to cash in.
On Sept. 21, 2001, the American Stock Exchange created the Amex Defense Index, a measure of the stock prices of 15 corporations that together account for about 80 percent of procurement and research contracting by the Department of Defense. The index, of course, includes the five largest military contractors: Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.
…With the Afghan war the arms index surged, gaining over 25 percent by April 2002. Then it slumped, along with the rest of the market. If you had invested $1,000 in a defense portfolio at the peak of the Taliban boomlet, by March 2003 you would have lost a third of your stake.
But then came Iraq. And it's been clover for contractors ever since. Total gains since March 2003 are above 80 percent. Even if you'd put your money in at the beginning, in September 2001, you'd be up over 50 percent. That isn't bad, considering.
This is no scandal, of course. War is naturally good for the arms business. The companies involved are public -- anyone can buy their stocks. Suppose that back in 2001 you'd had unlimited access to bank credit. And suppose you'd also had the certain knowledge that George W. Bush would take out Saddam Hussein, come what may. Well then you, too, could have made billions over the past three years. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/30/war_economy/print.html
AEI Moves Left? The End of the Unipolar Myth [Gautam Adhikari]
The American Enterprise has an unusual posting on its site, an essay that in part reminds us of how many are disenchanted with this Administration.
With American casualties in Iraq passing 1,000, and regions of the country descending into more destructive violence, the limits of U.S. military power are on display. The Bush administration's scramble to strike repeated compromises in Iraq, and its failure to achieve stability there, raise fundamental questions about the limits of American power.
Since the end of the cold war, the image of the United States as imperial hyperpower in a unipolar world has enjoyed wide currency. In fact, it's a myth that needs re-examination if we want to build a more realistic understanding of world power in a globalized era. There never was a unipolar world. The "unipolar moment" that commentators saw when the cold war ended was pretty much that--a hallucinatory moment in history. And describing the United States as the world's first "hyperpower" was little more than French hyperbole. These terms should be retired. Other possible descriptions such as "indispensable power" or "leader of the democratic world" might instead be re-examined to serve as credible definitions of America's status in the world today. There is a huge gap between America's military capacity and its actual ability to bend events according to its wish. America's installed capacity as the sole superpower at the end of the cold war was, and remains, beyond dispute. A $11 trillion economy that facilitates enormous technological prowess and a defense budget that exceeds the combined total of the next 25 powers should leave no doubt about the potential of the United States. http://www.aei.org/news/filter.all,newsID.21288/news_detail.asp
Follow-up: Congresswoman Seeks Re-Enlistment Probe (AP)
A Colorado congresswoman is seeking a congressional investigation into allegations that Iraqi war veterans near the end of their enlistments were given a choice between re-enlisting or being sent back to Iraq.
Democratic Rep. Diana Degette, in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked him Monday to look into whether the "White House or civilian Pentagon officials are pressuring the military to use coercive tactics to get soldier to re-enlist in order to maintain the force levels necessary to fight the war in Iraq and war on terror."
Kerry Haters for Kerry. Not a misprint. It’s for Those Who dislike Kerry and loathe Bush:
For example, Thank you. I was going crazy here in Tennessee, thinking there was nobody else who wanted to support Kerry without buying into his pompous, "I'm a war hero" campaign. I can't believe the Democrats nominated such a turkey. But if you want to do something about health care ....-- JK, Dickson TN
More at http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/
Polls:
Michigan: Kerry 48, Bush 46 (Free Press - RV)
Michigan: Bush 50, Kerry 48 (Free Press - LV)
North Carolina: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Mason-Dixon)
Virginia: Bush 49, Kerry 43 (Mason-Dixon)
Connecticut: Kerry 50, Bush 44 (Quinnipiac
Pennsylvania Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Gallup)
Florida: Registered voters: Bush 49 Kerry 44; Likely voters: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Gallup)
Ohio: Kerry 49-46 RV; Bush 49-47 LV (Gallup)
Ohio: Bush: 52% to 43% (Strategic Vision)
Ohio: Tie (Snell)
National:
Los Angeles Times: Bush leads 51% to 46%,
Harris Poll: Bush with a two-point lead over Kerry among likely voters, 48% to 46%.
-R
