No Brainer Quote Of The Day

Q But you still think your strategy for victory is working?

MR. SNOW: The strategy for victory is working, but the strategy for victory also, as the President said and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, we're not -- it's not getting better fast enough. And so you need to find ways, militarily and otherwise, to try to improve the situation.

It's not getting better fast enough? Gee, ya think? My goodness, how many bodies need to pile up in the streets of Iraq before they admit it's getting worse, not better?

Did Tuesday's Vote Mean Most People Want Our Troops To Be Effectively Extracted From Iraq?

In the days before an election, politicians are aflame with rhetorical arguments that suggest the outcome will be a mandate from the people for action by their government. But the W, Rove and Co has always been about doing what it wants to do regardless of what a majority of the people think.

Have a look at this exchange in today's Whitehouse press briefing where Tony the Snow job lays it out clearly for us.

Q We hear a lot about the fact that the President believes we're not succeeding quickly enough. He has replaced the Defense Secretary, he is now awaiting not only ideas from Democrats, but from an Iraq Study Group, he's chosen a new Defense Secretary from this group. Is this not an acknowledgment -- and some straight talk here -- that the policy in Iraq is broken?

MR. SNOW: No, it's an acknowledgment that you've got a tough situation. What you've just -- what's interesting is that you tried to insinuate that Bob Gates was brought in by virtue of his membership in the Iraq Study Group, which isn't true. Furthermore, as we have -- furthermore --

So, basically, do you get the feeling that the W, Rove and Co is stalling on moving forward on a plan to withdrawal troops until it is actually recommended by people they appointed to tell them that rather than the Dems?

Q -- and all we hear is that we're not succeeding quickly enough. The question is, the American people spoke on this point about the war. Isn't, in fact, the policy broken? Is that not the concession?

MR. SNOW: You know what's interesting -- no. I think what it is -- no. What it is a concession of is, the war is hard. The war is very hard. And that the people who spend morning, noon, and night thinking about this, constantly do what they can to adjust and to get it right. The policy is to create an Iraq where the Iraqis have the ability to sustain, govern, and defend themselves so that they can stand up, so that they will have a democracy that can stand on its own two legs, can defend itself, will have the support of its public, will have an economy that offers opportunity, will have security, will have the ability to demonstrate to terrorists once and for all that despite all their best shots, it just wasn't going to work.

Yup, it looks like it to me. This idea for troop withdrawal has more legs on it than Tony suggests. But hey, what about the rationale they keep insisting was the real reason to invade Iraq expose facto?

Q You concede that we didn't go into Iraq for those reasons, don't you? And do you think the election had anything to do with us wanting to get out?

MR. SNOW: You know, it's interesting, Helen, if -- there are some polls that I've seen referred to, but I haven't seen today. I think -- well, let me back up. If you ask Americans, do you want to win, my guess is, the answer is going to be yes.

Q No, it isn't the point.

MR. SNOW: No, it is the point.

Q We went in for weapons --

MR. SNOW: No, you just asked -- you just asked if we want to get out. The answer is yes, we want to get out when we win. That's when we want to get out.

What's the prize when we win? How do we know we've won?

Q When we win -- but what do we win? I mean, you're going to have to --

MR. SNOW: What we win -- well, I'll tell you --

Q And how much slaughter? Every day we have slaughter.

MR. SNOW: Are you trying to place us in a morally equivalent position to the al Qaeda terrorists who deliberately are --

Q That's not an argument.

MR. SNOW: Sure it is. No --

Q I'm not saying --

MR. SNOW: No, you're accusing -- are you accusing the Americans of slaughter? Who are you accusing of slaughter?

Q I'm not accusing -- the best defense is offense. We understand your tactic here.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just asking the question because you talked about slaughter, and it gave the impression that we're engaged in slaughter.

Q Well, how many people are dying every day?

MR. SNOW: It depends on what the -- does it not depend on -- well, let me put it this way, Helen, when people are dying because of car bombs it illustrates the difficulty of the situation and the nature of the people we are fighting.

Well, I don't know if we are the ones doing the slaughter, but you have to concede that there is a great deal of carnage going on in Iraq that wasn't happening before we got there.

Q But isn't our presence the cause of that?

MR. SNOW: No, no. As the President has pointed out many times, this stuff began long before September 11th. And, furthermore, it had been practiced throughout the Middle East long before September 11th. But these tactics --

Q In Iran?

MR. SNOW: And furthermore -- no, in Iraq. That's right. They're trying -- in Iraq you had a situation where you had a dictator who was contributing to the terror network, and who in the process was murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Q But the President said there was no tie-in with the terrorists.

MR. SNOW: No, he said there was no tie-in with September 11th. There's a difference.

Well, a little bit later we find ourselves getting lost in the rhetorical sauce. Have a look:

Q Tony, back on Iraq, a couple of questions. First, in an interview yesterday, Carl Levin said, "The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over, and that they are going to have to solve their own problems." Does the President believe that the United States needs to send a signal to the Iraqi government that the open-ended commitment is over?

MR. SNOW: No, because we've never had an open-ended commitment.

Q Our commitment now is not open-ended?

MR. SNOW: No, our commitment is to get to the point where we achieve victory.

Sounds open ended to me with the war mongering machinery set to become more and more profitable a business opportunity. Time to invest anew in Halliburton et al?

But let's leave you with the final analysis from Tony as to whether we are winning the war in Iraq or not:

Q Tony, with all the changes going on right now, and the President admitting that he's not happy with the situation in Iraq, can this White House still stand by the statement that we are winning in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: The fact is, April, we would like progress to be moving more quickly. That's obvious. But on the other hand, when you see what has been going on with the Prime Minister stepping up and assuming more responsibility, working now, shaking up the government, because he also wants to get better results, the fact is, yes, you're moving forward on this. And in the failure narrative that quite often gets written is one that, as you know, has been deeply distressing to many of the men and women who are fighting over there because they at least have a different picture. Some of it has been portrayed in recent days in press reports.

But this is hard. It's a war. And there are going to be time when you have a great deal of motion in the direction of victory, and there are going to be times when you have setbacks. And there's just no way to get around it.

Q You're not saying victory just for the sake of keeping morale up? You're saying victory because we are winning?

MR. SNOW: We're saying victory because we are -- we are winning, but on the other hand, we have not won.

Q Is it still the President's policy, though, that a democratic outcome in Iraq is the only acceptable outcome? Is that correct?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Sounds open ended to me. Too bad we issued them a blank check to execute this monstrosity.

What Will History Show?

The trouble with history is that you can't control the spin on how it will judge you. Nevertheless, that won't stop the president from trying, now will it.

Bob replaces the longest serving member of my Cabinet, Don Rumsfeld. History will record that on Secretary Rumsfeld's watch, the men and women of our military overthrew two terrorist regimes, brought justice to scores of senior al Qaeda operatives, and helped stop new terrorist attacks on our people. America is safer, and the world is more secure because of the leadership of Don Rumsfeld, and I am deeply grateful for his service.

I don't know about you, but if you ask me there is a reason why the people voted for Dems on 7 November, and one of those was because they are not nearly as impressed with Rummy as the W is.

But what about his possible successor? On the surface, it already looks like Gates is substantially better than Rummy ever was. Should we believe the president? It's not like we will have much of a choice given that we still must endure the congress we have for the next month or so.

In the meantime, I have made an important change to my national security team. On Wednesday, I accepted Don Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense, and announced my intent to nominate Bob Gates to replace him. Bob is a proven leader who has served six Presidents -- four Republicans and two Democrats. As a former CIA Director and the current President of Texas A&M University, he has experience leading large and complex organizations, and he has shown that he is an agent of change. As Secretary of Defense, he will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq, and what we need to do to prevail.

So The Dems Win, But All They're Going To Get Is Sloppy Seconds

Sure, the title for this post is a little racy, but the Dems must know that their turn dealing with Iraq is going to be the worst case of sloppy seconds a political party could ask for. There's a lot to fix that the W, Rove and Co has mucked up in the last nearly six years. Moreover, the last Congress really hasn't been all that productive, sidetracked by scandals and the like.

I've already heard at least one fright winger projecting blame saying, "Now they [meaning Dems] won't have any excuses for Iraq." But the fact of the matter is that W is still the Commander-in-Chief, and we have had nearly four full years of the W, Rove and Co. "war" in Iraq.

With two years left of what is commonly referred to as a "lame duck" congress and presidency, we will see as history unfolds before us if we end up better off then than we are now. Interestingly, every so often we get a waft of bi-partisanship that percolates hope that we may actually get a change of course. But, then again, maybe not.

Let's have a look at some fun snips from the last two days of press briefings and see what direction we, the people, are going to be lead around by the nose ring toward:

First, you have a cowboy for president who only believes that there is a mandate from the people when it supports his team:

Q Also, why does he think this mandate from the voters doesn't mean to pull out?

MR. SNOW: Because I don't think that's a majority opinion. But furthermore --

Q You don't think so.

MR. SNOW: -- you know what, Helen, what he sees is, he was hired to be Commander-in-Chief, and it's his job to tend to national security. And he's willing -- and he's willing to take whatever political hits come if it means doing -- if he has to choose between doing his job properly and being popular, he's going to do the job properly to save American lives not only now, but for future generations, and also to make the Middle East a safer region and a more secure region, and one that is going to be more reliable, especially in terms of the ongoing battle and the conversation there about what is the proper way to proceed -- democracy or terror. And as you know --

Secondly, we have become a magnet to draw more terrorists to Iraq than were their in the first place:

Q Is every Iraqi a terrorist?

MR. SNOW: No, absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Iraqis are people who want to breathe free.

Q Who brought the terrorists in, so called, and why wouldn't the Iraqis protect themselves against terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Well, Iraqis -- there are a number of things going on, Helen, and some people are terrorists, and you also have sectarian factions within Iraq. But one thing is clear, al Qaeda had made it its known desire to try to foment friction between factions within Iraq, and Prime Minister Maliki is doing his very best to work on creating peace and shared interest, economic and otherwise, in the political system and economic system, between all different groups in Iraq. That is the challenge of democracy, and it's one we're going to meet.

And, we have an interesting development now that Rummy is toast. Did you know that by hiring Gates, the President has effectively compromised independence of the Baker driven Iraq Study Group:

Q Can I follow one more on that? Is there anything to be made of the fact that a member of the Iraq Study Group is now the nominee to be the Secretary of Defense?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Any coordination there at all?

MR. SNOW: No, and I'm glad you asked it. No. That's an important thing to note, because -- and I am told -- I was not party to the discussions -- that there was no conversation about conclusions or what the Iraq Study Group was going to come up with, this in the conversations with Bob Gates. The members of the Iraq Study Group --

Q He's never asked Bob Gates, so, what have you all been talking about?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. He's been very clear about the importance that that -- those deliberations and that advice remain confidential and independent. We've had this conversation before with regard to Jim Baker.

We still have a "Commander-in-Chief" who is an ideolog not much unlike the fanatics leading the charge against us. Is he in denial that there is another, better way?

Don Rumsfeld is one of the most extraordinary Defense Secretaries in American history. He not only worked on the tough business of transformation within the Pentagon, he did so during a time of war, and did so with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was in that office for six years, which may be six of the most trying years that any Defense Secretary has ever faced. And he did an exemplary job, and the President respects him and thanks him for the service...

Q What changed? What clicked, what changed? How did he get to this point from what seemed to be a very different point a couple months ago?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think the President has great confidence in Don Rumsfeld, but also, again, it's Don Rumsfeld and the President talking about the need for fresh eyes. If you want me to give you interior deliberations, A, we don't do that, and, B, even if we did, I don't have the insights you want.

And what about John Bolton?

Q Do you consider the John Bolton nomination dead?

MR. SNOW: No. Think of it this way: I know a lot of people had positions and old views about John Bolton, but in the spirit of trying to take a fresh look at things and trying to be fair-minded, it's probably worth reviewing his record as United Nations Ambassador, which has been highly successful.

John Bolton, in his tenure at the United Nations, has shepherded through two U.N. Security Council resolutions with regard to North Korea. He has been working aggressively and actively with our allies on the issue of Iran. He has put together a U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon. And I think he has demonstrated an ability to work effectively with other members and other U.N. delegations to move forward and show a leadership role in important business.

So, again, the President believes that John Bolton has done an exemplary job, and if people fairly will examine his record -- his real accomplishments, his record at the United Nations -- that he not only will have earned confirmation, but will receive it.

But should we gather a glimmer of hope when Tony the Snow job says things like this?

Q Okay. And then my second question, in this new, sort of, spirit of bipartisanship, how will the President react if Democrats during the lame duck session try to block or do succeed in blocking the Bolton confirmation, or legislation, for instance, on the domestic wiretapping?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I just think -- I think you owe it to everybody to see what happens in the lame duck. Rather than my giving you a reaction to something that hasn't happened, I will tell you what we hope happens, not only that John Bolton is confirmed, but -- look, what the President wants with the terrorist surveillance program is the ability, in a swift and effective manner, to be able to monitor conversations or communications between al Qaeda terror masters and al Qaeda members in the United States, or terrorists in the United States, especially fearing that if you have an ongoing operation, you're going to need the ability to move swiftly and effectively to get information and to move it into the hands of law enforcement or proper authorities. And --

Q Does the --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll finish. And we believe the Democrats certainly would share that interest.

And, again, one of the things now is the Democrats are going to be sharing responsibility and they'll be able to share credit for getting these things done in the right way. So let's see what happens.

Of course, the GOP is going to try and ramrod whatever extreme legislation they can manage between now and Jan...

Q Back to the lame duck for a second, there are six weeks -- five weeks, or so, more that Republicans are still in the majority on the Hill. Does the President see this period as a time when he should be pushing things like the surveillance measure and the Bolton nomination --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

But on the other hand, if you can restore a sense of mutual respect, that's a good thing. And I think it's overdue.

You first, Tony. You first.

Any Guesses As To If The President Is Lying About The Big Dick Cheney's Status As Well?

Before Tuesday, the president has said he was keeping Rummy on and we know now that he was fibbing in that case. Do you believe W when he says this:

Q This is a very competitive environment. No, but we asked you about the fate of Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney, of course, has made -- takes many of the same positions that Secretary Rumsfeld did on the war. Does he still have your complete confidence?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he does.

Q Do you expect him to stay --

THE PRESIDENT: The campaign is over. Yes, he does.

Q And he'll be here for the remainder of your term?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he will. Thank you.

Any one taking bets as to when the Big Dick Cheney is asked to take the walk off the Whitehouse plank?

Honesty: Presidential Style

1. So, when you are lecturing your children about being honest and truthful, can you hold up the President as a positive role model?


2. Is it right to let the ends justify the means?


3. When it comes to integrity, does the presidency require that individuals slip past the ethical line so they can operate?

Perhaps it the following kind of logic that got the GOP such a giant kick in the ass on Tuesday:

Q Tony, on the Secretary Rumsfeld resignation, can you talk about the conversation the President had on November 1st, with various reporters. He told one of them, he was asked, "So you're expecting Rumsfeld -- Secretary Rumsfeld to stay on for the rest of your time here?" President Bush replied, "Yes, I am." Was that an honest statement?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way: At that point, although there had been conversations about how to proceed at the Pentagon, there had been no job offer to Bob Gates, there was no clear sense that there would be a resignation pending, and therefore, would you expect the President to say, don't know, let me get back to you, trying to think that one through. The fact is, at that point, that reflected his thinking. But on the other hand, there were conversations going on.

You need to understand that at a time of war, and also on the political -- I mean, it was a very good question for which there was not a simple and easy answer. And let me just continue, because the President made the determination that he simply was not going to let anybody get the impression that he was going to swap a decision for votes. And therefore, at that point, he had not talked with Bob Gates, he had not had a letter of resignation from Don Rumsfeld, had absolutely no confirmation about what was going to happen in the future. That is the answer he gave.

And in so doing, what he did is he made it impossible for people to try to turn that into a political football, and also the President simply is not going to allow his operation, his decisions as Commander-in-Chief, to be used in a political manner because it sends the wrong message, primarily to soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marine, National Guards, and Reserves, because they need to know that the Commander-in-Chief is doing his job, not on the basis of polls, but on the basis of what is best in terms of national security.

Q Yesterday he cited political concerns. He didn't want to inject that -- I understand all --

MR. SNOW: That's what I just said.

Q But you mentioned the troops on the ground. I don't think he mentioned the troops in the answer.

MR. SNOW: Well, he has mentioned it. And at least -- let me put it this way, Greg, because the conversations he's had with us is, it's an important signal to Capitol Hill, to the government of Iraq, to our military forces, and also to the terrorists, that you can't jerk the President around on the basis of politics, period.

Q Cut and dried answer -- I mean cut and dried question, Was it an honest statement?

MR. SNOW: It was an honest statement.

Those of us who have been following the W, Rove and Co realize that truthfulness is not W's forte and are not surprised by this answer.


4. Should we demand more from a sitting president?

Here's how W reconciled his lying to the American people in his statment yesterday:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last week you told us that Secretary Rumsfeld will be staying on. Why is the timing right now for this, and how much does it have to do with the election results?

THE PRESIDENT: Right. No, you and Hunt and Keil came in the Oval Office, and Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? And my answer was, they're going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.

The truth of the matter is, as well -- I mean, that's one reason I gave the answer, but the other reason why is I hadn't had a chance to visit with Bob Gates yet, and I hadn't had my final conversation with Don Rumsfeld yet at that point.

I had been talking with Don Rumsfeld over a period of time about fresh perspective. He likes to call it fresh eyes. He, himself, understands that Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough. And he and I are constantly assessing. And I'm assessing, as well, all the time, by myself, about, do we have the right people in the right place, or do we -- got the right strategy? As you know, we're constantly changing tactics. And that requires constant assessment.

And so he and I both agreed in our meeting yesterday that it was appropriate that I accept his resignation. And so the decision was made -- actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know. But I thought we were going to be fine in the election. My point to you is, is that, win or lose, Bob Gates was going to become the nominee.

Rummy Humpty Dumpty

Looks like Rummy got pushed off the wall quicker than I thought he would.

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Let the Scapegoating begin!

...And What Is The First Thing The President Posts On His Web Location?

In the odd event you cared to take a look at the first official order of business conducted on the Whitehouse web location today.

On the odd idea that perhaps the president would make some kind of step toward advancing the mandate from the American people...

What's the first order of business for a President that got his party shot over the elections should post on the web location?

Yes, you guessed it...

President Bush Announces 2006 National Medal of Arts and National Humanities Medal Recipients

Ah, that makes sense. Sounds like a solid non-political thing to do to deflect attention from his sound spanking at the polls yesterday. That will do the trick eh?

As Goes Iraq, So Too Shall Rummy

I've been saying this for a long while, but the W, Rove and Co is going to need a high level scapegoat for all things wrong with Iraq and Rummy is going to be it. It's just a matter of time before they cut their losses there. Any one taking bets as to how much longer Rummy is allowed to serve with the "full confidence of the president?"

Whatever this election accomplished, it did nothing to end the rancor and distrust that define current American politics. Yet, as the campaign went on (and on) there was one issue on which people from both parties appeared to be finding common ground: Donald Rumsfeld has to go.

San Francisco Values

Judging by the preliminary results of Tuesday's election, it looks like a little bit of the good, old fashioned, San Francisco values are going to be seeping in between a serious crack in the veneer that is the GOP moral ethic.

P.S. Looks like the W, Rove and Co has to scratch another "hypothetical" off the list of hypotheticals they aren't willing to discuss and start thinking seriously about what to do next.

Q Tony, if the Democrats do take the House control --

MR. SNOW: We don't answer "if control" questions.

Q There would be a phone call from the President, presumably, is that right?

MR. SNOW: The President makes phone calls on election night. I'm just not going to get into hypotheticals, but --

Q Can you quantify how many calls, to how many candidates?

MR. SNOW: No. I think it's -- I think this is something that you sort of play by ear. There is no "to do list" on calls. I'm sure the President is going to talk to a lot of people for whom and with whom he's campaigned. He'll be talking with House leaders. But, no, I don't have any real sense.

Q Will there be any opportunity to see him watching results tonight?

MR. SNOW: I doubt it. No plans for that, no.

Q -- from Karl at all, have they talked anything, numbers wise, what they're hearing, latest news?

MR. SNOW: Karl has sort of briefed him, but, look, you've got -- at this point, it's all up to voters. And the President, I'm sure -- well, I know I'm going to be doing some radio interviews; I know Ken Mehlman is doing some interviews. So there's going to be an effort to keep Republican voters motivated and excited about Election Day.

And would you say the voters have spoken?

Do You Think The Veep And The Prez Talk Much?

Based on today's interview of the Big Dick Cheney by ABC news, you would think that the Veep doesn't talk much to the President's crack team of Presidential Propaganda Catapult fodder makers.

Q Paul Harvey this week said that Iraq had gone sour. And he made the observation of what he calls a "mishandled war in Iraq" has gone on almost as long as World War II right now. Do you think if it hadn't been mishandled, if there hadn't been mistakes, more American troops would be home right now?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, George, I think the analogy to World War II is just not a valid analogy.

Let's have a nice slice of the President making just such an analogy, for fun. There are many, many examples of this. This is just one example where we see the rhetorical slap of hypocrisy across the face of the W, Rove and Co. Trouble is the American public may not put two and two together, and the Veep is, of course, banking on that:

You know, people ask me all the time -- people ask me all the time, you know -- they say, what do you mean, when democracy takes hold? Do you think -- really think people in the Middle East want to be free? And the answer is, absolutely. We believe in the United States and the universality of freedom. I personally believe there's an Almighty, and I think a great gift from that Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul to be free. (Applause.) I'm not talking about just American Methodists. I believe in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. And I know that when you look at history, liberty has got the capacity to defeat resentment and ideologies of hate.

You know, one of the stories I like to share with people is my experience with the Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi. You might remember, I had an interesting -- interesting trip. (Laughter.) He and I went down to Elvis' place. (Laughter.) Went down there for a couple of reasons: One, I had never been to Elvis' place, and I'd like to go, you know. I thought it would be kind of fun. (Laughter.) More importantly, he wanted to go. (Laughter.) He loves Elvis. (Laughter.) He can sing all the songs, you know. (Laughter.) Collects the memorabilia.

But I also wanted to send a signal to the American people about what's possible when liberty takes hold. A fellow came through the line recently here, and he said, "My grandfather served on the USS San Jacinto with your dad." They were in the Pacific Ocean, young guys who had been called into action because the Japanese had attacked us, and we were in a brutal war with Japan -- a really tough war.

The hatred for -- of America for Japan was intense, and so intense you can imagine how people would react if somebody had stood up and said, I predict some day an American President and the Japanese Prime Minister would be going to, you know, a singer's house. (Laughter.) They would have run him out of town, probably, you know. (Laughter.)

But that's, in fact, what happened. And when we were on the airplane going down from Washington to Memphis, we were talking about keeping the peace. The Prime Minister of a country with which we were at war, a brutal war -- young kids went off and never came home; unbelievable devastation and destruction in that war, a war ended by massive bombing -- the Prime Minister of that country and the President of the United States were talking about peace. We were talking about North Korea, what we could do together to keep the peace. We were talking about the need to help this young democracy in the heart of the Middle East succeed so it could defeat an ideology of hatred. We were talking about how democracy has got the capacity to defeat the conditions that create resentment and hopelessness that cause young men to decide to become suicide bombers.

It's an amazing lesson of history, isn't it? It strikes me as so ironic, in a way, that my dad fought the Japanese, and his son sits down with the Prime Minister of the same country to keep the peace. What happened was Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy. Liberty has got the unbelievable capacity to convert enemies into allies, to change nations from hopelessness to hope. Some day an American President will be sitting down talking to duly-elected leaders of the Middle East about how to keep the peace, and a generation of American children will be better off for it. (Applause.)

When Republicans Think Iraq Is Going Poorly, What's A Vice President To Do?

In the lead up to the W, Rove and Co full court press to try and not lose their Congressional "majority," they will say anything to be sure that people think electing Democrats is the wrong way to go. What's the Big Dick Cheney to do when GOP heavy weights suggest his administration is incompetent?

Ah, I know. We see that when even stalwart supporters of the administration are turning on them, the Big Dick Cheney will try to pin the problem on the Dems.

Have a look at this interview exchange posted today at the Whitehouse web location. Ask yourselves two questions when you read through this: 1) Does the Veep answer the questions adequately? 2) Why do Republicans who used to support the war in Iraq no longer support it?

Q But you've had a lot of Republican defections on Iraq, as well. Just today, just a few minutes ago, Vanity Fair magazine reported that Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, two of the strongest early supporters of the war, say that now they would not have supported the invasion if they knew how incompetent the administration would be in handling it.

Listen to Ken Adelman. He called your administration "among the most incompetent administrations in the post-war era. Individually, each team member has serious flaws. Together they were deadly dysfunctional."

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I haven't seen the piece. I'm not going to comment on it, George.

Q But Richard Perle and Ken Adelman were two of the strongest supporters in the administration.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I think there's no question but what it's a tough war, but it's also the right thing to do. And it's very important we complete the mission. I just fundamentally disagree.

Q You also have a lot of Republican candidates for Senate out there right now; six, by my count, who are calling either for a change of course in the war, or a change of leadership.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: George, the primary opposition to the war is coming from the Democratic Party. They haven't offered up a plan, but they've got several different positions: withdraw, withdraw at some future date, cut off funding -- there's been legislation introduced in the House now by House Democrats to do that.

The fact of the matter is, this is the right thing for us to be doing. We need to succeed here. It has a direct bearing on how we do around the world in the global war on terror. If, in fact, Karzai in Afghanistan, and Musharraf in Pakistan, who've been great allies in the war on terror where we've had major success, were to see us suddenly decide we're going to depart from Iraq and decide that it's gotten too tough, it would seriously undermine our efforts in all those other places.

So to suggest that somehow there's a solution here to walk away from Iraq and still aggressively pursue the global war on terror, is just wrong. It's just not --

Q Yet you're seeing that come from your own candidates right now.

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: George, it's tough. This is hard to do, no question about it. But it's the right thing to do, and that's why the President is out there, as aggressively as he is, and so am I. We don't make decisions based on the polls. We don't make decisions based on pundits on television or whether or not it's popular. It's the right thing to do and that's why we're doing it.

Q So will the vote on Tuesday have any affect on the President's Iraq policy?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think it will have some effect, perhaps, in the Congress, but the President has made clear what his objective is, it's victory in Iraq. And full speed ahead on that basis, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Q So even those Republican candidates calling for a change of course are not going to get that on Wednesday?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: No, you can't make policy -- national security policy on the basis of that. These are people running for Congress, they're entitled to their own views, on both sides of the aisle. But I think there's no question but what when we get into the global war on terror, when we get into the measures that are needed to go on offense and take the fight to the enemy, if you will, that the support that we've had and continue to have is primarily on the Republican side, and I think the Democrats have come up weak on it.

Does The Bible Have Any Guidance For This Election?

I had a small business venture in Anaheim over night Friday. I love hotels because it’s the only time I have where it’s quiet (when not traveling with the whole family) where I can read the Bible – provided faithfully by local Gideons.

Sure enough, this hotel was no exception. After slipping between the sheets, I reached around into the end table and found the usual small book tucked in the otherwise barren drawer: Old and New Testaments, of course. I found a few verses that apply to the political climate in America today.

Have a look and see what you think:

Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed. Isaiah 10:1.

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18.

Therefore you are inexcusable O man, who ever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. Romans 2:1.

Don't You Wish The W, Rove And Co Followed Their Own Political Slogans

Sure wish they were following this slogan before going into Iraq:

MR. SNOW: A number of things. I mean, observation number one is everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

And The "Boooo" Rings Hollow

If you pay any attention to the W, Rove and Co Presidential Propaganda Catapult, you will notice a trend. W speaks only to vetted audiences. He chants the usual rhetorical spew, focusing on reducing complex geopolitical and domestic social issues into two dualistic options.

One of those options usually gets the cheer - that's what they want you to believe to be the good they have done. The other option gets the boo - that's the one they want you to think the Democrats support.

Let's have a look at today's rhetorical refuse spewed by the W, Rove and Co's Cheerleader-in-Chief:

Example 1:

Let me start with taxes. (Laughter.) We have a philosophy: We believe you can spend your money far better than the federal government can. (Applause.) Democrats want to raise your taxes because they believe they can spend your money better than you can.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We believe that when you have more money to save, spend, or invest, the whole economy benefits. (Applause.)

But what about astronomical debt that we are hocking our stars and strips to pay for the war in Iraq? Doesn't that translate to substantially higher taxes at exponentially greater cost to future generations?

Let's have a look at example 2:

I decided to institute another program. If al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate is making a phone call into the United States from outside the United States, it seems like it makes sense to know why. (Applause.) They hadn't voted on this bill in the Senate, but they did in the House, and by far, the overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against the program.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We have got to understand what the enemy is thinking in order to be able to protect you. And that's why I authorized the program through the Central Intelligence Agency that would allow us to detain and question people we picked up off the battlefield.

I don't think it is fair to characterize the Dems as voting down a legit tactic to fighting terrorists. Might we not bill it as the Dems protecting our civil liberties and constitutional right to not be illegally searched and surveilled? I think so.

Let's look at example 3:

Seventy percent of the Senate Democrats voted against that bill.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: We're at war. It's a different kind of war, but is, in fact, a war. That war came home on September the 11th, 2001.

Okay, if it's a different kind of war, why are we fighting it quite traditionally in Iraq? And, why is he continuing to flog the Nine Eleven Monkey?

Let's look at example 4:

See, Osama bin Laden calls the fight we're in in Iraq the third world war. He says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. Now there's a difference of opinion. I want you to listen to the words of a senior Democrat in Washington who -- she said this: "The President says that fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here." Yes, that's precisely what I said, and I strongly believe it's right. (Applause.) She went on to say -- hold on for a minute -- she went on to say, "The opposite is true; because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we will have to fight them here."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's the kind of mentality that you're voting on on November the 7th. You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, this has to be complete and utter bullshit if I have ever seen it. For a man who suggest that he should not be about predicting the future, there is no way for him to know the outcome of a war he started should the Dems get control of congress. And, might I add, even if the Dems win control of congress, he is still leading the War as commander in chief. Does this mean that he doubts his own abilities to lead? Maybe.

Moreover, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the war in Iraq is boosting recruitment for the terrorist organizations that they claim to be extinguishing. In fact, they can't prove this point wrong - that the war in Iraq has done more to agitate and grow terrorists rather than reduce them.

Let's look at example 5:

Here we are in the middle of a national campaign that will determine our future, and one of Jim Talent's Democrat colleagues put it this way -- she said, "We haven't coalesced around a single plan. But we're in general agreement on the basic principles." She's right. The principle they agree on is, get out before the job is done.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm not saying these people are unpatriotic. I'm just saying they're wrong. (Applause.)

I don't think it is fair to say that we will leave Iraq before the job is done. We are most certainly going to be stuck there for the next two years even if the Dems win the majority in Congress. Again, the implication is that W will abdicate all authority if the GOP loses on the 7th. I certainly don't think that he has demonstrated over time that his strategy is a winning one. Forget that the Dems don't have one for now, let's ask him how soon he thinks we will be able to declare victory? Oh, no wait, he's already done so...prematurely.


Any one else tired of having their policy concerns digested and regurgitated in that manner? Time to vote the bastards out I say.

"What's The President's Relvance Right Now?" Subtitle: Something Wicked This Way Comes: Things Get Fishy Aboard Air Force One

Given that the Presidential Propaganda Catapult is jetting about America slinging rocks and stones at wide swaths of Democrats in only republican red-style states in front of vetted audiences, this one reporter has a very good question:

Q What's the President's relevance right now? He's going to Republican states, all 10 states that he carried. So he's got a pretty narrow mission here, doesn't he, in the final days?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we're focusing his energy on places where he can best turn out the vote for Republican candidates. These are all races that are close. These are all races that are likely going to come down to turnout. And so that's the nature of all these visits.

Any guesses as to who the "SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL" is? Uncle Karl is my bet.

I suppose they don't want you to know what wicked people ride with the president aboard Air Force One. Usually the Whitehouse lists who the official administration speaker is in almost every press gaggle and briefing. I say usually because I have only been following these things for a couple of years and I have never seen anyone referred to as SENIOR ADMININITRATION OFFICIAL, but it doesn't mean that they have never done this public cloaking of an official spokesmodel before.

No doubt, Uncle Karl want's to keep his finger prints off every thing that the W, Rove and Co gets itself into. But the fact that they have to hide who this person is is really disconcerting to me; troublesome even.

What are the reasons for it? Are they crossing some kind of ethical line that is bleeding into some kind of amoral and unethical situation that they don't want some one officially and overtly associated with official statements from the Whitehouse aboard Air Force One? If you ask me, there is something very fishy going on aboard Air Force One.

In the prior press gaggle from today, we see why I think with high probability that it was Uncle Karl speaking anonymously:

Q Tony, is there a chance Karl Rove could come back and talk to us about those races, maybe?

MR. FRATTO: I could check with Karl.

Why do you suppose they cloaked the identity of their "SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL?" Are they so embarrassed by Karl Rove that they can't let him pony up to his own statements?

Bush Must Think The Average American Voter Is Stupid

Today, GWB is in Montana flogging his agenda and suggesting Democrats are bad for America. I don't know about you, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of uniting going on by the supposed and self proclaimed "uniter, not a divider."

The W, Rove and Co must really think that the average American Voter is downright stupid. Otherwise, why would they feel the need to break down the very complex geopolitical climate and substantially challenging issues that he and his party have created (e.g. Iraq) in to two very straight forward concerns that are followed up by the usual dualistic rhetorical prop where one side is always wrong and their’s is the only “right” way?

Is any one else offended by how stupid they must think we are?

There's a lot of big issues facing the voters around the country. The two biggest issues are these: Which party is going to keep your taxes low and keep this economy growing; and which party is going to take the necessary steps to protect you in this war on terror. (Applause.)

First, let me talk about taxes. See, we have a philosophy -- Conrad and Denny and I have a philosophy -- we believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does. (Applause.) That stands in stark contrast to the Democrats, who want to take more of your own money because they think they can spend it better than you can spend it.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

Gobbling up the rhetoric is a specialty of the GOP faithful - like eating chips and dip at a Superbowl party - They can't stop themselves. After gorging yourself, your stomach hurts for days and you are not healthier for having consumed such tripe.

By the way, when the President says "we believe that you know how to spend your money far better than the federal government does," does he include himslef in that derogatory category? If he doesn't, perhaps we should hold him to his beliefs. I can think of about 1000 better ways to have spent the near trillion dollars that he has borrowed to pay for his Iraq conflagration.

Well, here's another fun dose of the tripe the GOP faithful are eating for lunch today. Enjoy:

THE PRESIDENT: On all these vital measures -- measures necessary to fight and win the war on terror -- the Democrats in Washington have followed a simple philosophy: Just say no. When it comes to listening on to the terrorist -- listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

THE PRESIDENT: When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, what was the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

THE PRESIDENT: When it comes time to questioning the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no.

THE PRESIDENT: So, when the Democrats ask for your vote on November the 7th, what's your answer?

AUDIENCE: No! (Applause.)

W may not make a good president, but he appears to be a good cheerleader.

When Is Financial Aid Not Financial Aid?

Ronald Reagan did us a great disservice, round about 1984, by shrinking the amount of true financial aid and funneling needy students into the wild and woolly world of the loan industry. Sure, student loans tend to be at lower rates and are backed by the government, but it's not really financial aid.

When you suggest that student loans are financial aid, you are really tricking the students to feed the loan servicing industry. As students make decisions about how they pay for college, when they decide to accept a loan they are betting on themselves (usually a safe bet).

But, in doing so amplifying the cost of their education dramatically; not unlike how the W, Rove and Co is paying for their much loved war in Iraq. Sooner or later, the pay back bites back.

As government aid has declined, loans from banks and other private lenders have soared, climbing to 20 percent of all education borrowing last year, up from 12 percent five years earlier.

The result is towering debt. The same bachelor’s degree will cost a student borrower far more than a student who can afford to pay. That’s not a path to greater equality.

Policy: Kill All The Cockroaches, And Other Interesting Comments From Anon

Here's a comment from an anonymous person delivered in a prior post worth elevating to the front page:

Terror is not a problem that can be eliminated, it must lived with. The world will never be safe from cockroaches.

And another from another:

When pigs fly

''[A]s General Casey said last week, there is not a single military engagement that we have not won ...''

An ingenuous quote. Most of the deaths in Iraq are from IEDs, roadside bombs. How many engagements with IEDs have we won?

We never lost a military engagement in Vietnam. Unfortunately for the military, war is only politics by other means. Until the politics change and we start winning hearts and minds if that is even possible at this late date, the war can't be won.

And another:

No attachment to reality

If George Bush labels everyone who opposes our occupation in every country he invades, a 'terrorist,' how is he going to find allies among local nationalists to build or rebuild the country?

And one more for fun:

Payback's a beach

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney.

Every borrower knows that there's no problem in the borrowing, it's the payback. Republicans expect that it isn't they who will have to repay the borrowing.

Which Is Better For Terrorists: GOP or Dem Victory on 7 November? Subtitle: Is The W, Rove And Co. Banking On Winning Elections By Spreading Fear?

There has been a fair amount of hot headed political rhetoric spewed about in the last day or so. Certainly, there's an election on. The President and his propaganda machine are trying to spin this as a vote for Dems is a vote for terrorist victory in Iraq.

That's an enticing line to buy, particularly if you believe that the W, Rove and Co plan for "victory" is working. But really, isn't that approach paramount to using terrorism as a lever for political gain?

It appears to me that the symbiotic relationship that the W, Rove and Co has been developing since Nine Eleven rests on a very parasitic principle. What's good for the terrorists is good for the GOP politically.

I have a more substantial question to pose that can be argued either way, unlike the GOP dualistic rhetorical argument where there is really on one viable option. That is...drum roll please...Call this...

Windspike's Hot Political Question Du Jour

• Which would be better for the terrorists?

1. The GOP retains the majority on 7 November?
2. The Dems unseat enough republicans to tip the majority out of GOP Hands.

• Discuss

Here's the slice from today's Whitehouse press briefing that spurred my thinking on this:

Q In his campaign speech, he's being very clear about kind of linking a vote for the Democrats to the insurgents and how important it is, therefore, to vote for the Republicans. And in a TV interview in the last couple of days, Vice President Cheney was even more blunt about this. Is it the position of the President that, in fact, the Democratic Party is the party of the insurgents and the party of al Qaeda?

MR. SNOW: No, it's the position of the President that the Democratic policies -- he doesn't think for a minute the Democrats are sitting around saying, "go, bin Laden." People understand -- but what he does think is that the policies are simply flat wrong. And if you think through them, you come to the conclusion that the idea, for instance, of withdrawal without any recognition of conditions on the ground, withdrawal without an assurance of victory in Iraq is a recipe for the kind of disaster I outlined before. That's an important distinction to make.

In that sense, yes, it would be good for terrorists because they would have safe haven in Iraq. On the other hand, what he's not saying -- and I'm glad you asked the question -- he's certainly not going to accuse people of running around with "I love bin Laden" t-shirts. It's important to know that people -- you can be patriotic, but you can also be wrong on something very important. And the President hasn't questioned the patriotism of Democrats, and he's certainly not going to accuse them of climbing in bed with bin Laden. But he will be clear that if you follow these policies, or, as I've been saying, really the lack of a policy to its logical conclusion, it could get you in real trouble.

Q Tony, when the President and Vice President talk about how insurgents and volatile forces are watching this election, is there an inference there that they would hope Democrats prevail?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't -- you know, I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that. He's not trying to --

Q Are you guys polling in the Tora Bora Mountains or -- seriously.

MR. SNOW: That's a good line. That's cute. That's why I didn't answer the question. I don't have a clue. I mean, I've said many times I'm not going to know the thoughts of them, which is why I didn't take that extra leap, Dick.

Q But if you assert they're influencing -- influencing to what end?

MR. SNOW: Influencing?

Q The election process. You've said it. The President and the Vice President have said it.

MR. SNOW: Now you're getting into a separate issue here, which is terrorists who have committed certain acts of terror may try to influence elections by, among other things, shaping media coverage, so that we have a concentration not on what American men and women have been achieving in Iraq, but instead, acts of violence that give the appearance of defeat at a time when, again, to repeat what General Casey said, they have not lost a single engagement, and there has been -- at least according to the Prime Minister, considerable progress within Iraq, which is why the war is more popular in Iraq than it is in the United States. So to that -- in terms of a -- but that's as much a discussion of propaganda as a tool in a time of war is anything else. Go ahead.

Q A tool to what end, though? Are you suggesting by discussing this now over a period of days that that influence is intended to unseat Republicans?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm suggesting that that influence is designed to try to weaken American will to finish the job. It's a separate and unrelated item in that sense. But what is -- what I'm also saying is, don't you think Democrats -- and a number of you have written stories about this -- don't you think, on this issue that they consider of such paramount importance, that they ought to be able to get their act together long enough to come up with a plan? If it's that important, you got to figure out what you're going to do?

Q -- the President have a plan?

Q Tony, let me just ask your plan about this idea of -- I believe it was called withdrawal without assurance of victory in Iraq, which I think was the summary of the Democrats' position. And it gets back to this notion of this being a referendum, because isn't what the President putting forward -- is to stay without an assurance of victory in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, it's to stay with a determination of victory.

Q There's no assurance of victory in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, Jim, are you saying that you don't think our troops are going to be able to complete the job?

Q I'm not saying -- it doesn't matter what I'm saying. It only matters what you folks are saying.

MR. SNOW: Okay, here's -- let me put it this way. If you'd asked the same question in World War II, people would have looked at you like you were crazy, because even when times looked toughest, there was a national determination to win. And there is a national determination to win in Iraq. And so the assurance I'm giving you is based on the quality and determination not only of U.S. forces, but also the Iraqis who are fighting with them. And the question is not if, but when.

Q But why isn't it a fair reading of this, if the President is going to throw the idea out that what Democrats are doing is advocating leaving without an assurance of victory, why isn't it a fair reading of the situation to say, on one hand, you have leaving without assurance, and on the other hand, you have staying without an assurance?

MR. SNOW: Because to leave is to create a vacuum and there is really not much doubt of what the result is going to be. To stay, with victory as your determination, ensures that you're going to have the ability over time to do what you want to achieve. It seems to me that you're trying to draw -- let me get to the back rows a little bit first, and then we'll get back up here.

Should The President Apologize?

I rarely disagree with the Helen Thomas' approach to asking questions of Tony the Snow job. But today, I think she's beating around the bush a little too much.

In my book, you shouldn't ask a question where you already know the answer. Of course, the president is not going to issue an apology for saying that Dems are for the terrorists yesterday. It's not in his nature to apologize for anything. The point is well taken, even so.

The question I would ask follows down a bit further in Helen's follow up. What's the W, Rove and Co plan for winning and does Tony provide an adequate answer?

You be the judge:

Q Does the President owe the Democrats an apology for saying that the terrorists -- that they will appease the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: No. Let's take -- you know what's interesting, Helen, and I've said this before --

Q How bellicose was he?

MR. SNOW: I don't think it's bellicose. Look, let's listen to what the Democrats -- or let's think about what Democrats are doing in this election campaign. When it comes to winning the war on terror, what is their plan? They've not said. They have talked about withdrawal --

Q -- 101 in Iraq --

MR. SNOW: -- they've talked about a whole series of things, in terms of complaining -- looking back over their shoulders and complaining about past decisions. But when it comes to the key issue, how do you achieve victory -- they say they want to achieve it, but they won't tell you how. They will tell you what they oppose what the President is doing. They oppose the Patriot Act; they have opposed the Terrorist Surveillance Program; they oppose the program by which we detain, question and bring to justice the worst of the terrorists. So they have opposed all of those things, so we know what they oppose, but we don't know what they're going to do.

Q How does the President propose to win? How does the President -- 101 in October dying --

MR. SNOW: The President understands that it is difficult. This is a man who signs each and every condolence note. He is absolutely aware of the human cost. And he grieves for every family and every person that we've lost. But on the other hand, he also knows two things. First, as General Casey said last week, there is not a single military engagement that we have not won, and we don't give our soldiers credit for that.

Secondly, he also understands that if we were to walk away short of victory it would give terrorists the opportunity to turn Iraq into a stronghold in which they would have access to the world's second largest reserves of petroleum; that they would be able to use oil as a political weapon against the United States, Europe, Asia, could pit the industrialized nations against one another; they could also work in concert with Iran and Syria, which have been active supporters of terror; they no doubt would try to go after Israel, after the Arabian peninsula, perhaps after Egypt.

In other words, the consequences of walking out and leaving a failed state are absolutely catastrophic, and the President understands that. But he also understands the promise of a democratic Iraq. And if you take a look at what's happened -- the Prime Minister, being assertive about what he wants to achieve -- and there has been progress, economically and politically, throughout much of Iraq, not ignoring the difficulties especially around Baghdad and the fierce fighting -- you take a look at that, the promise is if you have a democracy, and when you have a democracy that stands up in Iraq, that sends a powerful message.

Helen, you and I have been students of the region long enough to know that everybody is watching -- everybody is watching. And the way they see it in the region is either terrorists win or democracy wins. And the President is absolutely determined that democracy wins.

As to the fact that Tony suggest W grieves, I call that out as deeply misleading the public here. I've not detected one iota of grief for the pain W's decisions have caused the people of America or the people of the globe. But I digress.

Incidentally, The "if we walk away," gambit is not a substitute for an actual plan for winning that works. So what's the plan Tony? Thus far, is the W, Rove and Co plan working? The jury is out and the verdict will be returned on 7 November.

"We Will Win This Election Because..."

The W, Rove and Co Presidential Propaganda Catapult (PPC) is fully loaded and on full tilt spin mode. They've pulled out all the stops in a desperate attempt to retain the majority in congress.

No doubt, W goes to Crawford TX to cast his vote and cool his heals at his hobby ranch on 7 Nov. He deserves another vacation don't you think?

Let's have a look at what they've loaded the PPC with at the most recent PR junket to Georgia.

We will win this election because Republicans understand the values and priorities of the American people. We will win this election because our priorities and our values do not shift with the latest political opinion poll or focus group. (Applause.) We will win this election because we got a good record to run on.

Really, any one disagree?

When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no!

THE PRESIDENT: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no!

THE PRESIDENT: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no! (Applause.)

But, W, it's not about taping the phones of terrorists, it's about violating the Constitution and conducting warrant-less wire taps on people that are not involved. Moreover, what ever happened to innocent until proven otherwise? So, if you are for violating the constitutional rights of most American's you should vote for the GOP incumbents.

He's so much in denial that he is even confused by his own rhetorical spin:

I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said, the President says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said, because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there [sic].

What?

You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists.

Prove it. By the way, are there not more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we got there? So, just by simple math, the president is proven wrong.

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.

That sure is a wild prediction from a man who suggests that he is not about speaking in hypotheticals, isn't it?

That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq. (Applause.)

But these are not equivalent juxtaposed ideas. Even so, the smear rhetoric is designed robustly to keep the faithful faithful, and confuse the rest of the public.

Trouble is they are good at it and there are still some folks who can't see beyond the smoke and mirrors. They lap it up like chips and dip during the Superbowl.

The ROI In Iraq Equals...

The ROI In Iraq = Tears, many, many tears.

The Iraq ROI: Is It Worth The Outlay?

In business, companies measure the worth of a particular investment by examining the return on investment (ROI). I have a few questions, in light of today's tragic tally of 1010American's KIA in Iraq during the month of October (and October is not over yet).

1. Is the ROI worth the outlay?


2. If so, what is that return?


3. And, why is it worth it?


4. If you had it to do it all over again, would you make the same investment?
   

I've been arguing for a great long while that the Iraq conflagration is indeed not and never has been worth the outlay (counted in taxpayer dollars exhausted, bodies KIA, and wounded, etc...). I need some help understanding how any one can justify the great expense. Can some one from the other side explain why the war in Iraq is worth the outlay?

The Big Fish Flop Harder After They Flip

A friend forwarded some interesting links. How's this for a giant flip-flop by our Veep, the Big Dick Cheney as he justified not going all the way to Bahgdad in the first Bush War:

Cheney said in '92:

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

"And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

How -- given what he said then -- does Cheney get off challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that we are bogged down and shedding blood today?

And so, what makes Iraq 2006 so different from Iraq 1992?

Mr. Bush's Secret Tax On The American People

In case you didn't already know that money borrowed to pay for the Iraq war translates to exponentially larger tax burdens for future generations, here's another hidden tax that W doesn't extoll on his many PR junkets:

One of President Bush’s be-very-afraid lines this campaign season is that Democrats, if elected, will raise taxes. What he doesn’t say is that if you are one of tens of millions of Americans who make between $75,000 and $500,000 a year, your taxes are already scheduled to rise starting next year — because of laws that Mr. Bush championed and other actions he failed to take.

The higher taxes stem from the alternative minimum tax, a levy that is supposed to snare multimillionaires who would otherwise get away with using excessive tax shelters to wipe out their tax bills. But these days, the alternative tax is snaring many upper-middle-income filers.

Mr. Bush set the trap in 2001 — and in 2003, 2004 and 2006. In each of those years, he flogged for new tax cuts without requiring corresponding long-term changes in the existing rules for the alternative tax. It was well known that failure to update the alternative tax would create perverse interactions with the new tax cuts, causing filers’ tax bills to drop because of the cuts, only to shoot back up again from the alternative levy.

Mr. Bush said he would vanquish the problem through tax reform. Didn’t happen. Congress never wrestled with lasting solutions. The truth is, the president and lawmakers are paralyzed. To fix the alternative tax while keeping the Bush tax cuts on the books would result in the loss of some $800 billion in revenue over 10 years, blowing a hole in the federal budget and exposing how utterly unaffordable the tax cuts of the last five years really are.

The taxpayers wrongly afflicted by the alternative tax are not tax dodgers. For the most part, they are couples with children who have broken into the ranks of six-figure earners, and who live in high-tax states like New York and California. They are being penalized, in effect, for claiming everyday deductions — like write-offs for dependents and property taxes — which, under the alternative tax rules, are viewed as excessive shelters.

Meanwhile, multimillionaires are not being snared at nearly the same rate as other filers. In part, that’s because much of the income of the superrich comes from investments. The tax breaks for investments — the grail of the administration’s tax-cutting crusade — are not counted as shelters under the alternative tax the way, say, children are.

For the past few years, Congress has papered over the mess by passing temporary relief measures to shield most — though not all — upper-middle-income taxpayers from having to pay the alternative tax. The latest stopgap expires at the end of this year, leaving taxpayers exposed at ever lower income levels. Congress could pass another temporary stay, and it will probably do so.

But stopgaps do little to protect the families already being unfairly clobbered by the alternative tax. And they make the nation’s underlying budget problems worse. Like the Bush tax cuts themselves, they result in less tax revenue than is needed, requiring the government to borrow heavily. The mounting debt of the Bush years — all of which must be paid back with interest — makes tax increases or budget cuts, or both, inevitable.

The president wants to push off the day of reckoning until he leaves the White House, while whipping up voter fear of future tax increases. But the reality is that he and his supporters have laid the groundwork for higher taxes and hamstrung government, no matter who is in office in the months and years to come.

Does this sound like fiscal conservatism that the GOP used to be known for?

"Any Day Is A Great Day To Raise Taxes" And The Mythology Spread By Karl Rove

Uncle Karl's been very busy over the last few days. If you are brave enough, you can listen to his speech delivered in support of Tom Reynolds (caught in the Foley scandal, btw) the other day. The speech is littered with the usual references to Nine Eleven, WW II, and all sorts of heroic behavior they suggest they've perpetrated.

In it, he's on full spin mode and even suggests we buy a book of the written by Osama Bin Laden (Message to the World). Now if you ask me, any one at that level of the government that advocates that we read the messages of OBL is delivering the devil to our doorstep. Who is serving whom?

You have to ask how much of the speech is myth and pure fabrication. For people who are openly abject to speaking about hypothetical situations, Rove and his pals sure are prone to soothsaying and prophesizing about the future should the Dems win in November. Garry Trudeau has a fantastic comic strip this Sunday that identifies their strategy quite plainly.

Watch for Rove's hand in the spin and attempt to control the debate by dishing the usual dualistic rhetoric where one side is not viable and selling it as the Dems desires. It's plain, it's real, and it's divisive. And that's the point:

This week, Rove and his staff will turn to their endgame.

They will oversee a mobilization of political employees from Cabinet agencies, Capitol Hill and lobbying firms — many of them skilled campaign veterans — to more than a dozen battleground states. Many will act as "marshals," supervising the "72-hour plan" developed by Rove in 2001 with Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director who now heads the Republican National Committee

By the way, just one small question Uncle Karl, if I may: What's the difference between taxing us today and growing our debt to pay for the Iraq war? The latter are just taxes deferred. The former if more fiscally responsible and your way doesn't seem remotely conservative whatsoever.

Quick: What's the Scariest Halloween Costume You Can Think Of?

Dick Cheny with a rifle in a blaze orange vest?

GWB with his finger on the button?

OBL in the cockpit of a 777?

Your turn...

I Love A Vice President Who Doesn't Say Anything, Don't You?

Since when does saying it's a "no brainer" not saying anything?

Q Well, listen, we appreciate you taking a couple of minutes. I guess, just as an initial matter we'd like to ask you to clarify those comments that have now been in the news today concerning --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I was being interviewed by a talk show host. I don't talk about techniques and I wouldn't. I have said that the interrogation program for a select number of detainees is very important. It has been I think one of the most valuable intelligence programs we have. And I believe it has allowed us to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. I did not talk about specific techniques involved --

Q So it was not about water boarding, even though he asked you about dunking in the water?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything about water boarding. Those were all his comments. He didn't even use that phrase.

Q He said dunking in the water.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything, he did.

In behavioral circles, people who respond to questions are saying something. Now what exactly he meant is up for debate because he is clearly not going to tell us what he meant.

Fitzmas May Come In Fits And Starts, But This Rainmaker Is About To Turn On The Faucets

If you have been starving for news about the further prosocution of the leakers (that W said would not be tollerated in his administration), here's a quick update:

With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president's former chief of staff.

If I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not afraid of the special counsel before, the former Cheney aide, who will face Fitzgerald in a trial beginning Jan. 11, had ample reason to start quaking after yesterday's Ginsu-like legal performance.

It's A "No Brainer:" They Must Have Installed A New Prisoners Only Pool At Gitmo.

So, dunking your enemies in water is a "no brainer," eh Mr. Big Dick Cheney? Looks like the president is going to avoid backing you up on that:

Q Sir, do you agree with the Vice President that a dunk in the water is a "no brainer" when it comes to interrogating a terror suspect?

PRESIDENT BUSH: This country doesn't torture, we're not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they've got information that will be helpful to protect the country.

This leads me to another good question: Is dunking a prisoner in water torture?
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't leverage information out of folks, particularly those who are suspected of plotting terrorism or know where OBL lives. But, I just want to understand two things.

1. If W says we are not going to torture but do, what does that say about this country's leadership?


2. Where are the brains? If dunking some one in water is not a form of torture, I don't know what is. Just ask any skinny kid who has been hazed by the school bully and dunked in a toilet as to whether or not he feels like he is being tortured.

Have a look at how Tony the Snow job tries to spin his way out of this one. Really, you can't make this shit up. It's very entertaining.

When you read through this slice, ask yourself the following: What was the Big Dick Cheney refering to when he said a dunk in the water is a "no brainer?" Forget about the political spin job that is sponsored by your taxpayer dollors and be truthful. What did the Veep mean?

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what he said. He was asked the question, "You dunk somebody's head in the water to save a life, is it a no-brainer?" And also, if you read the rest of the answer, he also -- the Vice President, who earlier had also been asked about torture, he said, "We don't torture."

Let me give you the no-brainers here. No-brainer number one is, we don't torture. No-brainer number two: We don't break the law, our own or international law. No-brainer number three: The Vice President doesn't give away questioning techniques. And number four, the administration does believe in legal questioning techniques of known killers whose questioning can, in fact, be used to save American lives. The Vice President says he was talking in general terms about a questioning program that is legal to save American lives, and he was not referring to water boarding.

Q Then how can you say that he's not referring to water boarding, when it was very clear, when you look at the whole context, not only that specific question --

MR. SNOW: Does the word --

Q -- but the one before?

MR. SNOW: Did the word "water boarding" appear?

Q It came up in the context of talking about interrogation techniques and the entire debate that has been conducted in this country.

MR. SNOW: I understand that. I'll tell you what the Vice President said. You can push all you want, wasn't referring to water boarding and would not talk about techniques.

Q Let's back it up here for a second, because what we're saying is -- and I've got the transcript -- "Would you agree a dunk in water is a 'no-brainer' that can save lives?" Vice President: "It's a 'no-brainer' for me." Tony --

MR. SNOW: Read the rest of the answer.

Q What could "dunk in the water" refer to if not water boarding?

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you -- I'm telling you the Vice President's position. I will let you draw your own conclusions, because you clearly have. He says he wasn't talking --

Q I haven't drawn any conclusions. I'm asking for an explanation about what "dunk in the water" could mean.

MR. SNOW: How about a dunk in the water?

Q So, wait a minute, so "dunk in the water" means what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo, and they go swimming?

MR. SNOW: Are you doing stand up? (Laughter.)

Q I'm asking -- well, let's start with something basic. Dunk in the water refers to what? If it doesn't refer to water boarding, tell me what it could possibly refer to?

MR. SNOW: No, because the transcript is there. You read it, you interpret it. I'm telling you what the Vice President says. He says he wasn't referring --

Q What other way is there to interpret this?

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is the Vice President is wrong in reporting what he says. I'm sorry. I'm telling you what the Vice President says. I can't go any further, and I'm not going to engage in what-could-he-mean because he said what he meant. He said -- he said he wasn't talking about water boarding.

And furthermore, what you didn't read was the rest of the answer, which I asked you to do --

Q Which says what?

MR. SNOW: Where he talks about -- we don't torture, we obey the laws, and that sort of thing. And it also came up regularly within the context of that conversation. So I know it's inviting to say, "The Vice President confirms water boarding. He's talking about water boarding." Just -- it's not there.

Q One follow on this, because what you said in the morning was, "You think Dick Cheney is going to slip up on something like this?" Is it possible that he's not slipping up at all --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q -- but that he's winking to the base and saying --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q -- "of course we water board, and of course we'll do anything we need to to get the information because he knows that what they do --

MR. SNOW: I think you just won the cynical question of the year award. No, I don't.

Q How is that cynical?

Q No, no, no. There are more.

Q I'm a rookie. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Jim, you can bang away as much as you want. I'm telling you what the Vice President's -- I talked to Lea Anne about it. She says no, he wasn't referring to water boarding; he was referring to using a program of questioning -- not talking about water boarding.

Let me put it this way. You got Dick Cheney, who had been head of an intelligence committee. He's been the Secretary of Defense. He's been the Vice President. He's not a guy who slips up, and he's also not a guy who does winks and nods about things that involve matters that you don't talk about for political reasons. Sorry.

Q Why did the Vice President then, when the inference was clearly there from the questioner, who more than once referred to a dunk in the water --

MR. SNOW: I believe that his office is --

Q Let me finish. He, in the questioning, talked about how his radio listeners believe that this is a useful tool. "If it takes dunking someone in order to save lives, isn't it a silly debate to even be questioning that?" The Vice President says, "I do agree," later says, "That's been a very important tool that we've been able to secure the nation" -- referring to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

If the Vice President is so careful, why did he allow himself to answer a question in which "dunking in the water" was a part of that question?

MR. SNOW: The answer -- look, he was answering a question. And also as you know, he went on to talk about torture. Look, I've said what I'm going to say on it. I can't -- I really -- what you're asking me to do is to deconstruct something. I've asked what he meant. I've told you what he said he meant. I can't go any further than that, so you can ask all the whys and wherefores. But I want you to think -- let's go back to the "no brainer" part here.

The Vice President is not somebody who's going to reveal techniques. He's been in this business for a very long time.

Q He was asked about a technique, and he responded to a technique, and said that he agreed --

MR. SNOW: No, he was not asked -- he was not asked, no.

Q Informally, he did.

MR. SNOW: No, informally doesn't work.

Q It does in the context of a radio interview --

Q You're quibbling over semantics, to borrow your phrase. You're quibbling over semantics.

MR. SNOW: I know. But, no, I think -- I actually think --

Q He's in a conversation with a radio audience to speak to the American people.

MR. SNOW: I understand all that.

Q It doesn't have to be legally precise. The Vice President understood what the questioner was asking.

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you -- and I will tell you once again -- the Vice President says that he refers to the fact that when you're questioning people, you don't torture. You obey the law, and you protect the American people. We're not going to go any further.

Q Tony, is it not possible that the two are not mutually exclusive? In other words, that the Vice President does not construe water boarding as torture, and therefore, to him --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, no --

Q -- it's the same sentence --

Q So he does construe water boarding as torture?

MR. SNOW: No, what he does -- he doesn't talk about water boarding. And he also -- what he does say is that the techniques that the Americans use do not qualify as torture, and he is not going to talk about specific techniques.

Q So we know from this that a "dunk in the water" does not qualify as torture, right? And the Vice President is saying we're not involved in torture, and a dunk in the water is a "no brainer" for him.

MR. SNOW: Okay, and I will let you --

Q Is he saying --

MR. SNOW: I will let you deconstruct. The text speaks for itself. Let's change --

Q Did you talk to him?

MR. SNOW: No, I didn't. I talked to Lea Anne.

Q You had a cut-out.

MR. SNOW: I had a cut-out?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: I'll be happy to talk to him. Okay, I'll talk to him for you, okay? Everybody happy?

Q Yes.

Q Will you tell us what he says? (Laughter.)

Q -- when he says "dunk in the water," that's a serious question. You can't just sort of beg off and say, I'm sorry, I'm not going to deconstruct it.

MR. SNOW: No, but, Jennifer -- Jennifer, you've listened -- there have been statements out of that office for two consecutive days that say they don't talk about water boarding, they don't talk about torture, they don't condone torture. They're not going to talk about techniques.

Q All we're asking is, what's a "dunk in the water"?

Q He agrees with it. We want to know what that means.

MR. SNOW: All right.

Q If he agrees with a "dunk in the water," then --

MR. SNOW: All right, talk about a dunk in the water.

Q But you need to deconstruct it, not us. That's why we're asking you.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, I've told you what deconstruction I've had. Yes, Anne.

Q Tony, this administration has, indeed, talked about specifics, including after Abu Ghraib, President Bush condemning that kind of behavior.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And he did talk about specifics, saying that was not --

MR. SNOW: Wait a minute, he was talking about -- he was talking about specific breaches of the law. He was not talking about lawful techniques, which we will not disclose for obvious reasons of security.

Q To say that Vice President Cheney doesn't make mistakes like this, he did go up and curse a senator to his face on the Senate floor, and accidentally shot his friend, so he's not perfect. (Laughter.)

Q He never slips up?

MR. SNOW: No, I mean, it's just -- that's -- that's a great line, but it's not germane. Yes, Helen.

I love it when he calls on Helen to swing her cast iron skillet one more time. And, she faithfully does. Have a look:

Q Is the emphasis on "we don't torture" when we send captives to notorious places that do torture? Does that absolve you?

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- as we've said many times, when we move people to another place, we have to have assurances that there will be no torture, and the treatment will be in accordance with international law.

Q Why do you send them there? Why? Why don't you keep them in your own captivity?

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute, I thought you guys wanted to close off Guantanamo. The only way you do that -- we quite often try to repatriate people to places --

Q No, this was going on before you even had any intention, or you certainly don't now.

MR. SNOW: Let me just make it clear again. We don't condone torture. We don't participate in torture. We don't do torture.

Q How can we believe you when there's so much indication otherwise? Cheney went to the Hill to convince them they should not vote for a ban on torture.

MR. SNOW: Well, the people on the Hill have expressed their will, and furthermore, the administration has always said that we don't conduct acts of torture. And we don't condone torture.

Q I think the larger issue is credibility -- yours and the White House's. We're talking both in this instance and yesterday about very clear -- about specific language where you refute the semantic differences within the language and refuse to acknowledge what's very clear.

MR. SNOW: No, I can understand that people will look at this and draw the conclusions that you're trying to draw, as for yesterday. Those are two entirely different issues, and I think I've explained that on the issues of Prime Minister Maliki in the United States, we're playing off the same playbook.

I understand this. We will try to deal with it. I think you guys are -- maybe it's the end of the week. You're getting whipped into a frenzy.

Q Do you have contempt for the American people, do you think they don't understand?

Q That's not fair.

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying -- no, I think it is because you guys know Dick Cheney. You know the issue. I will go back and I will try to find some language for you.

Q We don't know him.

Q That's a logical fallacy.

Q Will he disavow dunking people in water as a part of the robust interrogation --

MR. SNOW: I think what he will disavow is torture, and he will not talk about specific techniques.

Q Okay. But just the wish list for us, in terms of question, is this notion of what did he mean when he said dunking the terrorists in water -- if it wasn't water boarding?

MR. SNOW: I will tell you -- and I will tell you what the office has said, and I will ask him directly. But what they've said is he was talking generally about a program, without referring to dunking in the water, that is used to interrogate people and to get important information that's going to save American lives.

The other thing you need to think about is that, again, the Vice President talking about a program that has now passed congressional scrutiny, been through a long debate and a thoughtful debate about how you can question people and save American lives, that really was the topic they were discussing.

Q That's not what we're asking about, though, now.

MR. SNOW: I know. Well, actually it is what you're asking about. It was the conversation. Look, we're going to go round the merry-go-round. Let me just get you some answers that will be more acceptable to you.

Is The Policy of "Isolation" A Viable Means Of Diplomacy?

Today, the President confirmed that he does not learn history's lessons and tends to only repeat his past mistakes as well as those of his predecessors. W's posturing today leaves me with one question: Is a policy of "isolation" a viable means of diplomacy?

Certainly, we have seen that W's rhetorical bullying and threats of "isolation" doesn't seem to work, does it?

It didn't get Saddam to cooperate and look what that brought us. It hasn't stopped Korea from testing their weapons. It hasn't changed Cuba. What makes him think it will work when dealing with Iran?

Q Thank you, sir. What does it say to you that Iran is doubling its enrichment capacity?

THE PRESIDENT: It says to me that we must double our effort to work with the international community to persuade the Iranians that there is only isolation from the world if they continue working forward on such a program. And I've read the speculation about that that's what they may be doing, but whether they've doubled it or not, the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, and it's unacceptable to the United States and it's unacceptable to nations we're working with in the United Nations to send a common message.