It's time to start planning Plan B, isn’t it?

President Bush and his various advisors appear to be suffering from “planning fatigue”.  They are able to wrap their heads around “The Surge”, but apparently cannot begin to imagine what they might do if that Plan fails to yield a positive outcome.  The problem with putting all of our nation’s eggs into one Plan A basket is this;  General Petraeus, represented to us as the latest in a string of pundits who are going to fix the Iraq situation, has gone on record as saying that the surge is starting late, with too few troops, and oh, by the way, is not likely to succeed.

There is a term and concept in Parliamentary democracy called "The Loyal Opposition".  Wikipedia notes that it is the concept that a party can be in the minority, and deeply opposed to the party controlling the government, but that their loyalty to the Crown will always be undiminished.  Our nation of course does not have a Monarch, nor any comparable institution that unifies the people and transcends politics, but what we do have is an abiding love of, and pride in, our nation, our people and our enduring system of representative democracy.  It seems to me that we, as Democrats, would do well to adapt the concept of Loyal Opposition to our current situation.  We are, for the moment, out of power for the most part, but despite our electoral woes in some past elections, we have never ceased or wavered in our steadfast loyalty to our nation and its principles.

I have enough respect for my readers to make a bet that you can see where I am going with this one.

By stating that the US will not set any timetable for leaving Iraq, so as to not give aid and comfort to the terrorists. Rumsfeld is tacitly admitting that the issue is not a matter of dialog on an occupation timetable between the US and the Iraqi people, it is a pitched battle between the US and all of the various warring factions who are fighting to try to force the US to leave.  Further, it is a battle the US assumes it would lose if it left any time soon.

Why does the distinction matter?

With his own "nannygate" problem, which we will certainly hear about in excruciating detail over the next week, Bernie Kerik has backed out of the Homeland Security job.   Ironic to have him in charge of our borders, since he had an undoc'ed alient working for him, eh?  Even the Bushies could not wrap their heads around that one.

You'd think Bush would be smart enough to vet people before nominating them, wouldn't you?  Nope, dumb is as dumb does.

A bad week for the team...   first the bogus claim the factories were working full capacity to armor vehicles in Iraq (which was untrue) now Kerik goes down in flames.  And the week still has several hours left!  Stay tuned.   Maybe the head of the RNC will get caught in a compromising position with someone of a compromising sex.

To begin to pick apart "what Kerry did wrong" is counter-productive, I suspect.  Likewise, I would suggest that looking for macro-trends is perhaps irrelevant.  Does that seem like peculiar advice?  Am I suggesting that analysis is wrong.  Not at all, but I would like to slightly shift the focus of that analysis.

As we head into election day, I think it appropriate to extend our thanks to John Kerry, for slogging through the last two years of the election from Hell, the primary of the many, the slings and arrows of outrageous Swift Boat swifties, the crudity of the Rove thugs, and ads designed to test men's souls.

According to the Defense Department, large amounts of Saudi money, funneled through Syria, are now supporting the Iraqi insurgents.  With friends like these, who needs enemies?  

Meanwhile, oil is $55 a barrel, which is hobbling the US economy.  Wait a minute, aren't these the Saudis who are so close to the Bush family?  Have they decided that while they are happy to do business with the Carlyle Group, that the Bush administration is a menace, and they should work to discredit it?  At the cost, let's remember, of the lives of our soldiers in Iraq, and at a high cost to our economy.  Remember who staffed the 9/11 attacks (Saudis) and who funded it (Saudis)?  Has the Bush family been providing aid and comfort to our enemy?

I'm not sure whether individual prayer works, nor whether it is ethical to offer prayers for the outcome of an election.  I'll leave the moral and metaphysical questions to others.  It occurred to me that a patriot who loves his country could offer this prayer, without stepping over any lines:

"Dear Lord, I personally believe that President Bush has damaged our nation, its environment, its people and its standing in the world, as well as the welfare of other nations.  If I am correct, which you would know since you are all-knowing, please help our nation by helping John Kerry be elected.  Thank you. Amen."

That way, we are clearly asking only for what is in the best interests of our nation.  If we are wrong, no help is asked. Nothing partisan about that, is there?  For some reason, in the depths of the night that seemed important to me, and once reasoned out, I slept peacefully.  Clearly I had purged myself of the tension of this campaign.  The human mind is a curious thing, or as Dan Quayle so eloquently put it, "A mind is a terrible thing to have never had at all".

MSNBC has a "Next Gen" poll.  Umm, since one needs to take the poll to see the results, I cannot imagine that it really is a demographic of just 18-30 year olds.  Anyhow, take the poll:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6092434/site/newsweek/

The responses are a crack up.  71% Kerry, but more amusing is the question "which one do you think is more fun?"  23% Bush, 33% Kerry, 45% "neither".  That almost convinces me it really is a NextGen poll.

I recommend the Maureen Dowd column for today, titled
"Getting Junior's Goat"  which is a fairly wicked title.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/opinion/07dowd.html

Dowd paints a credible picture.   I am never sure how much to credit this sort of politico-psychology.  On the other hand, it gave me a great idea (thanks Maureen).

What the Kerry campaign could reasonably do, which I think would have a devastating effect, would be to run an ad showing raging mobs on the streets of Baghdad, while a voice reads out a text that scrolls past, containing these quotes:

1.  George HW Bush's explanation as to why he thought it would have been crazy to invade Iraq, since the US would have found itself occupying a hostile nation.

2.  Dick Cheney's comments from his Seattle speech, saying Iraq would have become a quagmire, and that capturing Saddam Hussein was in his estimation "not worth very many American lives".

I cannot think of any effective response the GOP could mount to that theme.

Bloomberg has a good piece titled:

Headline:  "Rice Says US Couldn't Underestimate Threat From Hussein"

see:  http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=avDtu73EVpAU&refer=top_world_news

Rice says that in regard to a tyrant, one always needs to err on the side of pessimism, of assuming that things are really far worse than one knows or can prove that they are.  She also says she has no regrets.  I would add, no shame, either.  In that, she's working for the right guy, eh?

I suggest that the article could be titled, "US couldn't ESTIMATE threat from Hussein".  This administration had no clue what was going on, and rejected any information they found inconvenient, or contrary to the case they were trying to build.  Those who did bring them tales of scary secret programs (Chalabi et al) were richly rewarded with Millions of dollars of support.   Rice is clearly under stress in this interview, reaching desperately for an explanation, after her hand has been photographed in the cookie jar, in fact, up to the elbow in the cookie jar.  If one starts from a premise, as the Bushies did, that Saddam was bad, and they needed a pretext to wipe him out, then one can construct an illusory house of cards, composed of only the negative facts, rumors and theories, but with none of the exculpatory evidence or data.  Why did these people do this, in such a betrayal of the trust reposed in them by the American people?  History will tell us, as it always does.

Rice lied then, she lied earlier as Provost of Stanford, and given her penchant for tortured logic she probably also cheated on her exams.  Why would a seemingly intelligent person act so brazenly?  Ambition.  Raw ambition.  In so doing she clearly violated her oath of office, but then...   that does not distinguish her the rest of this administration, does it?

If you think the futures market poll thing is silly, you might want to put down a bet where real money is changing hands.  Ladbrokes in London is able to take wagers on the US Presidential election.   Think they've got the odds wrong?  Feel sure of your candidate's chances?  Put your money where your mouth is:

http://www.ladbrokes.com/lbr_portal?action=do_lang_splash&form_name=lang_splash&LANG=en& STYLE=en&VIEW=uk&LAYOUT=default

Responding to criticism from his opponent that he was living in "FantasyLand" the President today suddenly sprouted Mouse Ears, and admitted that it is true: he does like fantasy much more than reality. Mr. Bush went on to state that when he loses this election he intends to join the cast of other characters at DisneyWorld, which has long been his secret ambition. He concluded his remarks by noting, "You have no idea how difficult it has been to keep these ears from showing".

For photographic evidence of this startling development, see:

http://photos.reuters.com/pictures/ViewImage.aspx?type=News&currentPicture=0&photoName=galle ries/newspictures/2004-09-24T182202Z_01_WHT201D_RTRIDSP_2_CAMPAIGN-BUSH.jpg

A writer for the Christian Science Monitor (one of the best US sources on Iraq, by the way) makes the argument that tossing Stevens off a plane and deporting him was one of the best way to alienate moderate Moslems:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0924/p09s01-coop.html

I do not know enough of the background to comment on the article, but the essential point, that "do not fly" lists are a form of secret blacklist appears to be a fair one. Does it remind anyone else of McCarthyism? Will a political or religious leader in the US stand up and take a stand against these practices? Or, will it need to wait until this administration is voted out of office, before a thorough investigation can be conducted?

That's up to men and women of conscience in the United States. By all appearances, left to their own devices, the Bush administration is well on the road to polarizing the world into battling religious groups, viewing alll Moslems as bad, regardless of the evidence. Or...   could it be that the singer's crime was to lobby against the Iraq war? Suppression of dissent and freedom of speech? Boy, we sure are showing the world a fine version of democracy, aren't we?

Just when you thought this election could not get any wierder (thanks, Dan!) along comes this:

http://www.kumawar.com/Kerry/screenshots.php?PHPSESSID=1d470d4cceabc9df7feb73ea23fb3b9f

"Silver Star - Mekong Adventure" which allows one to recreate the battle that won Kerry his Silver Star.   If 12 year olds could vote, we'd be stylin'

Can anyone think of a reasonable Republican response?  I can:

"Champagne Squadron - Houston Nights".   This heavy action video game follows Lt. Bush and his fun-loving squadron buddies as they fight their way through the dangerous singles scene in Houston in the early '70s.   Share the adventure as the Squadron members have to think fast and pull every string at their disposal to duck responsibility, skip drills, shirk duty, chase babes and get rowdy, all without getting caught or called up for active duty and have their sorry asses sent to Vietnam!   Share the adventure with our buddies, as they navigate this dangerous thicket of challenges, to win the coveted "Honorable Discharge" at the end!  

Rated:  Tame & Lame (Ages 11-18).  Contains profanity, drug use, unprotected sex, gratuitous stupidity, but no violence.

In the midst of so much emotion, it feels good to step back now and again and have a good laugh, particularly when it is at the expense of our (worthy?) opponent.

http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/canderson/2004/08/24

If this has been posted earlier, I apologize, pleading only that it gave me a good laugh this morning, and may have a similar effect on someone else who did not see it previously.    If we are to be warriors, let us not be dour and grumpy ones, but rather celebrate the possible, the triumph of light over darkness.

In a year where there is a lot of concern about the youth vote, a good palliative is to check out:  

http://www.slambush.net/index.html

Click on the image to the upper right to see (and hear) a very clever video that does a surprisingly good job of making it look like Bush is debating a young poet.   An angry young poet.

What is a "slam"?  For those unfamiliar with the form, it is an organized presentation of short street-influenced poems, delivered with passion and clever word plays.  Poetry Slams are common these days, and are noted by some as a welcome return of poetry to its roots, as a vivid form of expression, not as a dry subject to be taught in school.  This site leads you to a series of "Slam Bush" competitions being held around the country this year, with a $5,000 prize for the one judged the best overall.   One also presumes a laurel wreath goes to the winner?   This is getting nationwide publicity, on a range of media that normally is apolitical, and reaches a wide demographic.

Guess what else is going on this year?   There is an entire cycle of rap songs that urge the listener to vote against George Bush, because he is (according to the songs) a liar, a murderer, a criminal, etc.   These are powerful expressions, powerfully expressed.   You and I will probably not run across them on our favorite radio station, but guess who is listening to them?   The 16 to 30 year old demographic that every political party is dying to enlist.   These artists are determined to hand every non-white vote in the US to Kerry, in order to "stop Bush".   Some lyrics are in Spanish, most are in the difficult-to-follow rapid-fire argot of hip-hop.   I can't easily follow it, but I promise you that my kids can.

For those of you who can recall the music of the late sixties and early seventies, this would be familiar material...    but a lot harder-edged.   Bush may have been fooling most of the people, most of the time, but he was never fooling these artists.

Texans for Truth have announced their rumored $50,000 reward for anyone who can convince them that Bush performed his Alabama National Guard Service, as he claims that he did.   The rules for the "contest" are posted here:

http://www.texansfortruth.org/reward.html

CNN quotes Glenn Smith, founder of the group, as follows:

"Today would be a fine day for him (Bush) to finally answer all the questions that have dogged him since he entered public life,  Bush's dishonesty about missing from service during Vietnam goes to the heart of his presidency. He was dishonest then just as he is misleading us about why we went to war with Iraq. He dodges responsibility then just as he dodges responsibility for Iraq today."

I am inclined to give Mr. Smith the coveted "Stepping on Shrub's Message" award for the day.