“A tiny weekly newspaper that bills itself as President Bush's hometown paper has endorsed John Kerry for president, saying the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity.”

According to Newsweek, the Pentagon is busily drawing up plans for attacking Iran and Syria. I do not believe an Iraq-style “pre-emptive” attack is seriously being contemplated – we don’t even have the resources to occupy Iraq properly. But you can see why they would be nervous; if Iran were to get pissed off – for example, because Israel or the US bombed one of their nice nuclear reactors – it would be extremely easy for them to undertake guerilla war against the United States. After all, they would just have to contribute to the one already in progress conveniently next door.

The Bush Administration continues in its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, if by “democracy” you mean authorizing the CIA to assist the candidates the Administration likes. That's not what my civics teacher taught me, but you can kind of see where they get these ideas.

I just realized that I have been in the US for six months straight -- longer than I've been here continuously since the first half of 1997.

In my travels, I have encountered many military personnel who are critical of the current administration’s handling of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. (In every bathroom stall in Baghdad’s Green Zone are inscribed the words: “One weekend a month my ass.”) But I have read few military critiques as eloquent as that of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski or reservist Al Lorentz.

Perhaps for denying global warming?

They really are optimists!

“I’m very encouraged about [Iraq]... Iraqis are being killed, as they were yesterday and the day before. At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed... and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country.”

- Donald Rumsfeld, on why he's “very encouraged” about Iraq

“As governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy.”
- George W. Bush [Some error, surely? –Ed.]

Robert Novak is under fire for refusing to reveal who in the White House leaked details of Valerie Plame’s employment as a CIA agent. He has thus far refused to reveal his source, citing journalistic ethics. Based on the following transcript from this weekend’s Capital Gang on CNN, the ethic involved is: “don’t reveal a source if to do so would be harmful to a Republican administration.”

NOVAK: I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got these documents [the memos from Bush’s Air National Guard commanding officer] from. They didn't get them from a CIA agent. I don't believe there was any laws involved. I don't think we'll have a special prosecutor, if they tell. I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS. Why did CBS not go to the -- to Killian's family and get -- and ask them about it, as ABC did, and got these quotes, and they said they think they're phony documents -- I thought -- I thought that the "60 Minutes" thing by Dan Rather was a -- was a campaign operation, rather than an attempt to get to the bottom of the truth.

HUNT: Robert Novak, you're saying CBS should reveal its source?

NOVAK: Yes.

HUNT: You do? You think reporters ought to reveal sources?

NOVAK: No, no. Wait a minute.

HUNT: I'm just asking.

NOVAK: I'm just saying in that case.

HUNT: Oh.

NOVAK: I think -- I think it's very important. If this is a phony document, the American -- the people should know about it.

HUNT: So in some cases, reporters ought to reveal sources.

NOVAK: Yes.

HUNT: But not in all cases.

NOVAK: That's right.

A poll was released recently that rather unsurprisingly showed that pretty much everyone outside of the United States wants Bush to be defeated in the November elections. What was fairly striking was this graph, showing how opinions of the United States have slipped since Bush took office:

Nice. The White House, of course, dismissed the poll, saying, “Everything the president does he does with the citizens of this country in mind.” He might consider that the citizens of this country may want a little help from other countries in, say, occupying Middle Eastern countries, or perhaps not blowing us up.

The Rolling Stone website is featuring an article on Dick Cheney. The author is clearly no fan of Cheney, so take it however you want, but I will say that the following passage matches the stories around town and the caliber of personnel I encountered in Iraq:

Over at Defense, competent intelligence professionals were purged in order to ease the way to war. Douglas Feith, brought in under Rumsfeld to serve as undersecretary of defense for policy, applied an ideological test to his staff: He didn't want competence; he wanted fervor. Col. Pat Lang, a Middle East expert who served under five presidents, Republican and Democratic, in key posts in military intelligence, recalls being considered for a job at the Pentagon. During the job interview, Feith scanned Lang's impressive resume. "I see you speak Arabic," Feith said. When Lang nodded, Feith said, "Too bad," and dismissed him.

This site has a survey you can take to determine which presidential candidate – including oddball candidates and Democrats who did not win the nomination – best matches your opinions on policy. Obviously not every policy is included, and if you have not yet decided who to vote for you must be on crack, but it is worth a look.

“I couldn’t imagine someone like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hannukah.”

- George W. Bush

It seems that in the summer of 2001, warnings of an impending terrorist attack inside the United States were so urgent and credible, and the Administration – specifically the Defense Department – was so blasé about them, that counterterrorism professionals in the CIA wanted to resign and take their warnings public:

[Then-CIA Director George] Tenet told us that in his world “the system was blinking red.” By late July [2001], Tenet said, it could not “get any worse.” Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. One June 30, the SEIB [Senior Executive Intelligence Brief] contained an article titled “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.” Yet [Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Laden was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department’s questions on this point; the reporting was convincing. To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the [CIA] Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.

- The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 259-260

So the same Defense Department that warned of a clear and imminent threat from Iraq decided in 2001 that addressing the urgent threats coming from al-Qaeda informants was a low priority? How come I had to slog through 260 pages of the 9/11 Report to find this out? And how come Mr. Wolfowitz still has a job?

In a related story:

1: Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.

104: Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

101: Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.

These are the people saying Kerry can’t be trusted with national security?