It Looks Like This (sorry, no ice cream) 

Behind Bush's Tie

Atrios shows a picture of Bush in the second debate, with what appears to be a wire behind his tie, and asks "What's that behind the tie?"

I've never before linked to an entry in the comments of another blog, but this answer from Abiel was perfect.

Terrorism as a Nuisance

In a New York Times Magazine article, John Kerry was quoted saying, ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Predictably, the Republicans have taken this as an indication that Kerry views terrorism as a nuisance on a par with prostitution and gambling (which again raises the question, are they really this dumb or are they just dishonest, or both?).

In all honesty, the Republicans, as revealed by their actions and words for the last three years, don't want terrorism to fade from the forefront of public consciousness because it has been very good for them to keep Americans apprehensive. Let's remember it was a Republican administration in office on 9/11 that failed to protect us from terrorism, that it was a Republican Administration that has since 9/11 opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, opposed the independent investigation of 9/11, has, despite controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of government, for three years done nothing to reform the intelligence community that failed us so spectacularly on 9/11 (to say nothing of in the build-up to the war with Iraq), has done next to nothing to protect our ports, railroads, bridges, and chemical and nuclear plants from future terrorist attacks, has no substantial leads in the investigation into the anthrax attacks, and has, despite 5000 arrests it has attributed to terrorist related activities, achieved zero convictions that have withstood appeal. Does this sound like a group of people that is serious about protecting us from terrorism. It clearly is not a priority with them. They either don't really believe that terrorism threatens us as much as they say they do, or they really can't do anything right. Or, again, both.

Clearly, what Kerry was saying is that we can not eliminate the threat of terrorist activity. As long as there are aggrieved extremists in the world the threat will persist. We don't need, though, to live our lives as if the threat of a terrorist attack needs to consume us and make us fearful during all waking hours. It's not that nuanced a point that BushCo shouldn't be able to understand it. The threat of terrorism is something that our government should take seriously, however. And the actions and record of our government in combatting that threat should be reflected by its record. The record of the Bush administration does not reflect a serious or competent approach to combatting terrorism.

In their stump speeches, Bush and Cheney like to say that Kerry and Edwards are living in a pre-9/11 world. It bears remembering that a month before 9/11 the Bush Administration received a briefing warning of increased activity by al-Qaeda and the likelihood of an attack in this country using airplanes. The Bush administration infamously responded to that briefing by doing nothing. The above list of failures to act indicates that as far as seriously combatting the threat of terrorism is concerned, the Bush Administration is in a pre-9/11 world.

Rebirth of Freedom in Afghanistan? Not Yet

I would like very much for things to go well in Afghanistan. Our involvement there started with an invasion that was justified by the Taliban's support of al-Qaeda. For reasons understood probably only by the Bush Administration though, we've not given that country the support it deserved. I understand that it didn't get that support because our attention and resources were diverted to Iraq, but I'm not sure anybody who actually knows the reason for that will ever spill the beans.

I bring this up because today is election day in Afghanistan. You know that already, though, don't you? Our President has been crowing about this election for months, trumpeting it as a triumph of democracy and the renewal Afghani political life and self-determination and freedom. Except, well, it isn't that at all.

President (and Laura) Bush have been made an awful lot of noise about how Afghan women are better off, more free and have more choices, in Afghanistan today than before the invasion. It may be true, too. But they hardly have a degree of freedom that we in the west would recognize as meaningful. Nicholas Kristof has more. (I've linked to a NYT column, but managed to find a link to it at the "Falls Church News." NYT registration is a nuisance and as much as possible I'll try to avoid linking to their site).

As Kerry and Edwards have noted, since the overthrow of the Taliban, Afghanistan has again taken its place as the world's largest producer and exporter of opium and almost all of the country outside of Kabul is under the control of the warlords and not the central government. The lawlessness and lack of security that appear to doom Iraq's scheduled elections are just as prevalent in Afghanistan, to the point that international monitors are unlikely to have much effect on guaranteeing the legitimacy of the election.

As for the elections, many of the candidates are so put off by what they view as voting irregularities , such as this threat by tribal elders to burn down the houses of people who don't vote for Hamid Karzai, that fifteen candidates for president are boycotting the election. It doesn't help that recent statements by the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, imply that the US will cooperate more with a goverment headed by Karzai than with one headed by any of his rivals.

The world, the region, and most particulary the Afghani people will benefit from an orderly and free society in Afghanistan. They don't have such a society yet, though, and it's hard to see that the policies and the actions of the Bush Administration are designed to bring them one. Kerry will have to do better. We will have to give him that chance.

Geez, George, He's Just the Moderator

Oliver Willis provides a link to a clip showing Bush about to get medieval on Charles Gibson.

Why does Bush never mention Missouri's contributions to the Coalition?

Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - Presidential Division

After his performance last week, I ended up giving the President credit just for barely making an ass of himself. Then I ended up taking that credit away. As much as ever, Bush is a one-note Johnny. Don't confuse the issues with the facts (such as the Duelfer report saying precisely the opposite of what he said it said), just lie back and let the lies wash over you.

Once again, Kerry came out looking better just by maintaining his composure, while Bush looked anxious and sounded exceedingly shrill as the evening wore on. I have to give him credit, though; at least he makes it clear what our choice is on November 2. You can vote for four more years of the same level of incompetence, unfilled promises, programs that do the opposite of what their names suggest, and resolute cluelessness, or you can vote for Kerry.

Who's Minding the Store?

I find interesting some of the things Bush and Cheney choose about Kerry and Edwards to make issues about. In Tuesday's debate, Cheney made the suggestion that Edwards has not been too assiduous in attending to his duties as a Senator.

Considering how little time Bush devotes to the hard work of being President, you'd think this would be an area Bush and Cheney would steer clear of.

From this nation's perspective, considering how poorly Bush had performed his duties as President, the less time he spends in the Oval Office, the better.

At Long Last They Meet

Iraqi Reconstruction Funds

Matthew Yglesias at Tapped points out that only $270 million of the $18.4 billion appropriated for Iraq reconstruction has been spent in a manner that could be described as reconstructing the country. Only $1 billion has been spent at all and of that $150 million has been spent on "corruption/ fraud/ mismanagement."

It bears remembering that it was this appropriation and how it would be funded that caused John Kerry to vote against the $87 billion dollar Iraq spending bill. You know, the one he voted for before he voted against it. Kerry supported a version of the bill that would fund the $18.4 billion by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts for the highest earners and would provide an accounting in advance for how this money would be spent. Kerry's objections had nothing to do, of course, with depriving our soldiers in the field of the weapons and equipment they needed to fight and protect themselves. Only a group as intellectually bankrupt as the GOP would pretend otherwise. Kerry's concerns about how this money would be spent have been borne out by the facts. Sadly.

So what happened to the version of the $87 billion spending bill that Kerry supported? President Bush threatened to veto it and it was dropped. Because in matters like this the Democrats cling to ethics the Republicans never possessed, it has never been suggested that Bush threatened to veto that version of the bill because he wanted to deprive the troops of the supplies they needed. No, the actual reason Bush threatened to veto that version was because he wanted to protect the tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Why Would You Believe Bush?

I hate to seem like I'm flogging a dead horse, but please take a minute to listen to Ohio Representative Tim Ryan address on the floor of the House why Bush and Rumsfeld's assurances that they have no intention of reinstating a draft might be viewed as less than credible.

Fake News Shows

Aside from the fact that Stewart is funny and Russert is not, the main difference between Jon Stewart and Tim Russert is that Stewart tells his viewers that his is a fake news show.