This has got to be one of the most disgusting things yet... How the administration be so stupid that they don't even know what their own source is doing??? This has the potential to be MUCH worse than the Valerie Plame leak. You think they would have improved after the entire intelligence debacle of the past 3 years...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-8-2004_pg7_42

http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040809Cole.shtml

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/002293.html

Yawn. What is Texasgurls position on the Civil Unions Act?

Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect on Dec. 7, 1941, we would probably be speaking German right now.

Actually, the Balanced Budget Amendment which the National Taxpayers Union nearly persuaded 38 states to call for a Constitutional Convention to pass in the 1980's, had exempted balancing the budget in "times of war or national emergency".

Our children is not learning. This is a national emergency.

1836, 1860, 1896.

John F. Kennedy.

Had the balanced budget amendment been in effect on Dec. 7, 1941, we would probably be speaking German right now.

Ten point bounce?  No way anyone really believes that.  I'd say 2 to 3 points which puts the race dead even going into the debates.

Maybe that's a bit hyperbolic, but there are some people that seem to think that Bush is going to be substantially ahead following the Republican convention even though nothing else has ever changed the percentages very much.

Well, having seen the Democratic convention, I doubt they are going to try the same thing. The biggest complaints about the Democrats' convention was that "it was all a show". So Bush will probably lay out some solid new proposals at his convention (internally poll-tested, perhaps) if he really wants to make use of his convention. That will actually be somewhat interesting.

Plus, I expect a number of other things to help him.

He could look good compared to the demonstrators outside, especially if anarchists or rioters are present.

The Sept. 11 anniversary is always there, and of course Bush's comments will get more coverage because he is President.

The Afghan election is on October 9, which should provide some good coverage, with 9 million out of 9.5 million eligible voters already registered.

An October surprise may be lined up in the way of foreign troops-especially perhaps from Russia, offering to come in and supplement US troops in Iraq. This administration has shown a penchant for surprises along with its secrecy: the handover date was early, which was wise. Bush's Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Iraq was one of the high points in his presidency, I don't think Karl Rove has forgotten about that.

Plus, al-Sadr may be captured or killed sometime in the coming weeks.

Overall, Rove was a student of Atwater and probably worships his old mentor, whose biggest accomplishment was the 1988 election, so he's probably going to try for something similiar. Personally, I'm a bit surprised the Democrats' havent taken more advantage of Bush's friendly relations with Ken Lay.

Beef,

Kerry did a great deal in the Senate. He was focused around investigating corruption and financial crimes instead of passing legislation, including a major scandal involving a Pakistani bank with ties to drugs in the early 1990s. The Bush campaign would like to portray Kerry as someone who was not the biggest legislator, and this is true. But its been pointed out here on these boards that there's a difference between the qualities of a good legislator and those of a good executive-- somebody like Lyndon Johnson who was great at pushing through legislation wasn't so great when it came to handling Vietnam or national divisions. Perhaps Kerry focusing his Senate career on investigations of government rather than pushing through laws is not a bad thing. One of the primary things the current White House lacks is good intelligence. Here is an extensive article that came out a long time ago about Kerry's career in the Senate. I'm as surprised as most that he hasn't talked more about what he has done, I guess his campaign strategists are making some mistakes in this Dept.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0303/p02s01-uspo.html

Kerry just had his convention, outspent Bush in advertising over the past 3 months, and with the 9/11 anniversay and the bulk of Bush's campaign yet to come. And he's only at 48%. Doesn't look good.

Today: Bush 49.5, Kerry 49

November: Bush 53.5, Kerry 45.

No problem, Senator. My plan will go as follows: Let's say there is a child that is currently going to a school that is classified as "failing" My plan would give that child's parents a voucher which would allow them to send their child to a better school, whether it be another public school, private school or parochial school.

No responsible parent would want their child attending a school that has been classified as "failing".

That is my point. We must give parents an option so that their child can suceed academically. I doubt an entire school would empty out. But if that was to happen, I think it's better that that school closes down since it's obviously not doing a good job educating their students.

Well, this proposal has promise, but I have a couple questions

1) Wouldn't this plan cost a huge amount of money? Private school tuition will be more expensive than the current spending per student at these poor "failing" schools. Wouldn't the government save a lot of tax money by treating vouchers as kind of a "financial aid" program that has a cost-of-living threshold as a condition for the handouts?

2) Would there be any kind of standards that schools would have to meet in order to be eligible to recieve federal funds? If so, which ones?

3) Does either candidate see a constitutional issue here with federal funds going to prop up religious schools?

There is only one solid prediction here, that guns will no longer be legal in 15 years.

This is dead wrong.

AuH2O- I'm not too sure about my conclusion either. As I said, in history it was always some outside unified power with more resources that was able to mop up, consolidate, and pave the way through unprecedented, unimagined glory on the back of its position as unifier. The civilizational model already encompasses all of the world's regions that might have a large enough resource base to unify the exhausted civilizations and play such a role; so it is likely that instead of a superstate, humanity could just fall into a permanent state of lethargy and decline.

Ford- I would like to be more optimist but I from what I see around me, there is a high chance that we are headed toward the "clash of civilizations"... a true clash undescribed by Huntington, due to the victory of civilizationalism as the only vital ideology remaining. To be truthful I wish the neocons would succeed, but they are completely discrediting the spread of liberalism around the world and meanwhile mask the growth of civilizationalism in their blundering. Liberalism cannot succeed globally without accounting for and soothing over the edges of civilizationalism, as well as putting civilizationalism into a broader and deeper context; thus subverting it. But this does not seem to be happening in the world.

My point with the Napoleon example is just that the coming rise of nationalism was underappreciated by people who only saw the spread of liberalism in Napoleon's time; just as the neocons today underappreciate civilizationalism.

Athens did have an Empire that was similiar in structure as America's empire is. Their power was based on their technology and unique position, not the sheer numbers of their land forces; but the same can be said about the US.

The Athenian model is not condemned to failure (though it should be noted that the Peloponessian War did not end the wars of Greece; Athens later recovered and defeated Sparta. The big picture is what eventually happened to Greece during this period), but the civilizational model is condemned to clash. After the failure of the neocons' radical disregard of civilizations, Huntington's radical civilizationalism will then triumph around the world. However Huntington titles his book "clash" or talks about clash, he does not take his idea to its finality-perhaps because he himself buys into civilizationalism and talking about the conclusion of his philosophy would reveal unattractive facets. Or perhaps because he denied those facets to himself. When civilizationalism reaches its peak (assuming "[paleo] conservative" triumph in America and everywhere else except Europe, which is developing a seemingly non-conservative structure that is nevertheless civilizational...) America will be situated like Athens was in the Grecian world.

Brambila- Athens was stronger than Sparta in all except its land military capabilities. Compared with Sparta's position in the Peloponnesian League, Athens was much more central to the Delian League. Corinth, Elis, and other major states stood with Sparta. Yet the two leagues were actually quite well balanced. Athens was eventually defeated because of its lack of land capabilities, but this didn't have to be if it had utilized its advantages correctly. As Ford pointed out, they trashed Alcibiades while he was winning. But at the same time you could say the only weakness of the US is in large-scale land-based operations away from the sea.

I never said fascism was directed toward moralists. I explicitly said it was not. The bridge between conservatism and fascism is civilizationalism. Conservatism is the face of civilizationalism in peacetime, but the more pronounced a clash or conflict, the more civilizationalism becomes manifest in fascism. By this definition I would say that Al Qaeda and the radical islamist groups are fascists even though they are not nationalists; they are civilizational fascists, following the replacement of the nation-state as the unit of fascist ideology with the civilization.

I guess its supposed to be 1 seat per 10 million people. France-60 million, Germany-82 million, so it makes sense.

Russia should have 15 seats, not 13.

While democracy was a distinction of Graeco-Rpman culture, Athens was hardly unique in being democratic.

Athens was the first democracy in Greece. Which just makes the similarities all the more striking.

Actually they fought off the Asiatic Persians, not the Turks, the Turks weren't a threat to the Greeks until more than a millenium after the fall of Athens.

My mistake. I wrote Turk by accident since I had an image in my mind of the Persians attacking from Asia minor.

One fundamental difference between the US and Athens is that Athens forced its "allies" to pay for its fleet while we pay for ours ourselves.

Actually they pay for their (and our defense) indirectly through purchases of U.S. arms. The U.S. is the world's largest arms dealer. Granted, at the time Athens faced more serious revolts from some of its allies, which no longer saw a need to be in the league. However America has not yet reached at state. However we are approaching it-- Germany and South Korea used to be staunch allies, for example.

America today is kind of like Athens was for the ancient Greeks. If you read Pericles' funeral Oration, his speech could easily have been given by an American politician, it is the same rhetoric that we use. Of course this is no surprise as our government was purposely descended from theirs.

However America is also similiar to Athens in other ways. For one we uniquely hold the original innocent classical liberal spirit in us, which is not to be found in Europe where political philosophy further developed. Just as Athens in its day was unique in its democratic principles.

We are a proud nation and the strongest in the world, just as Athens was the strongest city state in Greece.

We won the respect and admiration of the world by bravely fighting off the Asiatic fascists and communists, just like Athens won the respect and admiration of Greece by bravely fighting off the Asiatic Persians.

Our fleets control the oceans of the world, and are the basis of our power, just as Athens' fleets controlled the Agean, and were the basis of its power. Our military spending is worthy of the rest of the world combined, just as Athens had more triremes than the rest combined.

We make alliances with small dependent states such as Israel, Eastern Europe, Kuwait, Pakistan, Taiwan and Japan, just as Athens made alliances with small dependent states such as the Corcyraeans, Potidaeans, and Plataeans. Just as a King makes alliances with the peasantry and burgeois in order to balance the power of the nobility. These small states drag and threaten to drag us into war, just as the Delian League members eventually dragged Athens into war.

Like Athens, America is a rising power. Like Athens, it unnerves previously established powers with fewer military capabilities. Like Athens, it faces a mainland, not the peninsula of the Peloponese, but the continent of Eurasia.

Despite having a smaller population than the Peloponnese, the Athenians were secure behind impregnable city walls (the Greeks had no technology that could breach the walls). Similarly, America is secure behind two huge oceans.

The only major difference between America and Athens thus far is that the Eurasian civilizations have not seen a threat from America the way the Peloponese saw a threat from Athens, to the extent that they would put aside their own differences. Nevertheless, the similarities are striking.

America is the New Athens.

In the past, the model of the "state" has always envolved this way: a series of small states emerge close with one another and compete fiercely with one another. In this competition, they generate a wealth of intellectual, cultural, political, and economic assets of civilization, deeply thought philosophy, and a strong competitive culture that is a result of the difficulty of their struggles. Finally, after a set of devastating wars, they are exhausted overwhelmed by a larger, neighboring power with more land, people, and natural resources. The larger power can use the civilizational assets developed in the crucible of the struggle of the smaller states, and is not hindered by their disunity and competition. Thus there comes a Golden Age, until the larger power itself disintegrates after a long time.

The exhibits from Western history I present are- The Greek city states, the Italian city states, the European states of the 16th-20th century, and finally, the world today, which is divided into a set of states in fierce competition.

After the end of the cold war there emerged two basic strands of thought that gradually moved their way through mass media into the global body politic, not just in the United States but throughout much of the world. The first, put forward by Francis Fukuyama, describes the end of history in a sort of Hegelian fairy tale, where all ideologies except for democracy are discredited, and it thus spreads throughout the world. The second put forward by Samuel L. Huntington, describes a clash of civilizations centered around national, religious, cultural, and ethnic lines. Over the past 14 years, we have seen both a move toward liberal democracy and a clash of civilizations. However, two democracies have never fought a war with one another. The neocons claim to believe this and thus they claim to think that if they can bring democracy to Iraq, and by extension to the Islamic world, they can somehow go one big step toward this Hegelian fairy tale of world democracy. This will of course, also benefit Israel. There is only one problem with their mission. It is not working.

Remember how Napoleon also sought to conquer other states under the guise of bringing liberalism to them? In the long run, the consequential result of his actions was not only to spread liberalism but also to spread nationalism. Indeed, the truth is that while Germany in 1914 was not a full democracy, it did have universal male suffrage. As did all of the other European states except in Russia, which had it in name only. The reason why the neo-cons will fail is also the reason why Napoleon failed. Because they forgot to take into account the enduring appeal of nations and religions-- or mroe precisely what Huntington calls civilizations.

The failure of the neocons will leave only one ideology left--extreme civilizationalism. Civilizations are a mix of nations, ethnicities, values, and religions. There are some who will say that extreme nationalism has already been discredited as an ideology in World War I and World War II. But firstly this is not the same as civilizationalism. Secondly, his is not true because the fascism was aborted before its true face could be shown to its own believers, assuming the success of military goals. Sure, German facism was discredited in the eyes of the Jews, non-Aryans, and moralists in general, but it doesn't take the holocaust to do that. Nazism was never directed at appealing towards non-Aryans or moralists. That is why extreme nationalism is still viable ideology. People can still say "oh if only we won Stalingrad" ... etc etc Since fascism has taken a monumental cosmetic hit to its reputation, but not been killed, it is in slumber. It was in deep, deep slumber in the 1950s and has gradually entered lighter modes of sleep. Its more unsavory aspects have been hidden in many countries under the broader label of "conservativism" whether intentional or NOT (I cannot emphasize the NOT part too strongly), just as the face of communism was made more acceptable by the label of "socialism". The emotion of fear plays a big role here.

The failure of the neocon ideology and the Hegelian fairy tale that we seem to be spinning towards in the early 21st century leaves in its wake, including the "New Athens" of America, a series of civilizationalisms. In fact, America is already being drawn into a civilizational war we may never emerge from. The image of benevolence of American intentions will also be trashed. Thus the last barrier to the naked "city state" scenario of ancient Greece will be eliminated. In history, the Greeks ended up fighting a series of costly, disastrous wars that ended in stalemates.

The same will happen in our world if two things happen (1) Western liberal democracy does not magically spread as an all-encompassing ideology throughout the world as predicted by Fukuyama (2) people begin to identify primarily with "civilizations" such as "America", "Europe", "Islam", "Russia", "China" and "India."

If these two things happen, the world will be ripe for a series of events that will set off World War III. It may be the New Athens versus the Eurasian powers, or maybe not. After the war(s), which may last several generations (thus giving enough time to discredit civilizationalism completely), following my own Hegelian theory, there will emerge a Global Superstate and a Golden Age of mankind, to last perhaps hundreds or thousands of years. However before this hundreds of millions perhaps billions of people will have to die.

Now I expect people to come and deny, say this will never happen, and flame me for being so pessimistic. Come on.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/1701274.php

Whistleblower explodes 9-11 Commission Report
by Ritt Goldstein Saturday August 07, 2004 at 12:27 PM


The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's own September 11 whistleblower has done it again, this time taking aim at the 9-11 Commission itself.

Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator who has in effect been silenced by the bureau and the US Justice Department, said in an open letter to commission chairman Thomas Kean that the FBI had suffered from a litany of errors and cover-ups of those errors, which had been reported to the 9-11 Commission by Edmonds and others, yet the commission report "contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks".

"In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security," wrote Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American whose services as a translator were terminated by the FBI after she claimed vast wrongdoing within the bureau's translation unit.

Edmonds' open letter, while skirting around certain issues that she is prohibited by gag orders from revealing, is chilling in its revelations that, contrary to public claims by the administration of President George W Bush, the FBI was in possession months before September 2001 of intelligence that Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization was planning a major attack on the United States, using airplanes as a weapon.

These revelations are not new, though the open letter is remarkable in its specificity and naming of names. Previously, while being careful not to violate the legal silencing measures imposed on her by the FBI, the courts and the Justice Department, she has leveled damning criticisms in the media of her former employers and what she has termed the Bush administration's "anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes".

"But that aside," she told radio interviewer Jim Hogue in April, "we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system? They should be counteracting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen."

That interview took place before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon which the United States issued its final report on the September 11 attacks. Despite hours of testimony to the commission about what she knew of FBI failures leading up to the attacks, nearly nothing of this was mentioned in the report.

"While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up," Edmonds wrote in her letter. "I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this.

"Today, almost three years after [September 11], and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue ..."

Specific charges made by Edmonds included the case of a Turkish translator, whom she named, and who "for months ... blocked all-important information related to ... semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with ... [The translator] and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic-language units of the FBI's counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence investigations."

Edmonds also spoke of a translator put in charge of sensitive operations who not only could not speak English well enough to pass FBI proficiency tests, but he also could not speak the languages he was in charge of translating. Despite the fact that his case was made public on CBS television's 60 Minutes, and "after admitting that [he] was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads," Edmonds revealed.

But while Edmonds' letter delivered a cascade of specific allegations, perhaps the most explosive charge she makes concerns information the bureau was said to have received four months prior to September 2001, information warning of the September 11 plan. While both President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have repeatedly denied that there was any indication that airplanes would be used as a terror weapon, Edmonds revealed that in April 2001 the bureau had information that bin Laden was "planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four to five major cities"; "the attack was going to involve airplanes"; some of those involved were already "in the United States"; and the attack would be "in a few months". Edmonds states that the information came from "a long-term FBI informant/asset" and that it was sent to the "special agent in charge of counter-terrorism" in Washington. She also charges that after September 11 "the agents and translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue".

Further to that, she writes, "The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the [September 11] attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the 'use of airplanes', 'major US cities as targets', and 'Osama bin Laden issuing the order' ...

"All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and [translator] Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even [FBI] director [Robert] Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing ... ?"

Given the sweeping nature of Edmonds' knowledge of intelligence failures in the lead-up to September 11, it is probably not surprising that the US government has used its legal clout to try to shut her up. In what the July 29 New York Times termed "an unusually broad veil of secrecy", the Justice Department ordered the details surrounding Edmonds' allegations a matter of "state secrets". On May 13, Attorney General John Ashcroft had signed an order forbidding her to testify in a case brought by the families of September 11 victims, invoking rarely used "state secrets" authority. Edmonds was also broadly prohibited from discussing the facts surrounding her assertions.

It is unclear what personal consequences this latest whistleblowing may have for Edmonds. But notably, none of her prior revelations have been determined erroneous; rather, they have increasingly been found accurate....

Go Don!

I think Texasgurl might have originally resigned because she was kind enough to give PBrunsel a chance to run since he is an active member but has trouble getting elected based on where he lives. Its only my personal idea but if true it was an altruistic move, now she wants her seat and thats fine. I endorse Texasgurl.

Bush:
Your score is 2 on a scale of 1 to 10. You can't stand George W. Bush. The mere mention of his name makes you cringe, and every time you hear him speak, it makes you want to jump out the window. You will vote for Anyone But Bush.

Kerry:
Your score is 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard John Kerry supporter. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing Kerry run Bush and Cheney out of the White House, except maybe seeing them dragged away in handcuffs.

Michigan and Pennsylvania are definitely in play. The good news about Pennsylvania is that Nader will not be on the ballot. Without Nader, PA looks like this as of now:

LA Times - Kerry +10 (July 21)
Survey USA - Kerry +12 (August 2)
Strategic Vision - Kerry + 8 (August 4)

In Michigan, Nader will likely be on the ballot. Right now it looks like this WITHOUT Nader:
Strategic Vision - Kerry +7 (August 2)
SurveyUSA - Kerry +11 (August 4)

Washington (Nader not on ballot):
SurveyUSA (August 2) - Kerry + 8

So... Kerry had a 3% bounce but lost 6% among whites. If the poll is accurate this means he gained at least 24% among minorities, assuming whites are about 80% of registered voters. But since he couldn't possibly have gained 24% among blacks, he must have gained more than 24% among Hispanics.

He also had a 3% bounce although he only gained 2% among females and lost 3% among males. Assuming 1% of the population is transsexual, that means he must have gained 97% among transsexuals.

Or the IBD could just be making a bullsh*t graphic.

Absolutely. I was homeschooled and I've done just fine academically. I scored a 31 on my ACT and have a GPA of about 3.8 after 2 years of college. It works.

Actually, grade school is about more than just memorizing facts and preparing for a college. If that is all grade school has done for anyone, it has failed that child. Grade school should be about learning to join society and our common nation. Thus the pledge of allegiance, which at least everyone stands for, together.

Our society is built on the education of its citizens. This is the very foundation of our social capital. With homeschooling, educational standards are completely unenforceable. A once a year test cannot really enforce any educational standards, its no better than any other test. With no standards, this will eventually lead to the fragmentation of society and further deterioration of American social capital and society. This will happen at a very basic level. When that day comes we Americans will be more divided than we ever are now, at a time when we think we are already heavily divided. That will be very bad for America. Remember that there are two great oceans around this country, nobody, not even terrorists can destroy America in the end. We can only destroy ourselves. It begins with education.

One thing, I wonder if undecided voters primarily viewed the convention on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, one of the three big broadcasters, or a pure news channel such as C-SPAN or PBS. And I wonder if there are different reactions based on whether you primarily viewed which station. The pollsters should have asked that question and they should have taken a large enough sample to make it matter, even if it cost more. The results could be a total flop, or they could be very, very, very interesting. But it should be done.