a two year commitment to net neutrality and the promise to offer 19.95 crap-ass DSL to people in the south.
From Business Week.

In the form Hegel finally gave it, theory, the adequate repository of the truth, seemed to give welcome to the facts as they were and hailed them as conforming to reason -- Marcuse, Reason and Revolution
"WASHINGTON - A federal judge has accepted a series of redactions and substitutions proposed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald - to be provided to I Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense team - which will limit what Libby can share with jurors at his upcoming trial on some of the specifics of his top-secret White House briefings."
"Nov. 19, 2006 -- A University of Utah physicist took a step toward developing a superfast computer based on the weird reality of quantum physics by showing it is feasible to read data stored in the form of the magnetic 'spins' of phosphorus atoms."
"A leftist nationalist who is friendly with Venezuela's anti-U.S. president held a commanding lead over a Bible-toting banana tycoon in Sunday's runoff presidential election in Ecuador, exit polls showed.
The tall and charismatic Rafael Correa received nearly 57 per cent of the vote, compared to 43 per cent for Alvaro Noboa, according to an exit poll conducted by CEDATOS-Gallup."
"A huge asteroid is on a catastrophic collision course with Earth and mankind is poised to go the way of the dinosaurs."
"The proposals are at an early stage, and a spacecraft needed just to send an astronaut that far into space exists only on the drawing board, but they are deadly serious. A smallish asteroid called Apophis has already been identified as a possible threat to Earth in 2036."
"A 1bn tonne asteroid just 1km across striking the Earth at a 45 degree angle could generate the equivalent of a 50,000 megatonne thermonuclear explosion."
"WASHINGTON: The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged for the first time the existence of two classified documents, including one signed by President George W. Bush, that have guided the agency's interrogation and detention of terror suspects."
"New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
"Now we learn [via FOIA] that one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq died by her own hand after objecting to interrogation methods used on prisoners.
She was Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native serving with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal-Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on Sept. 15, 2003, from a ?non-hostile weapons discharge.? "
[snip]
?Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed. ...".
She was was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. ?But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle,? the documents disclose.
"And finally tonight, a Special Comment.
On the 22nd of May, 1856, as the deteriorating American political system veered towards the edge of the cliff, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, shuffled into the Senate of this nation, his leg stiff from an old dueling injury, supported by a cane. And he looked for the familiar figure of the prominent Senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner.
Brooks found Sumner at his desk, mailing out copies of a speech he had delivered three days earlier ? a speech against slavery.
The Congressman matter-of-factly raised his walking stick in mid-air, and smashed its metal point, across the Senator's head.
Congressman Brooks hit his victim repeatedly. Senator Sumner somehow got to his feet and tried to flee. Brooks chased him, and delivered untold blows to Sumner's head. Even though Sumner lay unconscious and bleeding, on the Senate floor, Brooks finally stopped beating him, only because his cane finally broke.
Others will cite John Brown's attack on the arsenal at Harper's Ferry as the exact point after which the Civil War became inevitable.
In point of fact, it might have been the moment ? not when Brooks broke his cane over the prostrate body of Senator Sumner - but when voters in Brooks's district started sending him new canes.
Tonight, we almost wonder to whom President Bush will send the next new cane.
There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame.
There is no line this President has not crossed ? nor will not cross ? to keep one political party, in power.
He has spread any and every fear among, in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears ? some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency.And now it is evident that it no longer matters to him, whether that effort to avoid the judgment of the people, is subtle and nuanced ? or laughably transparent.
Senator John Kerry called him out Monday.
He did it two years too late.
He had been too cordial ? just as Vice President Gore had been too cordial in 2000 ? just as millions of us, have been too cordial ever since.
Senator Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor, he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial.
He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education ? that quote "if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you can get stuck in Iraq."
The Senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid.
The context was unmistakable: Texas;the state of denial;stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.
And Mr. Bush and his minions responded, by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid.
They demanded Kerry apologize ? to the troops in Iraq.
And so he now has.
That phrase "appearing to be too stupid" is used deliberately, Mr. Bush.
Because there are only three possibilities here:
One, sir, is that you are far more stupid than the worst of your critics have suggested; that you could not follow the construction of a simple sentence; that you could not recognize your own life story when it was deftly summarized; that you could not perceive it was the sad ledger of your presidency that was being recounted.
This, of course, compliments you, Mr. Bush, because even those who do not "make the most of it," who do not "study hard," who do not "do their homework," and who do not "make an effort to be smart" might still just be stupid ? but honest.
No; the first option, sir, is, at best, improbable. You are not honest.
The second option is that you and those who work for you deliberately twisted what Senator Kerry said to fit your political template. That you decided to take advantage of it, to once again pretend that the attacks, solely about your own incompetence, were in fact attacks on the troops ? or even on the nation itself.
The third possibility is, obviously, the nightmare scenario; that the first two options are in some way conflated.
That it is both politically convenient for you, and personally satisfying to you, to confuse yourself with the country for which, sir, you work.
A brief reminder, Mr. Bush: You are not the United States of America.
You are merely a politician whose entire legacy will have been a willingness to make anything political ? to have, in this case, refused to acknowledge that the insult wasn't about the troops, and that the insult was not even truly about you either ? that the insult, in fact, is you.
So now John Kerry has apologized to the troops; apologized for the Republicans' deliberate distortions.
Thus the President will now begin the apologies he owes our troops, right?
This President must apologize to the troops ? for having suggested, six weeks ago, that the chaos in Iraq, the death and the carnage, the slaughtered Iraqi civilians and the dead American service personnel, will, to history, quote "look like just a comma."
This President must apologize to the troops ? because the intelligence he claims led us into Iraq proved to be undeniably and irredeemably wrong.
This President must apologize to the troops ? for having laughed about the failure of that intelligence, at a banquet, while our troops were in harm's way.
This President must apologize to the troops ? because the streets of Iraq were not strewn with flowers and its residents did not greet them as liberators.
This President must apologize to the troops ? because his administration ran out of "plan" after barely two months.
This President must apologize to the troops ? for getting 2,815 of them killed.
This President must apologize to the troops ? for getting this country into a war without a clue.
And Mr. Bush owes us an apology? for this destructive and omnivorous presidency.
?
We will not receive them, of course.
This President never apologizes.
Not to the troops.
Not to the people.
Nor will those henchmen who have echoed him.
In calling him a "stuffed suit," Senator Kerry was wrong about the Press Secretary.
Mr. Snow's words and conduct ? falsely earnest and earnestly false ? suggest he is not "stuffed" - he is inflated.
And in leaving him out of the equation, Senator Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Senator McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.
He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.
Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry's head came in a context, even more disturbing: Mr. McCain demanded the apology, while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.
He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how, quote "many of the have lost limbs." He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there: Tammy Duckworth.
Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.
And exploit all the veterans, and all the still-serving personnel, in a cheap and tawdry political trick, to try to bury the truth: that John Kerry said the President had been stupid.
And to continue this slander as late as this morning ? as biased, or gullible, or lazy newscasters, nodded in sleep-walking assent.
Senator McCain became a front man in a collective lie to break sticks over the heads of Democrats ? one of them his friend; another his fellow veteran, leg-less, for whom he should weep and applaud, or at minimum about whom, he should stay quiet.
That was beneath the Senator from Arizona.
And it was all because of an imaginary insult to the troops that his party cynically manufactured ? out of a desperation, and a futility, as deep as that of Congressman Brooks, when he went hunting for Senator Sumner.
This, is our beloved country now, as you have re-defined it, Mr. Bush.
Get a tortured Vietnam veteran to attack a decorated Vietnam veteran, in defense of military personnel, whom that decorated veteran did not insult.
Or, get your henchmen to take advantage of the evil lingering dregs of the fear of miscegenation in Tennessee, in your party's advertisements against Harold Ford.
Or, get the satellites who orbit around you, like Rush Limbaugh, to exploit the illness ? and the bi-partisanship ? of Michael J. Fox ? yes, get someone to make fun of the cripple.
Oh, and sir, don't forget to drag your own wife into it.
"It's always easy," she said of Mr. Fox's commercials ? and she used this phrase twice ? "to manipulate people's feelings."
Where on earth might the First Lady have gotten that idea, Mr. President?
From your endless manipulation of people's feelings about terrorism?
"How ever they put it," you said Monday of the Democrats, on the subject of Iraq , "their approach comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses."
No manipulation of feelings there.
No manipulation of the charlatans of your administration into the only truth-tellers.
No shocked outrage at the Kerry insult that wasn't; no subtle smile as the First Lady silently sticks the knife in Michael J. Fox's back; no attempt on the campaign trail to bury the reality that you have already assured that the terrorists are winning.
Winning in Iraq, sir.
Winning in America, sir.
There, we have chaos: joint U.S./Iraqi checkpoints at Sadr City, the base of the radical Shiite militias ? and the Americans have been ordered out by the Prime Minister of Iraq? and our Secretary of Defense doesn't even know about it!
And here ? we have deliberate, systematic, institutionalized lying and smearing and terrorizing ? a code of deceit, that somehow permits a President to say, quote, "If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one."
Permits him to say this while his plan in Iraq has amounted to a twisted version of the advice once offered to Lyndon Johnson about his Iraq, called Vietnam.
Instead of "declare victory ? and get out"? we now have "declare victory ? and stay, indefinitely."
And also here, we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition. True domestic terror:
? Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax.
? Braying newspapers applaud, or laugh, or reveal details the FBI wished kept quiet, and thus impede or ruin the investigation.
? A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper that published "national security information" ? that was openly available on the internet.
? One radio critic receives a letter, threatening the revelation of as much personal information about her as can be obtained ? and expressing the hope that someone will then shoot her with an AK-47 machine gun.
? And finally, a critic of an incumbent Republican Senator, a critic armed with nothing but words, is attacked by the Senator's supporters, and thrown to the floor, in full view of television cameras, as if someone really did want to re-enact the intent and the rage of the day Preston Brooks found Senator Charles Sumner.
Of course, Mr. President, you did none of these things.
You instructed no one to mail the fake anthrax. Nor undermine the FBI's case. Nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times. Nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller. Nor beat up a man yelling at Senator Allen. Nor have the first lady knife Michael J. Fox. Nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry.
No, you did not.
And the genius of the thing, is the same, as in King Henry's rhetorical question about Archbishop Thomas Becket: "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
All you have to do, sir? is hand out enough new canes."
"So over the past five years we have acted on our philosophy and passed the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. (Applause.)
In other words, we just didn't talk about philosophy -- there's too many philosophers in Washington -- we acted. We got the job done."
Q Tony, your argument that Vice President Cheney didn't know that he was being asked about water boarding or wasn't being asked about water boarding and didn't intend to give an answer that suggested he was saying the United States uses water boarding, it doesn't follow when you read the transcript and it doesn't follow sort of common sense.Snow here shows some of his cards...No one brings up the issue of international law and just how serious such an admission would be legally and yet he intones:MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what he --
Q How can you really make that argument?
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...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.He didn't say what he said. Besides, he would not have said it anyway.
Well, I've been reading these gaggles and briefings pretty regularly for the last six years, and I must admit that this was one occassion in which the press corps members were not willing to give the Administration the last word on anything.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.
Alright, it is obvious to all thinking creatures that they've got no option left but deny deny deny. But still, how could he say it? What the hell could he be thinking of when he allows these words to pass over his lips?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?
But the press throws it right back in his face:
Q So, wait a minute, so "dunk in the water" means what, we have a pool now at Guantanamo, and they go swimming?Again we seen signs that the WH has tacitly or explicitly admitted that IF Dick HAD been talking about water-boarding as a tactic we use, THEN he'd be fucked.MR. SNOW: Are you doing stand up?
...
MR. SNOW: 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.
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.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.
But this time they fire back:
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.
Did you catch that? Derrida's revenge?
And the hits keep on coming...
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 -- 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 --
I guess grown ups do occassionally get tired of having to have discussions such as these. Exhibit A:
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.)Here comes Helen Thomas. Tony Snow's smart, though. He knows who she is and where she's coming from. She's one of "You Guys".
Q Is the emphasis on "we don't torture" when we send captives to notorious places that do torture? Does that absolve you?I think Snow's assignment was to keep saying "VP meant dunk in water, like he said." And to say absolutely nothing more than this. Oops. Now watch him try to close THIS door. Exhibit BMR. 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 --
Exhibit CQ 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.
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?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 --
Q Clarify something. A couple seconds ago, you said, "I can understand why people look at this and draw this conclusion."MR. SNOW: Well, because you're going to talk about dunks in the water, and I know people say, "oh, that must mean water boarding." I mean I understand that you'd draw that, so we'll get into it.
Q Wouldn't you draw that conclusion if you were reading this?
MR. SNOW: No, I wouldn't because I know the Vice President, and I know the way people think in the White House.
Ah, well, that settles it then.
"A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting 'existential terror' in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes."
"President Bush finds the world around him increasingly 'unacceptable.'
In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems 'unacceptable,' including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.
[snip]But a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.
In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes "unacceptable" or "not acceptable" as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable. They number 37 so far this year, as opposed to five in 2003, 18 in 2002 and 14 in 2001."
"WASHINGTON -- A new study asserts that roughly 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a figure many times higher than any previous estimate.
The study, to be published Saturday in the British medical journal the Lancet, was conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health by sending teams of Iraqi doctors across Iraq from May through July."
"TORONTO, Sept. 18 - Canadian intelligence officials passed false warnings and bad information to American agents about a Muslim Canadian citizen, after which U.S. authorities secretly whisked him to Syria, where he was tortured, a judicial report found Monday."
"Some officials at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department said they're concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles, including a discredited arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, who played a role in the 1980s Iran-contra scandal.
Officials at all three agencies said they suspect that the dubious information may include claims that Iran directed Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July; that Iran's nuclear program is moving faster than generally believed; and that the Iranian people are eager to join foreign efforts to overthrow their theocratic rulers.
The officials said there is no reliable intelligence to support any of those assertions and some that contradicts all three."
"The sudden, well-orchestrated coup -- the first in 15 years and a throwback to an unsettled era in Thailand -- was likely to spark both enthusiasm and criticism at home and abroad. The military said it would soon return power to a democratic government but did not say when.
Striking when Thaksin was in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, army commander Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin sent tanks and troops into the drizzly, nighttime streets of Bangkok. The military ringed Thaksin's offices, seized control of television stations and declared a provisional authority loyal to the king."
"In the immediate aftermath, 57% thought the nation had changed for the better. That number actually grew to 61% by January 2002. Now, half a decade later, just 21% of American adults hold that optimistic view. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the changes have been for the worse.
Three years ago, 67% of all Americans believed the world would be a better place if other countries were more like our own. Today, that number has fallen to 51%.
Early in 2002, 61% thought the country was safer than it was before 9/11 (about the same as believed that a year ago). Today, that number has fallen to 36%."
Today, 41% of Americans believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Two years ago, more than 50% held that view.
"The increasing pessimism has caused Americans to revise their assessment of the way that President Bush responded to the terrorist attacks. Today, just 42% rate his performance as good or excellent. That?s down from 51% a year ago and 56% two years ago."
"Almost a third, 32%, now say the President?s response was poor."
"The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq."
"One anti-war widow said she used the opportunity to voice her objections to Bush's policies.
'I said it's time to stop the bleeding,' said Hildi Halley, whose husband, Army National Guard Capt. Patrick Damon, died June 15 in Afghanistan. 'It's time to swallow our pride and find a solution.'
She said Bush responding by saying 'there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war.'"
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to
their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a
coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region
after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had
also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory.
CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: 'The Stranger.'
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English.
"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."
[snip]
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
[snip]
"For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center."
"Netanyahu discusses Iran with Cheney"Booman Tribune cites Jerusalem Post (Nexis only), June 18, 2006:
Likud Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu met with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute World Forum at Beaver Creek in Colorado on Friday.
During the meeting Netanyahu spoke mainly about the threat of the Iranian nuclear program. According to Netanyahu's spokesman Cheney complimented him on the results of his fiscal policies as finance minister in the Sharon government."
In a victory speech of sorts on Inauguration Day in January 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney warned bluntly that Iran was "right at the top" of the administration's list of "trouble spots"?and that Israel "might well decide to act first" by attacking Iran. The Israelis, Cheney added in an obvious swipe at moderates in the State Department, would "let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."J. Bramford, Rolling Stone, July 24, 2006
"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Anti-U.S. leaders Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad met in Tehran on Saturday, pledging mutual support for one another, state media reported."