Hastert Appears To Be Finished As Speaker Of The House

From the AP (via TPM Muckraker):

A senior congressional aide said Wednesday he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office in 2004 about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages -- the earliest known alert to the GOP leadership.

Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.

I don't see how Hastert will be able to survive this, particular given that Fordham also says he's going to the FBI with everything he knows. I guess Hastert can claim that his own aides kept him in the dark on all this. Good luck with that, Denny.

Foley Scandal Claims Another Victim

Well, CNN is reporting that Kirk Fordham, the chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds, has resigned due to the fallout from Rep. Mark Foley's sex messages to a teenage page. Reynolds is the Republican Congressional Committee Chairman.

Fordham said he resigned because Democrats are trying to make him an issue in Reynolds' reelection campaign -- and that he isn't going to let them. It therefore looks like the GOP strategy will be to let the aides take the blame for this debacle and then have the aides turn around and blame the Democrats. I guess we'll see how that strategy plays out. [Correction: ABC is now reporting that Fordham was fired].

The GOP's "Let's Blame The Democrats" strategy got a little help from FauxNews yesterday. Faux is identifying Foley as a Democrat (see photo on left). I guess the GOP figures that its base is stupid enough to be taken in by such a ploy. I can't argue with that.

Let's see if I got it right -- the GOP covers this whole Foley thing up in order to protect a House seat, and then blames the Democrats for taking political advantage of the situation once Foley was revealed as a kid diddler. I love it.

Why Can't This Stuff Happen To Me?

From Rocky Mountain News:

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

Good Stuff From Hoff

This Hoffmania post -- titled "Liking Woodward Again" -- pretty much mirrors the debate going on in my head lately about Bob Woodward:

Seems weird, right? Woodward carried the White House's water, so to speak, for his last couple of exploits, and now, we have State of Denial. Arianna compares it to being the 100th person to call 911 to report a car crash and claim the credit for alerting the authorities.

My cynical ass would probably go there, too - but for the nagging feeling that Woodward - like most of the media - was seeking access, which these hubris-filled gasbags in the White House gave with glee. Difference is, while the rest of the media treated the White House like their master for the honor of that access, Woodward saw enough and went to work.

Call me freakin' Pollyanna. I'll only add that the Woodward factor is definitely in play as you read this. In the face of everything that's finally boiled over in the last several days, the right's two biggest defenses are:

Cable news is talking about the book too much.

Bill Clinton had oral sex almost a decade ago.

Folks, they have nothing now. NOTHING. Thanks, Bob, for at least providing what appears to be a long overdue tipping point.

Way To Go, Oregon

No, I'm not talking about U of O's blow-out win over Arizona State. I'm referring to the Rasmussen poll in which I participated last week. It appears from the poll that Bush is not well-liked in these parts. Bush is so disliked, in fact, that Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Saxton doesn't want him anywhere near Oregon during the run-up to the election:

The Saxton campaign claims it doesn’t need the president’s help to win this race—and keeping a safe distance may be a smart move. Most Oregon voters (54%) say they “strongly disapprove” of the president’s job performance. This is among the highest levels of disapproval for the President found anywhere in the nation.

I like it. The poll does, however, show that Saxton is catching up with Gov. Kulongoski, which troubles me somewhat, given that Saxton appears to be right of Hitler politically (and no -- I'm not comparing Saxton to Hitler -- I'm saying that he's right of Hitler).

Saxton has been running a lot of negative ads lately, and they appear to be working. I hope the Kulongoski camp reads the results from the Rasmussen poll and starts running ads comparing Saxton to Bush. I think such ads will work, given that 54% of Oregon voters strongly disapprove of our Deserter-in-Chief.

The Foley Scandal (With Update)

Kos gives us some background on the Foley Scandal:

Foley represented a moderately conservative district, FL-16. In 2000, Bush beat Gore 53-47. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry 54-46. It was a district which Foley had represented since 1994, with his worst showing his first election with a 58% victory. In 2002 he won with 79%, in 2004 with 68%. This was a safe Republican district. Foley also raised a lot of money, and as the recent $100K gift from Foley to the NRCC attests, the party needed his fundraising skills.

Then 2006 rolls around. The GOP is facing a tough reelection with history, Bush, and their own incompetence weighing down their chances. The DCCC has had a banner fundraising and candidate recruitment year. And suddenly, Foley faces the GOP's worst nightmare in Tim Mahoney -- a Democratic challenger who 1) was a former Republican, and 2) is worth $8 gazillion and can self-fund his race. Mahoney announced his candidacy October 12, 2005, right around the time the House leadership was trying to figure out what to do about Foley's predatory practices.

Without Foley on the ticket, not only would the GOP suddenly face a competitive contest in a relatively safe district, but it would cost them $2-3 million to defend -- money that they no longer have available.

So they made a decision. They were going to look the other way despite knowing about Foley's predatory actions against the House's pages, and in return, Foley would keep them one seat closer to the majority and save them millions.

Forget about Foley. He's done. What's incredible about this scandal is the lengths this Republican Party will go to maintain their majorities. We already knew that power trumped everything for these guys. But coddling a child predator merely to save some cash and protect a single House seat.

They should've been protecting the kids working the House instead.

We already know how far the GOP will go to stay in power. After all, Bush lied this country into a war with Iraq. To me, the interesting part about this latest scandal is how it directly affects the GOP-run Congress. The failed presidency of George W. Bush was going to be the major issue in the run-up to the Mid-Terms, but now the voters will have something else to think about beyond whether the Republicans in Congress were too passive when it came to Bush.

Rove better have one hell of an October Surprise in his bag of tricks. If he doesn't, the GOP could be in a bit of trouble.

By the way, if you really want to see something funny, watch FauxNews. I always watch that channel when the GOP is in trouble, and this morning's segment on the Foley Scandal did not disappoint. It only took 15 seconds for the commentators to compare Bill Clinton's Lewinski Scandal to the situation with Foley. I have to admit that I didn't hear much of the rest of the segment after that point, given that the TV's audio was being drowned out by my laughter.

UPDATE: And speaking of FoxNews, it appears that the network is in a ratings slump. It's so bad, in fact, that Chris Wallace had to issue a response to Clinton's accusation that Wallace had never asked anyone in the Bush Regime whether they could have done more to stop Al Qaeda pre-911. He showed a single clip from an interview he did with Rumsfeld during the 9-11 Commission hearings a few years back.

I have no doubt that Rumsfeld wanted the question asked so he could respond to the drama that was occurring at the hearings. Who could forget the gasps from the audience when Condi Rice revealed that the title to the August 2001 Memo to Bush was "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S." Some major damage control was needed, and FoxNews was more than happy to provide the GOP with a forum.

The Clinton question, on the other hand, was clearly asked by Wallace as part of a coordinated GOP strategy to blame Clinton for 9-11 during the run-up to this year's Mid-Terms. The strategy was launched when ABC aired its ridiculous 9-11 mini-series in early September. I'm willing to bet that the Republican Party now wishes it had never gone down that path. The GOP is getting its ass kicked on this issue.

What A Time For This To Happen

From Yahoo News:

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former male page.

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a statement issued by his office.

The two-sentence statement did not refer to the e-mails and gave no reason for Foley's decision to abruptly abandon a flourishing career in Congress.

Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail correspondence surfaced in recent days.

His resignation comes less than six weeks before the elections. It was not clear how Republicans would fill his spot on the November ballot.

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

It was not clear what prompted Foley to abruptly decide to give up a successful career in the House.

Foley, who represents an area around Palm Beach County, e-mailed the page in August 2005. The page had worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., and Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday. The congressman also asked the boy to send a photo of himself, according to excerpts of the e-mails that were originally released by ABC News.

And speaking of bad timing, it looks like the new Woodward book is definitely going to hurt the GOP in the run-up to the mid-term elections:

The CIA'S top counterterrorism officials felt they could have killed Osama Bin Laden in the months before 9/11, but got the "brushoff" when they went to the Bush White House seeking the money and authorization.

CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism head Cofer Black sought an urgent meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001, writes Bob Woodward in his new book "State of Denial."

They went over top-secret intelligence pointing to an impending attack and "sounded the loudest warning" to the White House of a likely attack on the U.S. by Bin Laden.

Woodward writes that Rice was polite, but, "They felt the brushoff."

Tenet and Black were both frustrated.

Black later calculated that all he needed was $500 million of covert action funds and reasonable authorization from President Bush to go kill Bin Laden and "he might be able to bring Bin Laden's head back in a box," Woodward writes.

Black claims the CIA had about "100 sources and subsources" in Afghanistan who could have helped carry out the hit. * * *

This revelation is particularly embarrassing for Condi Rice, who just a few days ago said: "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years." Wrong again, Condi.

Olbermann Attacked By Terrorists (With Update)

Well, that's what yesterday's New York Post headline should read, but it doesn't. The piece is titled "POWDER PUFF SPOOKS KEITH."

The New York Post, by the way, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same right-winged extremist asshole who owns FauxNews. Here's what The Post has to say about the incident:

MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.

So what's the deal? I understand that Rupert Murdoch probably doesn't like Olbermann very much, but is it now legal to send letters through the mail that contain supicious white powder? The above-quoted NY Post piece sure makes it sound like it's no big deal.

And by the way, did BushCo ever figure out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001? Just asking.

UPDATE: Olbermann responds to Murdoch, and it looks like the New York Post probably impeded an FBI investigation by "reporting" on this story as it did:

[T]he New York Post never called NBC News or MSNBC seeking any comment. They would have been told that the FBI had requested we try to keep this quiet.

But of course that would have interfered with the New York Post making fun of a terror threat.

It's almost melodramatic to ask why the New York Post would choose the side of domestic terrorism, rather than choose the side of the FBI.

It's interesting too that Murdoch's paper was able to get a jump on this story so quickly -- nearly as quickly, as if they'd known it was coming.

Lastly, it's remarkable that this was actually printed by any newspaper, even in the current political climate, even in the wake of my editorial stance here, even with Rupert Murdoch's international reputation.

A month ago when reporter Steve Centanni of Murdoch's Fox News was kidnapped in Gaza -- along with his camera-man -- that network reached out to the others, this one included.

They relayed that the authorities there had urged everyone to keep reporting of the kidnapping low-key, and to a minimum, because it was believed the kidnappers did not know they had gotten hold of some one 'recognizable.'

We -- and every other major news organization -- immediately and thoroughly cooperated with Murdoch's request.

Now, in a return case, Murdoch's newspaper did not even make the single phone call that could've told it the potential damage it was doing.

So, next time a Fox or a New York Post employee is in distress -- or the government is investigating something endangering them -- and Murdoch's people ask us to hold a story?

Of course we will do so.

On this end, we're still human beings.

And Americans.

And we'd never have any problem choosing whether to support the terrorist, or the FBI.

Read the rest of Olbermann's response. It's pretty good. This whole incident should make for a great segment on his Countdown show.

Rasmussen Reports

Last night I got a call from Rasmussen Reports and was polled on many issues. When it asked me what my opinion was with regard to Bush's performance as president, it felt great to respond with "very unfavorable." I was disappointed that there was no category beyond "very unfavorable" (like "I think we should send the sonofabitch to Gitmo -- after a fair trial, of course -- and throw away the key"), but it was still great to give Bush a very negative rating.

I was polled on a lot of different questions, but the poll really focused on Measure 48, Don McIntire's latest attempt to destroy Oregon's government. I just wish folks like McIntire, Bill Sizemore, and Grover Norquist would go find some other country to live in. Haiti would be a good choice for them. They'd love it there.

Glass Houses: Why The GOP's "Let's Blame Clinton For 9/11" Strategy Is Failing

This was good for a few laughs:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Bill Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al Qaeda, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments after Mr. Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al Qaeda leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Mr. Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.

Rice also took exception to Mr. Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," she told the newspaper, which is owned by News Corp., the same company that owns Fox News Channel.

In the interview, Mr. Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'

Rice portrayed the departure of former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke differently, saying he "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."

The reference to the Cole related to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

The interview has been the focus of much attention, drawing nearly 1.2 million views on YouTube and earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.

Rice questioned the value of the dialogue.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

Yeah, no shit it's not a very fruitful discussion, Condi. You and your extremist buddies should have figured that out prior to launching your "let's blame Clinton for 9-11" strategy. I guess you thought it would be a good campaign issue for the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. But you neglected to take into account that you and the rest of the Bush Regime did nothing with regard to al Qaeda in the eight months you were in office prior to 9-11.

I'm glad Bill Clinton finally decided to go on the attack on this particular issue. As Arianna notes, it's about freaking time:

After providing President Bush cover for his disastrous handling of Katrina, after trying to get himself adopted by George Bush, Sr., after giving Laura Bush the keynote slot at his Global Initiative Conference, after going along with Rupert Murdoch's fundraiser for Hillary -- after all that, he got exactly nothing.

All of Bill Clinton's tireless "bipartisanship" has been of no benefit to him, of no benefit to the country, and has only benefited George Bush and the right-wing.

I'm glad the Chris Wallace interview is flying all over the internet, but I really hope that one person who will watch it over and over again is Bill Clinton. And that on the fifth or sixth viewing it might occur to him that the more cover he gives Bush and his cronies, the more they're able to increase and entrench their power. Power they use to destroy everything that Clinton purports to stand for.

The GOP started this fight when they got their surrogate to do that bullshit 9-11 mini-series on ABC (which "coincidently" aired just a couple months before the elections) then continued the coordinated attack when they tried to go after Bill Clinton by getting Chris Wallace on FauxNews to attempt to ambush him. What a mistake. I'm glad they did it, though, because -- as Arianna noted -- it finally got Clinton to start acting like a Democrat again instead of a watered-down, diplomatic ex-president who got along great with the Bushes.

All the Wallace interview did was remind everyone just how smart Bill Clinton is and how good a president he really was compared to the moron we have in there now. They've now turned the pre-9/11 approach to bin Laden into a mid-term campaign issue when all they had to do was keep their mouths shut on this and it never would have come up. After all, this stuff really is old news -- it's a five-year-old story, for God's Sake -- and the record clearly shows that BushCo dropped the ball on the whole al Qaeda deal in the run-up to 9/11.

I think the GOP strategy relied on the ABC mini-series convincing everyone that Clinton was to blame for 9-11, but the blogosphere did a great job of putting pressure on ABC to take out all the false parts of the show, which watered it down big time as a GOP hit piece. Indeed, all the controversy actually worked to educate the public somewhat on the extent to which Clinton really did go after bin Laden.

Was it Karl Rove's idea to bring up the whole pre-9/11 deal as a campaign issue? If so, it was a monumental screw up in my opinion. Once again, its success relied on the stupidity of the American people, who -- unfortunately for the GOP -- seem to be a bit smarter these days.

I'm sure Rove's idea was to shore up the GOP's base in an attempt to make some of these mid-term election results close enough so that GOP operatives could steal them, but independents are going to be a big factor in the mid-terms and, as this poll indicates (thanks for the link, Slick), independents clearly feel that Bush bears more responsibility for 9/11 than does Clinton. Indeed, a lot of Republicans also feel the same way -- only 71% of Republicans think Clinton is more to blame for 9/11 -- which does not bode well for GOP candidates this year.

Epic Backpacking Adventure

I have a recurring dream. Well, it's not exactly recurring, because every time I have this dream it's always a little different. And it's not really a dream -- it's more like a nightmare.

When I was in grade school, I took two great backpacking trips into a basin that is part of the Three Sisters Wilderness in Central Oregon. It's a ten-mile hike into this lake-rich area, and on each trip, we spent a full week in there with no TV, no radio, no hot and cold running water, etc. The only real signs of civilization were the occasional jet trails cutting into the clear blue sky overhead. As I got older I would often have dreams of returning to this area and fishing those pristine waters again.

But in the past five years or so, my dreams about this particular place started to change. At first, the changes involved getting into the basin and finding crowds of people in there and garbage floating on the lakes. Then, lakeside houses and boat docks started appearing in my dream version of this area. In one dream, we were hiking into the basin when we came across a small but bustling town situated right in the middle of the wilderness area, with a road leading into it. My last dream involving this area featured some sort of rock-crushing operation taking place on the shores of one of the lakes which caused its waters to become cloudy.

I would always wake up from these dreams with an uneasy feeling as well as the determination to get back into this area to see for myself how it has held up over the years. I planned to go in there last September, but a bad knee forced me to cancel those plans (I went on a great fly-fishing trip to the Deschutes River instead). But this year I was determined to finally get back in there, and Danimal and Carl agreed to go with me.

We hit the trail at about 1:15 on Friday afternoon. As you can see from the photos, the weather was perfect and it remained that way for the entire trip. It took us about four hours to hike the nine miles to our destination. The trail starts at around 5000 feet elevation, which is the approximate elevation of where we were headed, so there isn't any major elevation gains or losses along the way. But the last short climb up to the lake felt like it took an eternity even though it was not that steep. Exhaustion has a way of making time move slower. When we finally got close enough to get a view of the lake through the trees, the sun was low in the west and the sunlight was sparkling off of the water's surface. It was a great sight to see given that we just hiked nine miles and really wanted to get the packs off our backs.

We set up camp near an old shelter, which was built in 1938 by the CCC. When I first visited this lake in 1976, the shelter was still in pretty good shape and we actually slept in it. Now the shelter is falling apart, and an entire section of the roof is missing. Maybe someday they'll repair it.

After setting up camp, we fished for about 90 minutes before it got dark. It was very discouraging. I had one fish on for a while -- which I lost when it apparently wrapped itself around a submerged log -- but that was it. I became concerned that we might not catch any fish on this trip, which would really suck given how far we had to walk to get to this place.

But Danimal took the skunk off of the trip early the next morning when he landed a 17-inch cutthroat trout right in front of our camp (on the left is a picture of Dan with his fish). I was still in my tent trying to sleep when that happened, but I was up and about pretty fast after Dan walked up to my tent and showed me his catch.

Dan soon landed two more cutthroat trout -- each 17-inches long -- and we hooked and lost another fish right in front of our camp before deciding to go to a spot near a cliff which had some deeper water.

My grade school friends and I had done well at that spot thirty years earlier, and it didn't disappoint this time. Dan hooked two trout there and landed one, and I landed a hard-fighting cutthroat that was very eager to wrap my line around one of those submerged logs. In fact, Carl lost a nice trout that was actually able to wrap the line around a log on the bottom. We lost several fish that way on this trip.

About a half hour after losing that fish, Carl hooked and landed what would turn out to be the biggest fish of the trip -- the fat, 16-and-a-half-inch rainbow pictured at right. Although this wasn't the longest fish we caught, it weighed two-and-a-half pounds and was at least a half pound heavier than the second largest fish we caught.

At left is a picture of Dan and Carl as we were getting ready to leave this spot and go back to camp for lunch. As you can see, it is a great place from which to bank fish. The lake is probably 15 feet deep where that log is visible (upper right corner of photo). This particular lake has some very clear water.

We continued to catch fish all day. The fishing, however, was not fast and furious -- we probably averaged one strike for every 45 minutes of fishing; and except for a short period of time on Saturday evening when we landed three fish in about 5 minutes, the bite was spread out and steady all day long.

We hooked about 20 fish this trip, landed 12, and kept six of them to eat (there's two of them cooking at right). We had trout for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on Saturday. We ate so much trout, in fact, that I carried back most of the food I had packed in.

Dan had the hot hand this trip fishing-wise, and was responsible for at least half of the fish we hooked and landed. Most of the trout we caught were in the 16-17 inch range. All of them were in excellent condition and fought hard.

I definitely want to go back in there next September, but spend three nights instead of two, because it takes me at least three nights to recover from the hike in to the lake (every muscle and joint in my body is aching as I write this). But it was great to get back in there after all these years and see that, except for the deteriorating shelter, the place looks just the same as it did three decades ago.

Can We Call It A Civil War Now?

One hundred and six people are killed every day in Iraq (from The Australian via Hoffmania):

The number of civilians slain across Iraq climbed to unprecedented levels in July and August, with 6599 people killed by violence in that time.

A report from the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq said the July total of 3590 deaths was unprecedented since the US-led invasion in 2003, while the August figure of 3009 was also among the worst.

Many of the average 106 killed per day were tortured to death with cables, acid and power drills, the report said.

It also raised new questions about US and Iraqi forces' ability to bring peace to Baghdad, where the bulk of the deaths occurred.

In its previous report, two months ago, the UN mission gave a combined figure of 5818 for the two months of May and June. The latest two-month figure shows an increase of more than 13 per cent over that number. * * *

Wonderful

From NewsMax:

In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

President Bush's political strategist is also saying that the final two weeks before the elections will see a blitz of advertising, and the Republican National Committee is deploying an army of volunteers to key locations to help the grass-roots effort and monitor the elections.

The RNC is offering to fly in volunteers and cover their expenses.

Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be. Asked if he would elaborate and give his thinking about the coming elections, Rove told NewsMax that his take largely parallels what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a Sept. 5 NewsMax story.

As for the October Surprise, Rove said, "I'd rather let the balance [of plans for the elections] unroll on its own."

If the October Surprise turns out to be an attack on Iran, it will be the least surprising October Surprise in history.

And I just love the part about Rove sending out operatives to "monitor" the elections. That's hysterical, in fact.

Very Bad News For The GOP

Although there is a lot of bad new for Republicans in the recent New York Times/CBS poll - i.e., 30% appoval for BushCo's handling of Iraq and an overall 37% approval rating for Bush -- the following numbers jumped out at me:

By overwhelming margins, respondents said that members of Congress were too tied to special interests and that they did not understand the needs and problems of average Americans. Two-thirds said Congress had accomplished less than it typically does in a two-year session; most said they said they could not name a single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress. Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job.

Are voters finally starting to realize that people who hate government shouldn't be in government? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Whitehouse Leads Chafee

This is interesting (from Political Wire):

In Rhode Island's U.S. Senate race, a new American Research Group poll finds Sheldon Whitehouse is at 45% and Lincoln Chafee is at 40%.

Key findings: Whitehouse gains a slight edge because 72% of Democrats say they would vote for Whitehouse. Although 69% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Chafee, compared to 51% for Whitehouse, over 80% of those saying they have a favorable opinion of Whitehouse say they would vote for Whitehouse, compared to 56% for Chafee. Democrats who like both candidates say they would vote for Whitehouse.

I like Lincoln Chafee -- he's against Bush on virtually every issue (which is unique for a Republican these days) -- but he is only one person and party politics must be the overriding concern here. The GOP understands this. That's why Rove and Company threw a lot of support Chafee's way in the recent Republican primary, despite the fact that Chafee's opponent was pro-Bush all the way.

If I was Whitehouse, I'd have nothing but praise for Chafee, and I would be critical on only point, namely, he's a Republican, and we can't afford to send any more Republicans back to Congress.

From Jack Ohman of The Oregonian

Yet Another Bullshit GOP Ploy?

From Atrios:

CNN is reporting that the Senate Armed Service Committee has rejected the Bush's latest "compromise" offer on torturing people. I have yet to figure out if this is a real conflict or an elaborate dance.

I had the exact same thought as I was listening to a report on this issue this morning on NPR. This whole dispute between Bush and the three GOP senators (plus Colin Powell) seems like a set-up to make Bush look tough against all them tinhorn terrorists. He's so tough, in fact -- and so full of hatred for the evildoers -- that even his own party has to tone him down. It's like the American people are being subjected to a form of the "good cop/bad cop" routine.

One thing is for certain -- they sure seem to be going out of their way to make this "dispute" as open and public as possible.

Great Special Comment From Olbermann

Watch it here.

PlameGate Update: Novak Goes After Armitage

From CBS News:

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak has turned on his own source. Novak says Richard Armitage, the man who told him Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, didn't disclose her identity in a casual manner, and instead urged him to make her a column item.

"Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column," Novak wrote.

Armitage gave a different version of event to CBS News. The former Bush administration deputy secretary of state said he disclosed Plame's CIA status in response to an "offhand question" from Novak.

"I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," Armitage said.

I Hope Someone In The Press Asks Bush This Question

From Political Wire:

If the war on terror is really a "struggle for civilization" itself, as President Bush claimed last night, why do we have just 130,000 troops in Iraq?

You would think that if America were really engaged in such an epic battle -- "for all the marbles," as one friend paraphrased it -- we would put up a bigger fight.

Good point.