[In 2002], Miller expressed support for the creation of a 9/11 commission with "far-reaching powers," one that will deliver a "full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks." But [in early 2003], he took to the Senate floor to blast Richard Clarke and declare that the Commission will "energize our enemies and demoralize our troops." Miller went on to accuse the President's critics of treason:

It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us -- this country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is stupid, and it is criminal.

Without a whiff of irony or self-awareness, Senator Miller declares in his new book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, "The political climate of this nation is more hostile and partisan than at any time in recent history." But Miller's current posture is as hostile as any in American politics.

... in defense of a strong military to safeguard freedom, Miller invokes the 18th century Georgia militia and its defeat of the expansion-minded Floridians, a conquest without which, Miller concludes, the South might be speaking Spanish today (whew, that was a close one!).

At his very worst, Miller descends into self-parody, sounding like your slightly unhinged elderly uncle -- crotchety, reactionary and provincial. Crazy Uncle Zell rants about "this rap crap" and "soft-belly peaceniks." He endorses corporal punishment and drug testing for middle schoolers. He believes that convicted child molesters ought to have a microchip tracer implanted in their bodies and that we should "send illegal aliens back to where they came from."

BUSH EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Event workers had been told to fire off confetti pods when Bush said, 'God Bless'... his normal closing line. But 5 minutes before the end of his speech, Bush offered a "God Bless" to Arlene Howard, mother of George Howard a Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Officer killed in the World Trade Center... BLAM!!!!! Everyone first ducked -- hard -- then looked up to see confetti falling. Bush looked momentarily stunned, then plain unhappy, then just went on with his speech as the confetti rained to the floor of the Verizon Wireless Arena... Developing...

US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying “we don’t do body counts”. The Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they control. The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the occupying forces were women and children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention IV, Article 27 states that protected persons “. . . shall be at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against acts of violence . . .”. It seems difficult to understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties they induce. This survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained. There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise tallies. In view of the political importance of this conflict, these results should be confirmed by an independent body such as the ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO. In the interim, civility and enlightened self-interest demand a re-evaluation of the consequences of weaponry now used by coalition forces in populated areas.

In planning this war, the coalition forces—especially those of the US and
UK—must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians.

And these consequences [for civilians] presumably influenced deployments of armed forces, provision of supplies, and investments in building a safe and secure physical and human infrastructure in the post-war setting. With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.

"Firstly, we'll start with the declaration of principles. We want a clear distinction between the state and religion. Right now in Sudan you have a situation where Islam is given prominence over other religions," [said Mahgoud Hussein, spokesman for the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM).]

"This shouldn't be so. Even though I'm a Muslim, we want religion to be a personal thing with every citizen having the freedom to practice what he believes in," he explained.

The rebel demand was immediately rejected by government negotiators, who insisted that mainly-Muslim northern Sudan, including Darfur, should be governed under the principles of Islamic law.

A federal judge in Columbus blocked Republican efforts to force county election boards to review tens of thousands of new voter registrations. Before the ink was dry on the judge's order, the Ohio GOP's top lawyer said the action meant the GOP would challenge such voters at the polls on November 2. "We wanted to have all these questions resolved this week," said attorney Mark Weaver. "Now they won't be resolved until Tuesday, when all of these people are trying to vote. It can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."

Election law professor Rick Hasen has identified at least five different "doomsday" scenarios, in which the Supreme Court could decide this razor-thin election. Imagine that one of those scenarios comes to fruition, and the election is thrown into the court—and Chief Justice Rehnquist is wholly incapacitated. With Rehnquist out of service, any ensuing election litigation could deadlock in a 4-4 tie at the Supreme Court. But now imagine if Rehnquist resigned: Bush would be free to make a recess appointment, of someone who would then be in the position to break any high court tie in the president's favor.

The resulting outcry would make the national disagreement over Bush v. Gore seem like a high-school Lincoln-Douglas debate.

"You're essentially running the same data through the same software on the same computer, you’re gonna get the same answer every time," says Pelley.

"You are gonna get the same answer every time," says McCormack.

"Is that a recount?"

"Oh, I think it's a recount. And you know, do people really want to get a different answer? What we saw four years in Florida was a recount that was done, where people got a different answer, chad fell out and the numbers were different," says McCormack.

"This shocked people. The recount doesn't match, and yet, in electronic, the recount matches and everybody's critical of that. So I don't think there's anything in between. It's either gonna match, or it's not gonna match. There's criticism at either level."

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons.
...
President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.
...
Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive."

In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

David Kay, a former U.S. official who led the weapons search in Iraq in 2003, said his team believed the stockpile was looted after the U.S. invasion and not moved before the war by Iraqi officials loyal to Mr. Hussein. "The assumption was that it had disappeared in the looting," Mr. Kay said.

[edit]

Inspectors with the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency left Iraq in mid-March 2003, days before the U.S. invasion, after verifying during a spot check that the explosives were under seal in bunkers at Al Qaqaa, according to an IAEA official.

The first U.S. weapons-inspection team checking on the explosives arrived on May 27, 2003. That team, which was part of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, a unit charged with searching for banned Iraqi weapons and components, found that the IAEA seals were broken and the high explosives were missing.

Several other U.S. units passed through the site in April on their way to Baghdad, but stayed only briefly and didn't check or secure the explosives, Mr. Kay and others said. Looters already were at work in the area by the time the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade arrived soon after the April 9 fall of Baghdad.

Asked about the missing explosives in Iraq, Giuliani said: "The president was cautious. The president was prudent.... No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?

Since the Redskins became the Redskins in 1933, the result of the team's final home game before the presidential election has correctly predicted the White House winner. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted.

Get Ready for a November Surprise

First, let me just say prepare for the death of polls, as that will be the dominant story coming out of election night. First blacks. I saw Ann Coulter on some show where she was literally speaking for black America. Being that she is an aging white chick with poorly dyed roots, she obviously got it wrong. Those polls saying how Bush will get 16 to 18 percent of the black vote are just wrong. To quote ODB, "Nigga please." Since black people aren't really polled, here is a bit of insight. Although we aren't that excited about Kerry, he has nothing to worry about with the African-American community. We as a whole don't like Bush, period. Yes, Democrats take us for granted and regardless of which party, we are at the bottom of the totem poll, but we realize that Democrats talk to us, try with us, are down with us, and give us a seat at the table. We are gamed to what the GOP do, or rather don't do for us.
...
You just don't realize how pissed we are from Florida last time. Bringing out Clinton won't hurt, but Kerry shouldn't worry about us African-Americans.
...
Next, us young'ns. We aren't as stupid as people think. Simply put, we are in Iraq fighting or we know someone there, we have no health insurance, no jobs, and are generally pro-human rights (not for the gay marriage amendment, PATRIOT Act, etc.). We aren't going to vote for Bush, period. Kerry will take about 70 percent of the young vote. I am predicting, collectively there will at least 20 million more voters from these two groups, young'ns and blacks. You maybe think "yeah the fuck right" -- but trust me. On average 30 percent of African-Americans vote. Expect a minimum of 50 percent this time, maybe close to double. That is anywhere between 7 to 9 million more blacks voting. Young'ns will have a similar margin. Again, we at most vote at a 40 percent rate. Young'ns will easily double their numbers, going from 18 million to about 36 million.

No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling ... in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. … Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.

ABCNEWS HOLDS TERROR WARNING TAPE

**Exclusive**

In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
...
The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual.
...
The disturbing tape runs an hour -- the man simply identifies himself as 'Assam the American.'

• Most explosive. "A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals." Reading the article closely, I'm not sure the reporter has really uncovered anything more than business as usual; it's a nasty business, to be sure, but I'm not sure that the charge of racial targeting is made out any more strongly here than in other instances that are already known about, e.g., the remark about suppressing the Detroit vote or the concentration of GOP voter challenges in urban areas in Ohio and elsewhere. Judge for yourselves. I think it stinks either way, but it's political dynamite if, as the article insinuates, there is direct evidence of a conscious effort to target African-American voters rather than just targeting Dems, who happen to be disproportionately African-American, as GOP officials claim whenever the issue is raised).


• Most systematic (pdf). A Rice University professor offers a 106-page report entitled "Republican Ballot Security Programs: Vote Protection or Minority Vote Suppression—or Both?" The report discusses partisan "ballot security" operations going back to 1964, in which GOP operatives who don't live in the precinct (and therefore aren't likely to know individual voters or have any idea which of them is eligible to vote) are sent for the ostensible purpose of challenging ineligible voters.

  [F]orays by white, affluent pollwatchers or challengers into minority neighborhoods that the same whites would almost never go into otherwise, in the name of “ballot security,” [have] been a prominent feature of Republican political strategy for at least fifty years. On many occasions these forays on Election Day have also been accompanied by other measures, such as posting at the polls uniformed men, sometimes with badges or guns, who are intended to look like law enforcement officers; posting off-duty police officers at the polls; photographing or videotaping voters; aggressive, hostile questioning of potential voters or polling officials in ways that can embarrass or humiliate; spreading false information about voting requirements, candidates, and the election date in the days before the election; challenging voters on the basis of inaccurate registration lists that disproportionately winnow out low-income people; or a combination of these tactics. When successful, these measures are a form of vote suppression, which is a polite term for the disfranchisement of eligible minority voters.

• Broadest. Demos has posted studies of several issues concerning voter fraud and the disenfranchisement of eligible voters (as well as some related topics). You can read about the provisional ballots we've been hearing about lately, as well as inaccurate "purges" of voters from the rolls and the incidence of election fraud. Among other things, Demos finds that "problems with individual voter fraud are a distraction from the more important issue of systemic problems including widespread voter suppression, partisan election officials, and improperly compiled 'purge lists' among others."


• Most politically on point. A Columbia University professor wrote the Demos report on fraud by voters (e.g., voting when not eligible or voting twice), including participating in conspiracies to have many voters cast fraudulent votes. She writes:

  [T]he evidence of voter fraud I've been able to find is extremely thin. I do not believe that the thin evidence is due to the fact that voter fraud is difficult to prove, or because the authorities don't investigate and prosecute it, as defenders of making unsubstantiated claims like to argue (I would put Mr. John Fund in this category). My study of the procedures in place in some states to catch fraud and my interviews with election law enforcement personnel suggest the opposite. Rather, the evidence is thin because voters just don't commit much fraud these days . . . . Moreover, it is important to understand that there is a political agenda behind alleging fraud without evidence. The undue and unfortunately powerful influence of Senator [Kit] Bond [R., Mo.] in the crafting of HAVA [the Help America Vote Act] is testimony to this - his allegations of fraud in St. Louis during the 2000 election have never been proven, and, in fact, there is evidence to the contrary. And yet, as I recall, Senator Bond was able to get new ID requirements into HAVA while the bill was in conference because he ranted on and on about fraud that never happened in St. Louis. . . . I should also point out, that when the Democrats scream about voter intimidation and dirty tricks to prevent eligible voters from voting they are on much firmer ground, so this isn't a tit for tat political game.

• Most partisan (pdf). Finally, the Democratic Party's own entry, a new lawsuit against the pathetic Mr. Blackwell and others, asking for an injunction against Blackwell's plan to send notices to tens of thousands of voters that each of the recipients will be the subject of a hearing on his or her eligibility--deciding which voters to pick out for special scrutiny on a basis that the Dems claim is prohibited by federal law.

"Kerry, by so rapidly embracing the story, is going to end up being tarnished by it," Rove said. "What would he do as president? Get up every morning and say, 'I'm going to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?'"

You might remember, when they asked him about the vote, he said this. He said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, right before I voted against it." History has shown that Senator Kerry was right, then wrong, then briefly right, then wrong again. (Laughter and applause.) They finally kept pressing him -- they finally kept pressing him. He said the whole thing about the $87 billion was a complicated matter. My friends, there is nothing complicated about supporting our men and women in combat.

There are a number of candidates who could be tapped to replace John Ashcroft as attorney general if President George W. Bush wins re-election. But perhaps the most obvious choice, Deputy AG James Comey, almost certainly will not be.

. . . Comey has had a strained relationship with some of the president's top advisers, who feel that Comey has been insensitive to political concerns.

According to several former administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, tensions were sparked when Comey appointed a special prosecutor to take over the investigation into whether a White House official leaked a Central Intelligence Agency operative's name to the media. . . .

Distrust of Comey deepened after some of his early staff picks were vetoed by the White House for not having strong Republican credentials, sources say.

". . . Anyone who resists that political loyalty check is regarded with some suspicion," says one former Bush administration official. "The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team. It is to assemble the best possible team that supports the president."

Earlier this year, after the disclosure of internal administration memos that seemed to condone the torture of suspected terrorists overseas, Comey pushed aggressively for the Justice Department's memos to be released to the media and for controversial legal analyses regarding the use of torture to be rewritten. . . .

"[Comey] has shown insufficient political savvy," says the former official. "The perception is that he has erred too much on the side of neutrality and independence."

Of course, genocide in Darfur has been neither prevented nor halted; in retrospect, Annan's empty words on this somber occasion carry the stench of his previous failure as head of UN peacekeeping during the Rwandan genocide, when he colluded with the Clinton administration to ensure that Romeo Dallaire would not receive the 5,000 intervening troops he so urgently requested.

Nor were Annan's demands of April 7, 2004 for "full access...without further delay" greeted with anything but contempt from Khartoum---the same contempt that has greeted his demand that the regime disarm the Janjaweed. This more than anything explains Annan's attempt to deflect blame from himself by setting up an absurd straw-man on the issue of genocide in Darfur: "[it is believed in some quarters that] if you were only to label Darfur genocide things will fall in place." Such disingenuousness is increasingly the hallmark of Annan's statements and actions on Darfur, and does much to explain why he refuses to characterize honestly the prospects for an African Union force without a peacekeeping mandate (the word "peacekeeping" is assiduously avoided by Annan and others).

To be sure, Annan has plenty of company. Javier Solana, Jan Pronk, the British Foreign Office---and the US administration. A White House statement of October 21, 2004 declares:

"This [US] support, combined with that of other countries, has made it possible for at least some assistance to reach 90 percent of Darfur." (Statement by the White House Press Secretary, October 21, 2004)

This "90% figure" is transparently false, and represents yet another shameful effort to evade responsibility for presiding over genocide.

Tom Brokaw: "There was a little buzz, as you know, in the last week or so when Vice President Cheney and Mrs. Cheney said they really prefer the states to handle the question about civil unions and the whole question about homosexual marriage. It's a little hard for me to determine just where you stand."

Laura Bush: "Well, I'll tell you what a constitutional amendment debate will do. It'll give people in the United States a chance to debate the issue, to talk about it, on both sides. If each state takes it up and discusses it and either chooses to have the amendment or not have the amendment. And I think that's really what this issue needs. And there are people who feel very, very strongly, as you know, on both sides. But as there is a debate -- we all need to be sure that we're careful and that we're very considerate of the feelings of everybody involved."

Put all this together, and it points in one direction: the mistakes Bush has made in his first term are likely to be amplified in a second, not reined in. In a crisis, it's likely that he will rely on his gut, refuse to recognize ground truth from dissenters, ignore foreign leaders, and fatally fail to recognize the real sources of danger.

the Sinclair incident, the threatening letter to Rock The Vote, the specter of the top official in the House of Representatives making totally baseless charges of criminal conduct against a major financier of the political opposition [shades of Mikhail Khodorovsky], the increasing evidence that the 'terror alert' system is nothing more than a political prop, the 'torture memo' asserting that the president is above the law, the imposition of rigid discipline on the congress, the abuse of the conference committee procedure, the ability of the administration to lie to congress without penalty, the exclusion of non-supporters from Bush's public appearances, etc.

Allawi Blames U.S. for 'Gross Negligence'

In rare criticism of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Tuesday blamed foreign troops helping secure the country for "gross negligence" in the massacre of 49 Iraqi National Guard recruits last weekend.

Allawi, in a weekly address to the Iraqi National Assembly, said his government had launched an investigation into the deaths of the U.S.-trained soldiers, who were lined up and executed by insurgents shortly after sunset Saturday near the main training base in Kirkush, 75 miles northeast of the capital.

"A terrible crime was committed in which a large number of the ING were martyred," Allawi said. "We think this shows, in addition to gross negligence on the side of some of the multi-national forces, it shows the kind of insistence to hurt Iraq and its people."

Do you think things in this country are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track? (likely voters)

Right direction - 41%
Wrong track - 55%

If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans, John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats? (likely voters)

Bush and Cheney - 48%
Kerry and Edwards - 49%

HANNITY: ... I want to ask you a little bit about the debates, because in this campaign, there's so much emphasis on it. Some people thought maybe you were a little flat in the first one. You did a lot better in the second and third. Did you -- do you think that was a fair analysis and do you think we put too much emphasis on it?

BUSH: No, the debates are an important part of any campaign. The incumbent -- an incumbent president is at a little bit of a disadvantage simply because, by allowing an opponent on the stage, they are able to appear somewhat presidential ...

HANNITY: Particularly in the second and third debates, you really sort of stamped his forehead with the Massachusetts liberal. What does that mean to you and what do people -- you even said to him at one point he was the conservative senator from Massachusetts. What does that mean?

BUSH: Ted Kennedy was the conservative.

HANNITY: Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator, right.

BUSH: Well, it means to me, on the domestic front, raising taxes. That's what that means and I'm actually convinced he will. He proposed over $2 trillion in spending and he's going to have to pay for it and he can't pay for it by his so-called taxing the rich ...

HANNITY: In the final weeks now in this campaign, John Kerry, John Edwards, they have been out there saying that you were going to do certain things if you're reelected and they say you have a January surprise to privatize Social Security ... Do you think that when he says these things, John Kerry, your opponent, you were in these three debates with him, do you think he knows he's not telling the truth? I mean...

BUSH: I'm not sure Sean.

HANNITY: You've been pretty clear on the issue, but yet he continues to go out there and say it. When I think of old people that I know that say to you, uh oh, somebody is going to take my Social Security and that scares them.

...the O'Reilly scandal lacks one critical factor to drive it forward: constant coverage on The O'Reilly Factor. There's no bigger scold or sterner values enforcer on TV than O'Reilly -- he feasted on Bill Clinton like no other -- and ordinarily he'd be on top of such a story. But this time he is the one sitting in the eye of the storm.

To be fair, right after he filed a pre-emptive extortion claim against Mackris and her lawyer, he briefly mentioned his predicament on his show, without denying the charges or pressing himself on whether they were true.

Otherwise, a hush has fallen over the Fox News commentariat, and its brothers and sisters in arms. Apparently, there are no morals police to police the morals police.

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.

According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.

He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"

"Right," Mr. Bush replied.

President Bush and Congressional allies: strong leadership to protect America; tax relief; common sense health care; strengthen and protect Social Security.

John Kerry and liberal allies: higher taxes; voting to tax Social Security benefits; government-run health care; a record of slashing intelligence; and reckless defense cuts.

Alone in the booth, why take the risk?

I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

President Bush and his Congressional allies: God, patriotism, capitalism, heterosexuality, guns, terrorism .. did we mention God?

John Kerry and his America-hating allies: Taxes, gays, communism, abortion, cowardice, "God" ... did we mention taxes and gays?

Alone in the booth, remember taxes and gays.

I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message.

In Vice President Cheney's final push before next Tuesday's election, talk of nuclear annihilation and escalating war rhetoric have blended with balloon drops, confetti cannons and the other trappings of modern campaigning with such ferocity that it is sometimes tough to tell just who the enemy is.

[edit]

"I'm delighted with where we are now, heading into the final home stretch of this campaign. We're going to take the fight to our adversaries, wherever they may be. We're going to carry Pennsylvania!" Cheney told the roaring crowd.

It was the kind of dual-use dig that has come to define Cheney's style and strategy in this campaign. Dangerous leaders must be defeated, whether Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian blamed for kidnappings, beheadings, car bombings and other attacks in Iraq, or Kerry in Massachusetts.

During the campaign, Bush often dispatches his jabs with mocking humor and incredulous expressions; Cheney and his advisers, including wife Lynne -- who helps write many of his sharpest lines -- tend toward more sweeping pronouncements that can evoke alarm.

"It's like when you look back to Winston Churchill and appeasement. Everyone thought Winston Churchill was crackers," said Cheney adviser Mary Matalin, adding that Cheney is a realist. "He's just an American pragmatist when it comes to . . . how we use our might around the world," Matalin said. "If you think that's fear-mongering, you don't have a realistic view of the challenges we face."

So the lesson after Rwanda is that with moral conviction and decisive action, genocide and resulting humanitarian disaster can be stopped in their tracks. And yet the situation in Darfur continues. The massacres have ebbed, but the humanitarian catastrophe is likely to cost hundreds of thousands of lives because the unthinkable is happening: The world community, with the United States at the helm, seems to have forgotten how to react.

America, defender against communism, fascism and terrorism and the creative beacon of freedom and human rights, has called what is happening in Darfur genocide -- but it has failed to stop it. The United States is uniquely positioned to provide the armored personnel carriers and equipment to enable those African Union troops to get into Darfur to stop the killing and famine. Not finding the will to act is genocidal indifference.

With the sense of urgency befitting a great nation that acts to eradicate genocide, we should ensure that the planes are in the air, that the red tape is cut and that U.S. aid becomes a fact, not a political platitude.

Calling it genocide is half the answer. The United States must now move with the moral imperative to end the genocide in Darfur. Whether it is through Secretary of State Colin Powell or someone else in the administration, the United States needs to step up and get the aid into Darfur. It is unconscionable for a great nation such as ours to do anything less.

Even with the eyes of the world on this burned-out swath of western Sudan, threats of oil sanctions against the government and the trickle of African Union monitors into the countryside, one brutality has apparently continued undeterred: violence against Darfur's women.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has undergone throat surgery after a diagnosis of thyroid cancer, but is expected to be released from the hospital this week, according to the Supreme Court.
...
Fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, underwent treatment for colon cancer in 1999, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 74, had a bout with breast cancer that was diagnosed in 1988.

Paul House, [a] guy in Tennessee who could face execution soon, despite the fact that he is almost certainly innocent...House lost his appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on an 8-7 vote. Incredibly -- okay, perhaps not so incredibly -- the 8 justices who voted against him were appointed by Republican presidents (including four by the current Bush). And the seven justices who voted in his favor were appointed by Democrats.

Still, after the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush had said he relentlessly would pursue and attack fleeing al Qaeda fighters regardless of where they went to hide. Mr. Bush also had decided upon a policy of pre-emptive strikes, in which the U.S. wouldn't wait to be struck before hitting enemies who posed a threat. An attack on Mr. Zarqawi would have amounted to such a pre-emptive strike. The story of the debate over his camp shows how difficult the policy can be to carry out; Mr. Zarqawi's subsequent resurgence highlights that while pre-emptive strikes entail considerable risks, the risk of not making them can be significant too, a factor that may weigh in future decisions on when to attack terrorist leaders.

Some former officials said the intelligence on Mr. Zarqawi's whereabouts was sound. In addition, retired Gen. John M. Keane, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff when the strike was considered, said that because the camp was isolated in the thinly populated, mountainous borderlands of northeastern Iraq, the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Former military officials said that adding to the target's allure was intelligence indicating that Mr. Zarqawi himself was in the camp at the time. A strike at the camp, they believed, meant at least a chance of killing or incapacitating him.

Gen. Keane characterized the camp "as one of the best targets we ever had," and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

[edit]

According to those who were involved during 2002 in planning an attack, the impetus came from Central Intelligence Agency reports that al Qaeda fighters were in the camp and that preparations and training were under way there for attacks on Western interests. Under the aegis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tentative plans were drawn up and sent to the White House in the last week of June 2002. Officials involved in planning had expected a swift decision, but they said they were surprised when weeks went by with no response from the White House.

The United Nations sent a tough message to delegates at peace talks on the civil war in Sudan's western province of Darfur, warning them that the international community would not tolerate mounting ceasefire violations and attacks on civilians.

In what I believe was an unprecedented move, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division had filed with the Sixth Circuit a 40-page amicus brief arguing strenuously that no part of HAVA could be enforced by individual voters filing suit in court. To be perfectly accurate, this was not exactly "unprecedented," as a few days earlier, DOJ had filed very similar briefs in the provisional-voting lawsuits in Michigan and Florida. But prior to this month, I am not aware of any case in which the Justice Department had ever filed a brief arguing that a voting-rights statute could not be enforced through private litigation.

That position would leave judicial enforcement ofHAVA entirely in the hands of DOJ, which has managed in the 24 months since Congress passed the bill to bring a grand total of one (1) HAVA lawsuit -- and even that lawsuit invoked HAVA merely to force a small, rural county in northern California to post better signs at polling places.

In the Ohio appeal, DOJ's argument on HAVA's enforceability [by individuals] got as chilly a reception from the Sixth Circuit as it had gotten from the Michigan and Florida district courts, both of which held that HAVA's provisional-voting requirements did confer individual rights [to sue].

In George Will's column that I linked to earlier today, George Will refers to John Fund's book on voter fraud, which has serious allegations that need scholarly investigation. One incident mentioned came out of Kenosha Wisconsin. A blog reader writes me to tell me that as far as that incident goes, Fund mentions only the initial charges, but not that a special prosecutor later found the charges were completely without merit. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article on the investigation is here and confirms the reader's account. It is very hard to prove election fraud, and even harder in most cases to prove that enough fraud exists to change the outcome of federal elections.

A Constitution is the set of fundamental laws and principles that enumerate the functions, offices and especially the limits, of government, not the governed.

Insomuch as it speaks to individual citizens, it is as a guarantor, not a limiter, of their liberties. In Ohio's case, the seminal document's Bill of Rights lists some 20 individual freedoms, ending with this one: "This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people."

To install in such a document language that not only defines a woman-man marriage as the only union valid in this state, but further bars from any legal recognition "relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage," is to attempt to reverse more than two centuries of U.S. constitutional practice. It is an affront to the wisdom of the Founders, who properly understood the Constitution's limited role.

It is, however well-intentioned, an act of civic immorality ultimately as distressing to the body politic as the multitude of nontraditional relationships are to those who would enshrine it.

America, and Ohio, once before tried to inject its social mores into their constitutions. The result was Prohibition, which should have served to forever caution successive generations against tampering with a society's fundamental law.

... One need not support nontraditional unions to understand that the Constitution, if it is to remain a preserver of freedom, must not become the tool of state-sanctioned opprobrium. State Issue 1 would do just that. It deserves your unhesitating rejection.