New York State DMV: "Dislike is Offensive."

The Times Metro Section features a piece about a Brooklyn man whose request for a personalized license plate reading "DUMPBUSH" was rejected.

After reading what New York Motor Vehicles says is its policy on political plates, one wonders what their take would be on more affirmative 8-letter messages like "SADAMRKS", "IM4OSAMA", or "JEEHAADD".

click below to read the Times article.

DUMPBUSH? Don't Try It on a Plate
By DAN BARRY

Published: March 27, 2004

THE phrase that came to his mind was evocative, to the point, and in perfect conformity with the eight-figure character as allowed by the Custom Plate Unit of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. His muse had surely blessed him, he thought; it seemed that he had achieved a kind of license plate haiku.

He typed in his phrase, sent it to the department's online service, and imagined the day when he would join the ranks of anonymous poets whose license plate musings linger in the thoughts of readers for a moment or for an hour, depending on traffic flow and exhaust fumes. Early indications were that Noah Lamy was indeed about to become a man of letters. The Department of Motor Vehicles sent him a registration card and a sticker bearing his chosen phrase, which suggested that residents of the state correctional facility in Auburn would soon be imprinting his poetry upon two rectangles of cheap metal.

Once the plates arrived in the mail, he would fasten them to the bumpers of his 1987 Toyota 4Runner, and forever after would be a published author in one of the most narrowly defined genres in all of literature, a genre in which so much - from pride in one's grandchildren to pride in one's Lexus - must be said with so little.

Alas, in mid-January, he received a Dear Noah rejection letter. "The Custom Plate which you requested - DUMPBUSH - cannot be issued at this time for the reason(s) indicated below,'' the letter said. The reason: "Others may view the plate as obscene or offensive.''

Mr. Lamy, a compact man of 53, does not work in politics. Rather, he works in construction. With his longish hair in a ponytail, and a pipe clamped in his teeth, he comes off as a kind of erudite everyman. Nobody's fool.

He is a registered Democrat, but only because he wants to vote in the primaries that usually serve as the general elections in this Democrat-heavy city. "I don't participate in organizing in any way, and I'm not involved in any group,'' he said. "I basically regard myself as more of a malcontent than an activist.''

He said that he always votes in major elections, but he cannot remember the last time that he voted for a candidate, rather than against one. "When I turn on CNN and see Congress, I see a bunch of guys in suits,'' he said. "And there's no more difference politically than in the difference of their suits.''

He is not pro-Kerry, so much as he is anti-Bush. Nor is he a knee-jerk liberal; for example, he said, he supported the military strikes in Afghanistan after Sept. 11. But successive decisions by the current administration, coupled with his late-night Internet reading of a broad spectrum of periodicals, have led him to one conclusion. As the would-be poet once said: DUMPBUSH.

Mr. Lamy e-mailed the Custom Plates Unit to inquire further. Was there good reason for this rejection? Or was Noah Lamy this generation's James Joyce, his censored phrase this generation's "Ulysses,'' only shorter? He needed to know.

THE Custom Plates Unit has 16 employees, most of them veteran decoders and defenders of proper roadway decorum. All day long, they scrutinize letter-and-number combinations of eight or less to ensure that some Niskayuna knucklehead's license plate does not suggest that your mother wears Army boots.

If a custom-plate specialist feels uneasy about a submission, a committee of specialists will gather to decipher its true meaning, and to advise, aye or nay. "Once in a while, one will get through,'' Joseph Picchi, the department's spokesman, said, referring to inappropriate license plates. "That's why you have to be very careful.''

It turns out that proposed phrases of a political nature are held to a slightly different standard: generally speaking, they should be positive, upbeat - nice. "We don't censor plates for political content or if they're politically related,'' Mr. Picchi said. "We do if they're politically offensive. If they said HATE somebody.''

In other words, DUMPBUSH or DUMPDEMS are negative, and therefore unacceptable. But YES2BUSH, or IM4KERRY, might be allowed, since they would conform to an Up With People view of Thruway motoring.

After work the other day, a dust-covered Mr. Lamy sat in a Carroll Gardens coffee shop and considered the Orwellian dynamics of his chosen literary discipline. He rejected the thought of applying for an IM4KERRY license plate because, he said, "I'm not pro-Kerry.'' Besides, the phrase falls short of poetry.

The construction worker finished his coffee and drove away in his battered Toyota. The "Impeach Bush'' bumper sticker on his back bumper will just have to do.

Web Site Covers Free Tabloid Paper Covering New Liberal Radio Network Covering Right-Wing Radio

Take a look at the front page story read by about 174,000 New York commuters and college students today. Then tune in tomorrow to AM 1190 (if you're in NYC) and let the Brechtian fun roll!

Bush's WMD Comedy Bit

For those of you who may have missed it, last week Bush spoke at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner and presented a slide show lampooning the search for WMD in Iraq. While this event has a long history of irreverence, it is certainly a legitimate subject for debate as to whether the main reason for the war in Iraq is something that can be joked about at all. Or, if you'll allow me to psychoanalyze Bush through the lens of his presentation, it may offer an honest peek inside his mind (e.g. dismissing the whole WMD argument altogether). Do you think I'm being too serious here? Here's a FAIR Media Advisory with the details, focusing on the media response (albeit from a shamelessly leftst perspective).

Air America Radio

Air America Radio, the "progressive" radio network featuring Al Franken, Chuck D and Janeane Garofalo among others, will be launched on Wednesday. Unfortunately, their web site is pathetic and doesn't include a list of stations that will be airing their shows. Does anybody know where I could find that?

The Final Straw

I've been amazed the past four years at how doggedly Republicans and conservatives have stood by the Bush administration despite all it has done and failed to do. Fiscal conservativism long ago went out the window. State's rights have been thrown out for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And time after time this administration has lied to the American people on virtually every issue that has crossed it's collective desk. Yet there has been relatively little internal dissent in the Right. I would have thought better of fully half the country.

But the lynchpin has always been national security. Fighting the war on terror is so important to this country that all other slips, gaffes, and outright scandals this Administration perpetrates are overlooked because they are Fighting The Terrorists and Keeping Us Safe.

With the entry of Richard Clarke onto the political stage, this may change. It should change, but I say may because the Democrats really have to step up to the plate and take this issue away for it to happen. Clarke is a devastating liability to the Bush administration, but he is not going to make this stick by himself. The Democrats have to be willing to step up and say Bush is weak on terror and that they are strong on it. If they do this, if they make the case convincingly (and it can be made, because it's true), they will win this election.

Case in point, Andrew Sullivan:

"Sometimes, a Democrat has to be tougher than a Republican in this area - if only to credentialize himself. I can certainly conceive of Richard Holbrooke being a tougher secretary of state than Colin Powell. I'm not yet convinced and want to hear much more from Kerry. But I'm persuadable. Four more years of religious-right social policy and Nixonian fiscal policy is not something I really want to support."

Message to Kerry et al: RUN WITH THIS. NOW.

Lieutenant Bush not permitted to play with WMD in '72?

This week's Village Voice features a short piece by James Ridgeway on the subject of one of the White House's latest no-comments.

"Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and delivery systems."

If Houdini's Tricks Can Be Revealed, Shouldn't We Be Allowed to Ask About the War?

Sometimes it's nice to think outside of the "box". And as the 911 Commission carries on its work, pitting liar against liar, and studiously avoiding the big questions, I too would like to be able to "climb inside the trunk to see how it works". But unlike Houdini's tricks, the Iraq war and the anti-terrorism efforts of the US government have not worked. The question then becomes: shouldn't we at least be able to talk about it?

Condoleezza Rice, Superstar

In case anybody was wondering, this sharp-looking athlete, our beloved National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, is still refusing to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

Why Wouldn't Clarke be Credible?

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know...I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." - Richard Clarke, former top counter-terrorism advisor to G. W. Bush. Read the transcript of his interview on 60 Minutes yesterday.

The Bush administration is trying to paint its former top officials as illegitimate simply because they've left the Administration, without the implication being that the Administration itself is comprised mostly of illegitimate policymakers (get it?). This is all part of another "us and them" smearing policy - you're trustworthy if you're "in" and illegitimate if you're "out." But, it is perfectly fair for those concerned about Bush and his policies to construct an image of the Administration out of the descriptions provided by Clarke and O'Neill. And it ain't a pretty picture at all.

Read on. Also read George Smith's scathing rebuke of Clarke, accusing him of being obsessed with "internet attacks" while ignoring physical threats.

Reporters Walk Out on Powell

This photo from today's New York Times speaks volumes about the current atmosphere in Iraq. Just before Colin Powell was to give a press conference in Baghdad yesterday, the entire Arab press corps staged a walk out in protest of the killing of two Al Arabiya television employees by American soldiers.

This Election Brought to You By...

Check out this site. It allows users to search by name and address to see who is donating how much to whom and also features maps showing distribution, address by address, in major US cities. Of course, you can find out about your neighbors, too, which is both fun and interesting. Perhaps it'd be worth a knock on the door to find out what's up?

Imminent or Not, Here are Them Naughty Little Facts.

Representative Henry Waxman has launched a searchable database of statements made by Bush administration officials on Iraq. It is extremely useful for clarifying the record or holding one's own in a debate situation, especially in the face of administration claims that they never said that the threat from Iraq was "imminent". Speaking of imminence, check out this very interesting short video clip from MoveOn.org. It shows Rumsfeld having an uncomfortable moment of uncertainty over the so-called record under unusual pressure from Thomas Friedman.

Unemployment Higher Among College Grads

Here's a reason the Bush team should be even more worried about the state of this recovery: the unemployment rate for college grads is higher than that of high-school dropouts. On the surface this would seem to vindicate the more protectionist approach the Democrats have been taking as of late, blaming our lack of recovery at least in part on jobs leaving for India. The truth, though, is a bit more complicated. Outsourcing only accounts for 1% of jobs lost, so the real culprit here is more likely to be fallout from the unprecedented growth in jobs requiring a college education during the boom. But what's real and what's perceived are two different things, and in this case the Bush team is looking to lose the battle on spin.

So far economic recovery has been higher in the South than elsewhere in the country, which in and of itself makes it harder for a Democratic candidate to do well there. But we knew that was the case before the latest set of economic indicators was released. What these unemployment numbers tell us is Bush is going to have a hard time convincing college educated swing voters that his economic plan is working. We're likely to see faster economic growth as November grows closer, but if this trend doesn't change that may not matter so much. By offering tax incentives for job growth, instead of just more tax cuts, the Democrats have the opportunity to put forward an economic plan that will appeal to the people most likely to listen, and most likely to vote.

Holbrooke Confirms the Obvious

Regardless of what John Kerry said or didn't say about leaders supporting him, Richard Holbrooke's point is the key one to remember:

"It's so obviously the truth what Kerry said, and the Republicans are just having fun with it — everybody knows it's true. In the last six or seven months, I've been in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. I've met with leaders in all of those regions, and they have overwhelmingly — not unanimously but overwhelmingly — said that they hope that there's a change in leadership." (from The NY Times)

You can read The Guardian's coverage for yourself. Meetings with Kerry or not, Bush is no friend to the world, as attested by the sentiments expressed by Zapatero. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda showed the world last week that it can impact elections, and we're all likely to suffer the consequences.

(Sorry for the Guardian-heavy linkage, but, well, they're just the best we've got today.)

Wagging the Dog, Manipulating the Media

Leaping from my Orwellian nightmares, it seems that the Bush Administration is paying people to be 'journalists' who heap praise on the new Medicare law. As reported in the New York Times this morning, these practices are drawing the attention of Democrats, who are calling for an investigation.

One segment, sent out to news stations across the country, has a 'pharmacist' talking to a supposed 'elderly woman' about the new Medicare law. He tells her the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and she parrots back the line: "It sounds like a good idea." "A very good idea," says the 'pharmacist.'

Such 'story packages' (as the administration seems to call them--read: propaganda) are, as you can imagine, illegal. Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity and propaganda." But, as news stations are cutting investigative budgets and relying upon un-scrutinized material from the government as well as from corporations. One is left wondering if this is evidence of a 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias in the media, or simply a business model with symbols and ideas as its currency.

In a stump speech today, Presidential candidate John Kerry said, "They've hired actors to pose as journalists to sell a bad bill with your money... After already hiring actors to pose as soldiers in the president's campaign commercials you have to wonder: How many Oscar-winning performances will it take to convince America that George Bush can put America back on track?"

Fear Is Not Unidirectional

Many concerned about the upcoming US presidential election have articulated a fear that increased terrorism at home (or even abroad) could only strengthen Bush's base and make getting him out of office more difficult. This, of course, is premised upon the belief that fear drives people closer to their leadership, regardless of who that leadership is and what his or her record is in truly protecting them. The grim question should at least be pondered: would a terrorist attack in the US (say) in October help or hurt Bush?

Critics of the Iraq war have made many arguments, but one of the most dominant is that the threat of terrorism requires new tactics, and not old-school Clauswitzian militarism built on brute force, bombings, threats and position. Not making new enemies - as the Iraq adventure seems to have done - is key.

Anyway, a lot of positive energy and hope can be garnered from the Spanish elections. Leaders that exploit terrorism to wage "preemptive" war against states that they merely oppose for other reasons clearly can be held accountable, but only if there is a strong articulation of what constitutes a legitimate response to terrorism and what is the reckless actions of a hegemonic power with its strongarmed "allies" in tow. The Spanish did this brilliantly yesterday, and deserve enormous respect for being able to draw such distinctions in the wake of such horrific violence.

Zapatero, the new Spanish prime minister stated his goals in his victory speech: "My top priority is fighting all forms of terrorism. My first initiative will be seeking the political support to focus all our resources in this direction.''

Aznar paid the price that Blair and Bush should both pay. Now it is the US's turn.

Lincoln vs. Douglas, Kerry vs. Bush?

In arguably the shrewdest move of the campaign season so far, John Kerry has made a call for monthly debates leading up to the election. On his way to the site of one of the historic debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, Kerry told reporters that he and President Bush "can give this country a campaign that genuinely addresses our real issues and treats voters with respect." The 'big issues' at stake, he says, cannot make the 2004 election "politics as usual."

Neil Postman's brilliant Amusing Ourselves To Death extends McLuhan's thesis on technology into a critique of television, and uses the Lincoln-Douglas debates as a stark contrast to the political discourse today.

Now, it is perhaps difficult to parse out whether Sen. Kerry would really like to elevate the political discourse to the level of debates that would last four or five hours (at times, agreeing that more ought to be debated after dinner!) with a rapt public in the thousands, or is simply baiting Bush. Either way, if he maintains such a position, the Bush camp is painted into a corner with unpleasant options: not debating looks bad and debating might look worse.

Pessimistic or optimistic on the impetus behind it, if they can keep this pressure up, this bodes well for democratic strategy in the coming months.

Connecting the dot.coms

The tangled web of corporate shenanigans reported in the pages of the dailies is even more intricate than we realize. The complex legal relationships between ImClone, Martha Stewart, Merrill Lynch, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, Tyco, WorldCom, and Adelphia Cable may take years to unravel. You, however, can trace along with a map created, we think, by the fine folks at uggabugga.blogspot.com. Uggabugga also has a great map of the Bush Dynasty.

Bushies being against being against 'gay marriage'

Along the lines of uncovering the fissures within the Republican establishment, there are two groups that are 'coming out' against being against gay marriage.

Most obviously, the otherwise steadfast Log Cabin Republicans are rolling out a commercial (View Here) which includes a speech given by Vice President Dick Cheney on his 2000 campaign. They point out: that 'Candidate Bush' ran as a compassionate conservative, but also that he also ran as a governor who supported Federalism and states’ rights. To boot: 2000 Vice-Presidential candidate Cheney claimed that each state had the right to determine its position on its own, specifically regarding the issue of 'gay marriage'.

Least obvious, however, is a position coming out of the far-from-liberal town of Waco, Texas, where the Baylor University (the oldest Baptist University in the world") newspaper comes out too:

“Like many heterosexual couples... many gay couples share deep bonds of love, some so strong they’ve persevered years of discrimination for their choice to co-habitate with and date one another. Just as it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their skin color, heritage or religious beliefs, it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?"

Read more from the New Yorker.

Come Out All Ye Faithful: A Witch hunt begins!

Nearly too good (read: 'bad') to be true: The 'Christian Civic League of Maine', a group that wants to bring a "Biblical perspective to the dialogue over public policy," put out a call for "tips, rumors, speculation and facts" on the sexual orientation of Maine's political leaders. See article.

Quickly, Michael Heath has already announced a retraction of this radical new doctrine. While slightly disappointed that this didn’t turn into the firestorm it ought to be, one still wonders what the next stage will be.

Report was leaked "accidentally on purpose"

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but The Hill is reporting that "Enraged Republicans suspect the unredacted version (of a confidential report on leaked Democratic memorandums) — intended only for senators’ eyes — was given to the press accidentally on purpose."

Its enough to make one wonder: Was WMD intelligence botched "accidentally on purpose"?

Read on.

US seeking new Haitian PM

In yet another attempt to establish "democracy" in Haiti, US Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that he hopes that "we can come out with a better political arrangement" than under Aristide, who "squandered the opportunity that was given to him by the presence of American troops and by the international community..." According to The Age, the US is actively seeking a new and better (presumably pro-American) prime minister.

New York Times comes clean on Aristide (a little)

I don't know why I put myself through the torture of reading the New York Times everyday, but somebody's got to do it. Anyway, I thought I'd just note that today, for the first time since he left Haiti on an American airplane on February 29, the Times admitted that he in fact did not resign, but was "forced out." Of course, they still haven't undertaken any real analysis on what the US troops did that day, and still use Aristide's own word - "kidnapped" - with an unqualified tone of skepticism.

On the (forgotten) Domestic Front

While distracting us on foreign affairs and the upcoming presidential election, the White House is working hard to change the domestic front as well. The Bush Administration is proposing a bill that would undermine 1991’s ‘ISTEA’ bill (which gave communities a greater voice in how transportation dollars were to be spent). The Bush proposal cuts the chances for legal reviews of environmental impacts and weakens air-quality accountability. Of particular interest: It switches 40 years of investment in public transportation, parks and historic landmarks in favor of roadway construction. This is, however, one environmental concern among many to be ferreted out in the President’s FY2005 budget.

Buffett to Bush: Raise My Taxes!

It seems that the high-profile CEO and sometimes Republican advisor (most recently a linchpin for Gov. Schwartzenegger's legitimacy) Warren Buffett attacks the Bush camp's economic policy (again) in his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders: "Tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," he wrote. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." Upper class infighting could be the story of this election year, transcending party lines and trumping both gay marriage and Dean's energizing the Democratic base. Soros. Buffett. Who's next?

Neo-Cons vs. Populists: How Long Can Bush Walk the Tightrope?

Just came across this article from last month's Le Monde Diplomatique , which has some interesting observations about Bush's ability to seemlessly cater to business elites and populist conservatives. It traces the lineage of recent republican presidential history and explains that "Bush is merely the latest and one of the most accomplished in a long line of pro-business politicians expressing themselves in the language of the downtrodden."

As the article so elegantly puts the rhetorical shift, "Liberals become the snobs, and Republicans become the plain people in their majestic millions. That rightwing oil millionaires in Houston or Wichita might also vacation in Europe, drink fancy coffee and drive Jaguars is simply not considered, as if contrary to nature."

Of particular interest is the article's discussion of the strengh of "market populism" in the US as well as Bush's ability to use UN opposition to the war in Iraq to appear populist and woodsy, which seems more of a delusion linked to the "American dream" than the real conditions of a legitimate category of people, considering their own economic situation. The Left is going to need some psychologists to figure this one out. Or mandatory lie detector testing.

Stern Defects from Bush Camp, Yanked Off the Air

The monolith of post-911 Bush supporters is showing signs of crumbling. One influential former-Bush supporter was radio personality Howard Stern. A few weeks ago he spoke at length about how Bush was spending way too much money, echoing the same criticisms of Limbaugh, Hannity and other right wing pundits. Stern indicated that he might not support Bush this time around and said that he is "looking closely at Kerry." Several days after this "conversion", which was completed after Stern read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he was yanked from six major radio stations owned by Clear Channel, a media giant eager to appease the FCC.

According to Salon.com, critics are skeptical of Clear's arguments of indeceny because "... the content of Stern's crude show hadn't suddenly changed, but his stance on Bush had...That, plus his being pulled off the air in key electoral swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania."

Coincidence? Read the excerpt from Salon.com.

Bush Strategy: Exploiting 9-11 is on the table.

I must admit, I didn't really believe my own post about the possibility of Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero. It seemed like, well, a stupid move. But the campaign ads he released today, as well as the Administration's spirited defense of using charged 9-11 video footage has made me reconsider. Nothing is beneath these folks.

I scoured some papers on the right for discussions of this issue, but came up empty. The Washinton Times did report that the ads highlight Bush's achievements (apparently Bush thinks he ran into the burning towers, too), but didn't address the content question. So, here's an article from The New York Times, which gives a rather lackluster, but sufficient report.

Bush Campaign Defends Use of 9/11 in TV Ads
By KIRK SEMPLE

"The Bush re-election campaign and the White House stepped up today their defense of three new advertisements that use images of the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center, arguing that the device is appropriate in an election campaign that will be waged, in part, on the candidates' abilities to fight the war on terror.

"Because of that day, we are at war against terror," Karen Hughes, a campaign adviser for President Bush, contended on the ABC program "Good Morning America." "The race for president is now on, and it's important that we look at how the two candidates would approach that war against terror."

The three advertisements, two of which will be aired starting today, feature images of the charred shell of the World Trade Center still standing, firefighters emerging from the wreckage with a flag-draped stretcher presumably carrying remains.

The spots are part of what may become the most expensive advertising campaign in presidential history, and are intended to erase months of Democratic attacks by portraying President Bush as a plain-spoken leader who steadied the nation after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, answered reporters' questions about the use of the imagery by saying that the Sept. 11 attacks continued to be an important object lesson in the need for strong national security.

"It is vital to our future that we learn what September 11th taught us," he said. "The president's steady leadership is vital to how we wage the war on terrorism."

He added, "There's a clear choice for Americans in how we confront the threats of terrorism."

The campaign of Senator John Kerry, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, as well as firefighters and some families of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks, have criticized the use of the images as cynical exploitation of a national tragedy.

"Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign," Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, which supports Mr. Kerry, said in the statement on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign called the use of World Trade Center imagery by the Bush re-election campaign "astonishing" and the commercials "revisionist history."

Ms. Hughes ? who appeared on several morning shows today, including CBS and CNN in addition to ABC ? argued that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were not so long ago as to be irrelevant to this year's presidential campaign.

"The ad is a reminder of our shared experience," she said on ABC. "September 11th is not some distant event in the past. It's a defining event for our future. And it's important that we learn the lessons of that day."

She argued that the attacks changed national public policy, international security and the economy. "Because of that day, we are still engaged in a war against terror, a war that will be going on under the next president," she added. "And it's important that the next president recognize and understand that."

This week alone, the Bush re-election campaign is spending well over $5 million to broadcast the commercials on stations in 17 states and on several national cable networks, Democrats who are monitoring advertising purchases said.

Running Against a Wartime President

Calpundit has a very interesting analysis of why Bush's wartime record may not be enough to hold on to the pro-war camp. It boils down to this: what's next? We've invaded Iraq, and that can arguably be considered a success. Bush is sure to point to Libya as another sign that his policies are working, and he may be able to point to some progress in North Korea, but in the end going over what we've already done is hardly an election strategy. Voters are going to be looking at the next four years more than the last four.

This is an issue that could keep Republicans who are on the fence about Bush from going to the polls in November. Bush has yet to put forward any plan for where we should go next in the War on Terror. Unless that changes soon, he's leaving himself wide open to attack. The Democrats don't even need to present a coherent plan of their own to gain points here. All they really need to do is convince the general public that Bush never had a long-term plan at all, and then sit back and watch the support fall.

Aristide "Kidnapped" and Duvalier Wants to Return

Reports now make it clear that the United States did in fact "kidnap" Haitian president Aristide and force him to leave the country, as confirmed by telephone interviews with Aristide himself and observers on the scene. While Aristide was certainly not a great (or even good) leader, he was elected by the people of Haiti, and there is no evidence that he was planning to overstay his electorally-mandated term (which was to end in 2005). The article below, however, shows just how dire the situation is in Haiti, with former dictator Duvalier declaring his hope of returning and the nation under military control. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Aristide, Duvalier was a certified brutal disaster. Meanwhile, we all owe a big thanks to the US for spreading democracy, graciously and with a steady hand, around the world.

MIAMI (AP) -- Exiled Haitian dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier told a television reporter he wants to return to his homeland now that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has fled.

"This is my country," Duvalier told WFOR-CBS4 on Monday in an interview in Paris. "I'm ready to put myself at the disposal of the Haitian people." But Duvalier said he doesn't plan to run for president.

"That is not on my agenda," Duvalier said through a translator.

The deposed dictator said he requested a diplomatic passport several weeks ago and is in constant contact with people in Haiti.

"I think I'm getting close and that I will soon have the opportunity to go back to my country," he said.

Duvalier also said he was not involved with the rebels who helped force Aristide out of office Sunday.

He applauded the "prompt action of the international community," welcomed the presence of U.S. Marines and said the country should stabilize quickly.

Duvalier had been named president for life at age 18 following the death in 1971 of his father, Francois, "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Tens of thousands were killed during the 29-year Duvalier dynasty and hundreds of millions of dollars stolen.

Accused of human rights violations and stealing at least $120 million from the national treasury, Duvalier fled to France in 1986.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

___________________________________--

from http://www.democracynow.org

Monday, March 1st, 2004:
EXCLUSIVE BREAKING NEWS:
PRESIDENT ARISTIDE SAYS 'I WAS KIDNAPPED'
'TELL THE WORLD IT IS A COUP'

Multiple sources that just spoke with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide told Democracy Now! that Aristide says he was "kidnapped" and taken by force to the Central African Republic. Congressmember Maxine Waters said she received a call from Aristide at 9am EST. "He's surrounded by military. It's like he is in jail, he said. He says he was kidnapped," said Waters. She said he had been threatened by what he called US diplomats. According to Waters, the diplomats reportedly told the Haitian president that if he did not leave Haiti, paramilitary leader Guy Philippe would storm the palace and Aristide would be killed. According to Waters, Aristide was told by the US that they were withdrawing Aristide's US security.

TransAfrica founder and close Aristide family friend Randall Robinson also received a call from the Haitian president early this morning and confirmed Waters account. Robinson said that Aristide "emphatically" denied that he had resigned. "He did not resign," he said. "He was abducted by the United States in the commission of a coup." Robinson says he spoke to Aristide on a cell phone that was smuggled to the Haitian president.

Australian PM's Iraq claims 'not supported'

While the US investigation into intelligence "failures" and attempts by the Bush administration to sell the Iraq war to the American people is just beginning, other such investigations are actually yielding judgments. It is quite amazing how little attention the Australian findings are getting in the US, especially since they essentially deal with Prime Minister Howard's wilingness to bend over backwards to accomodate the US. More importantly, the Australian investigation incudes preliminary judgments on the very issues that the Bush administration is telling us will take up to a year. Is the Australian finding illegitimate, or is this stuff not really rocket science as Bush (the presidential candidate) tells us? Remember: the US-UK-Australian nexus made this war together, in concert, and so we should treat these investigations as one big (however fragmented) investigation. This way, we won't have to wait until after the US election to know more about what happened and who did what.