Nosey Online

So the animal tested the other day was indeed a false positive. So that's a relief. But then, I find this article and wonder what is going on.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported Wednesday a cow that initially tested positive for mad cow disease has come back negative on follow-up testing, but a food industry consultant told United Press International he estimates there could be more than 100 cases of the deadly disorder in the country's herds.

About half of the cases will go undetected and passed on for human consumption, Robert LaBudde, president of Least Cost Formulation Ltd., a food industry consultancy in Virginia Beach, Va., told UPI.

The USDA is still awaiting results from another case that initially tested positive Tuesday. Results could take four to seven days. Under the agency's expanded surveillance plan, which went into effect June 1, cows initially are screened by so-called rapid tests and any positives are followed up with confirmatory testing. The only confirmed U.S. case of mad cow disease to date occurred in Washington state last December.

Granted, it's a Moonie outlet, but it does pose a question. How safe are we really? It stands to reason that, quite possibly, there will be at least some cows that get the disease. And what if it did happen? Do you think they would actually want us to know? It would kill the beef industry in the country, and probably take the economy down with it as well. So what is going to happen? If cases do ever really surface, you and I probably won't know about it.

Anytime I venture over to the National Review Online, I can't help but feel icky. Sally Pipes takes on drug importation legislation. Just for reference, Sally works for the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank. So you know we're going to get a one-sided debate.

In this season of the campaign promises, pandering, and appeals to high principle, let's be candid: The process of wealth redistribution through the institutions of democratic politics combines all three beautifully. The latest manifestation of this art form is the current drive in Congress to facilitate the importation of "cheap" pharmaceuticals into the U.S. from Canada (and a number of other nations). This will purportedly reduce U.S. drug costs sharply, with no adverse effects upon future drug development or safety.

Basically, Sally objects by saying destructive price controls would be imported along with the drugs and that safety is not guaranteed. While I can see the basis for the former, it's with her latter point I have a problem. The safety thing is just a scare-tactic. If I were Canadian, that would tick me off. The drug companies sell the same drugs up north as they do in the States. There are plenty of illegal, phony drugs that come across the border anyway. Sally contends that the influx of drug sales to other countries would make it impossible to guarantee their safety. Maybe, but that still isn't a good enough reason to stop the legislation. A process could be worked out, but the free-marketers just don't want to hear about it. I completely understand their objections about the price controls, but to bring up safety is unnecessary. Because when it comes down to it, they are after all free-market proponents. That is their number one concern. Safety is not.

Another minor detail I have a problem with lies in Sally's assertion that drug companies would be forced to lower their R&D costs, therefore lowering the chances of new drug discoveries.

That may seem a blessing for those afflicted with infinite myopia; but because the cost of bringing a new pharmaceutical to market is about $800 million, it is impossible to obscure the central truth that the bill would adversely affect the research and development processes that create new drugs, that in turn yield longer lives and reduce human suffering. One recent study concludes that the decline in R&D would be between a quarter and a third, so that the political drive to import "cheap" drugs literally steals cures and the alleviation of human suffering from the future so as to buy votes from drug consumers now.

It's journalistic dishonesty to talk about drug company budgets without mentioning marketing. Sally makes it seem that Big Pharma only spends money on R&D. In fact, they spend more on marketing than anything else.

The report, Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, shows that the nine publicly traded U.S. drug companies, which manufacture 50 of the drugs most often prescribed to seniors, spent $45.4 billion on marketing and advertising in 2001 and only $19.1 billion on research and development.

So it's a little shady to talk about how the poor little drug companies would have to cut back on R&D if revenue fell. The bigger chunk of that $800 million it takes to bring a new drug to market goes towards the advertising. And the lunches for doctors. And freebies. And free trips. Maybe if they cut down on the marketing, they wouldn't have to charge so much to make their profits. If a drug is beneficial, then it should be up to doctors to make decisions on what to prescribe. They are, after all, doctors.

Sally, when you finally address the other side of drug costs, come back and then we can have a real debate.

A warning for all American rock-climbers of Middle Eastern descent.

(CBS) CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr reports the Department of Homeland Security has issued an alert that warns customs officers at six of America's busiest airports to watch for travelers of Pakistani descent who show physical signs of preparing for terror attacks against the U.S.

The bulletin says, "Officers should look for rope burns, unusual bruises, wounds/scars or other evidence that they engaged in paramilitary training..."

This one is just too funny. Brit Hume is a twit.

Kerry Campaign Incompetent?
Thursday, July 01, 2004
By Brit Hume

John Kerry's hometown Mayor Tom Menino — a fellow Democrat — is denouncing Kerry's campaign as — "incompetent" and "small-minded." This after Kerry canceled a speech at a mayor's conference in Boston on Monday because city police, battling for higher pay, threatened to picket.

Menino accuses the Kerry Campaign of spreading a rumor that Kerry canceled after Menino hung up on him. Menino told the Boston Herald — "We [Democrats] are all on the same team, I thought. Evidently, we're not." Kerry's campaign suggested Menino was just stressed out.

I heard about Menino's comment yesterday. This wouldn't even have given me a moment's pause if it weren't for the lame headline to the piece. Brit Hume, sitting at his desk wondering "Does this mean the Kerry campaign is, incompetent?" No Brit, it's just part of their strategery. You know, don't piss off the unions. Back when I called this a good move, little did I know that the mayor of Boston would be dumb enough to call the Kerry campaign "small-minded." I also love the way they point out that Menino is a "fellow Democrat." With his remarks, I would chalk the mayor as being in the same camp as Zell Miller - a fellow Democrat.

CNN and other news outlets have access to Florida's felon list. The decision came down today. But it's this little graf that got my attention.

The lawsuit, filed by CNN and joined by other news organizations, challenged a 2001 statute passed by the Republican-controlled legislature that limited the public's access to the list.

Now why would the Republicans want to limit the public's access to the list? Hmm. For some reason, I don't remember this one. Chalk it up as a win for the First Amendment.

I almost forgot to mention this. I'll be guest blogging over at JasonC's fine site, The Game And How We Played It, until July 10th. So if you get a chance, come over and watch as Justin and I trash the place.

Does anyone happen to know if Cheney's F-bomb was caught live on C-SPAN? If so, would he be eligible for the new $275,000 fine approved by the Senate?

Josh points out this document from the Bush/Cheney campaign team. It outlines various duties for the Coalition Coordinator. Here are just a couple highlights.

By Saturday July 31st, 2004

Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give to a BC04 Field Rep.

Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush.

Talk to your pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday or Voter Registration Drive.

By Sunday October 31st, 2004

Finish distributing Voter Guides in your church.

Get-out-the-vote program in your church - place a reminder bulletin about all Christian citizens needing to vote in Sunday program or on a boards near the church entrance.

Nothing like a little separation of church and state.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: "I think any Democrat who embraces this man's [Moore's] hateful message is not fit to lead America"; he then challenged Kerry "to separate himself from the [Moore's] politics of hate."

DICK CHENEY: F*** you mother f***er!!!

Paul Krugman lays out a pretty honest look at Michael Moore's controversial film. A lot of lefties will take the movie for gospel. And plenty of rabid conservatives believe the movie is treasonous. Krugman's opinion of the film is that it is probably somewhere in between. The right is making the movie to seem way worse than it is. A lot of those in the punditocrisy, who haven't seen the film, feel obligated to speak negatively about it. For me, I think the film honestly looks at two things that have been bothering me for some time.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

This one is a big deal. For my vote, I would have expected the President to politely excuse himself upon hearing the news. At least one of his aides could have come to his rescue. Sure, it was a new experience for us all. But you can't argue with the film. Bush just sits there. For seven minutes. If you add this to the fact that Bush hid for the rest of the day, you can get a better understanding of why I didn't buy into the "strong courageous leader" meme.

The other point Moore made in the film had already been rubbing me the wrong way for some time.

Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.

Even before 9/11, I did not like the way the Bushies tried to characterize the President. The whole rancher image, which was really set in stone during his first August vacation, just didn't do it for me. I was well aware of Bush's upbringing before he ran for president. There was an article in a recent Vanity Fair about Bush's brother, Neil, and his nasty divorce. One section talks about how George, Neil, and Jeb had planned to spread across the country and set up shop in Texas, Colorado, and Florida, respectively. So from the start, Bush's "ranch" lifestyle was a perfectly crafted storyline. I've met plenty of people who believe that Bush has always been a Texan. The fact remains that at the end of the day, his family headquarters is a tony estate in Kennebunkport, Maine. Is there any doubt that the day Bush leaves public life the ranch will be up for sale?

The facade is manufactured. That is the big point Moore tries to lay out. The media never addressed it and the myths were propagated. At least Kerry isn’t trying to create an image that isn’t true. For all the talk about flip-flops and elitism, nothing is worse than a phony.

Has it really come to this?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several members of the House of Representatives have requested the United Nations (news - web sites) to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

Recalling the long, drawn out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, sent a letter Thursday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America," according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.

"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November, 2004 election.

Jeebus.

What's the big deal with Hussein's hearing? I didn't know that national secrets were going to be discussed.

NEW YORK -- U.S. news networks agreed to let the American military censor out certain images of Saddam Hussein's court hearing Thursday in Baghdad, one in a bizarre series of events surrounding coverage of the session.

American and Iraqi officials did not want any footage shown of Iraqi guards or court personnel, and they asked broadcast and cable news nets to honor this request.

But the situation took an unexpected turn even before the hearing began, when U.S. officials ordered CNN and Al-Jazeera, the pool camera crews, to disconnect their audio equipment. Officials said it was the wish of the Iraqi judge.

Following the hearing, the CNN footage was taken to the convention center, where a CBS News employee transmitted the footage after it was viewed and okayed by two military censors.

As the silent footage of Hussein began to air on U.S. networks around 8:30 a.m. ET, CBS News anchor Dan Rather explained that the tapes had been "taken to another location, edited, and what you're seeing is in effect a censored version" of what happened in court earlier today.

...Throughout the day, several news nets said it wasn't always clear which footage was from what source, and that it could have been DOD footage, meaning the Pentagon was directly controlling what was being heard.

Maybe it was stuff like this they didn't want anyone to hear.

Some news editors spent hours scouring the portion of the tape with audio for harsh words leveled at President Bush by Saddam, but could not find the quote reported by New York Times reporter John Burns, who was the pool print reporter in the courtroom and accompanied by a translator. Burns reported that Saddam said, "Everyone knows that this is a theatrical comedy by Bush, the criminal, in an attempt to win the election."

God, who cares. The half of us who already drank the Kool Aid wouldn't be swayed by Saddam's remarks. And the Middle East already hates Bush, and by extension us. So what are they afraid of getting out? It just doesn't make sense. If there's nothing to worry about, just let the feeds go out live. Maybe it's all just a part of the Grand Old Production.

I haven't had much to say in regards to some Catholic bishops having a problem with pro-choice politicians (read Democrats) taking Communion. Atrios has been doing a good enough job covering the story. But when I see my local bishop detail his position on the topic, I felt it necessary to comment. (Full disclosure - I'm Catholic)

Catholic politicians who support abortion rights may decide for themselves whether they are morally fit to receive Communion in the eight-county Diocese of Cleveland.

In a statement Thursday that was also sent to area officeholders, Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla chose to align himself with the majority of U.S. bishops who favor persuasion over sanctions in the abortion debate.

"The battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities," Pilla said in a statement to the more than 800,000 diocesan Catholics.

Damn straight. Keep politics out of the Church. I couldn't be happier with this. Pilla sums it up nicely.

"I firmly believe that clear and honest dialogue about moral teaching is always preferred over arbitrary judgments, condemnation or punitive actions," Pilla said. "The altar is a place of unity, healing, nourishment and grace. It is not a place for confrontation."

And that's what the Republicans don't get. Church is a place for unity and grace. Not partisanship. When our founding fathers had the foresight to grant us freedom of religion, they also thought it wise to add separation of church and state. For more on partisan politics in church, read this post from last night. It seems as if the GOP can't quite get the distinction.

I've been out of the house most of yesterday and I'm going to a family outing today. (If anyone wants to buy me a laptop with a wireless internet connection, please e-mail me. Heh.) Hopefully I'll post some tonight.

Whew. What a great break. I had a tremendously great weekend. It was capped off by an Indians game (we lost) complete with club seats and fireworks (yeah!). Since I didn't post at all this weekend, I'll take this chance to wish all of you a Happy 4th. For me, this weekend was about forgetting about politics and focusing on what it all means. Our forefathers fought and died so that we are able to have our spirited debates today. Imagine if you lived in China, where having a political blog would be grounds for life in prison or death. The very freedoms that most of us take for granted on a daily basis once again came into focus for me. I love my country and would never want to live anywhere else.

So now it's back to the grind and blogging once again. Oh yeah, and some young guy is Kerry's VP choice. Ever heard of him? (Heh.)

Sen. John Kerry has chosen his colleague and former presidential rival Sen. John Edwards as his running mate for the 2004 presidential election.

Kerry announced the choice at a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, telling the cheering crowd that Edwards is "a man who understands and defends the values of America."

Overall, I'm happy with his decision. I never had anything against Gephardt, but for me, I think Edwards will do a better job of energizing voters. And can you wait for the debate here in Cleveland between Edwards and Cheney? I can't either. (If anyone knows how I can score a ticket, let me know) The only real drawback about Edwards is his lack of experience in Washington. Yeah, I know that can be a good thing. But for some it will make a difference. The other thing that could work against Edwards is his former profession as a trial lawyer. Since tort reform really hasn't made headlines like the conservatives had hoped, it shouldn't be an issue.

All in all, it should be a great three weeks before the convention. Hopefully the Kerry/Edwards campaign can utilize their time wisely. November 2nd is right around the corner.

The funny thing is that there are a lot of people who actually listen to what Ann Coulter has to say. I really don't know why I read her tripe. (I must be a glutton for punishment) She really spews out some horrible stuff.

The Americanization of Iraq proceeds at an astonishing pace, the Iraqis are taking to freedom like fish to water, and the possibilities for this nation are endless. It's hard to say who's more upset about these developments: the last vestiges of pro-Hussein Baathist resistance in Iraq or John Kerry's campaign manager.

Once again, Ann does exactly what she rails against the "liberal media" for doing when talking about Iraq. She always complains that the SCLM never talks about the good points, only focuses on the bad stuff. Well, conversely Ann, you never acknowledge anything that goes wrong. Do you think she'll talk about the pipeline that blew up over the weekend, cutting Iraqi oil production in half? I don't either. But if she does, Ann will probably blame it on John Kerry's campaign manager.

The New York Times ran a front-page news story on Sunday about how life was better for Iraqi girls under Saddam Hussein -- living under Saddam, that is, not the girls who were literally under Saddam, Odai and Qusai while they were being raped. The article was titled "For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives." True, they don't have to run from Odai's rape rooms anymore. But apparently not a single Iraqi female has been admitted to Augusta National Golf Club since the liberation!

The Democrats want Saddam back.

Are you kidding me? I don't think even the most rabid liberal has ever publicly stated that they want Saddam back. So don't lump all Democrats into that camp Ann, because it doesn't exist. And what's with the snide little remark about the Augusta National Golf Club? I'm sure Hootie wouldn't appreciate it.

Of course we can't be sure if their presidential candidate wants Saddam back, inasmuch as John Kerry will be in an undisclosed location until Election Day. As Mickey Kaus has pointed out, every time Kerry starts campaigning, his poll numbers plummet. According to a recent New York Times poll, after $60 million in warm and fuzzy TV ads about Kerry, 40 percent of Americans have no opinion of him. In other words, the ads are working! So Kerry will be sitting out the actual campaign this year.

Hmm, every time Kerry campaigns, his numbers plummet? What an outright bogus lie. And your fellow hack Kaus is no better. How about whenever Bush tries to attach himself to something positive, his approval numbers retreat? Even with Saddam's capture, Bush only saw a short-lived jump in his approval ratings. So let's be honest when we talk about sagging poll numbers, ok Ann?

But he's got a lot of surrogates campaigning for him. There's Michael Moore, who has said he hopes more Americans will die in Iraq. His movie, "Fahrenheit 7/11" as we call it, apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein. Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!

Fahrenheit 7/11? As "we" call it? I've never heard anyone mumble that moniker before. I think that's just Ann's pathetic attempt to add something to the conservative lexicon. Let's digest one sentence from the last graf.

"His movie...apparently supports the Times' view that life in Iraq was better, sunnier, happier under Saddam Hussein."

First off, you admit that you've never seen the movie, Ann. Not a great way to add anything substantive to the debate. My biggest beef with anyone on the other side of the aisle, vis-à-vis F9/11, is how they just repeat the GOP talking points regarding the film. How in God's name can you say for certain that a movie, which you freely admit never seeing, makes a certain point? You can't, Ann. Two big lies propagated by the right is that Moore says he wants troops to die in Iraq and that he asserts how the Saudis flew out of the country when no one else was flying.

Moore never stated anything remotely close to "wanting more US troops to die in Iraq." Ready for this one? He does not say, or even assert, that the Saudis flew out of the country when everyone else was grounded. I've seen the movie folks. Verbatim, I believe, Moore says "as soon as it was ok to fly, the planes filled with material witnesses left the country." His assertion was how bad the FBI failed in the early stages of investigating the terrorist attacks. So you're incorrectly interpreting the movie.

Once again, for the record, Moore never states that the planes left before the travel ban was up. He stated that as soon as there was a green light, it was like the Road Runner high-tailing it out of sight. So not only do they misstate the first half of the argument, CoulterCo doesn't even pay attention to the second half and ask why weren't possible material witnesses properly interviewed by the FBI. I saw Isikoff repeat this lie again over the weekend. It's just not true people. So if you're going to bitch about a movie, at least see it for yourself.

Ugh.

Oh yeah, don't forget to buy your Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure.

Over the next couple of months, I will be attempting to obtain tickets to the vice-presidential debate here in Cleveland. Here's the info.

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 5
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH

If anyone knows how I can score a ticket, let me know. Hopefully, I can make a cool contribution to the blogging community. This will be a regular pleading for awhile.

Here's one from a lovable source.

Trial lawyer John Edwards will be John F. Kerry’s running mate, producing what must be the wealthiest presidential ticket in history.

Can't you just see the contempt dripping off "trial lawyer" and "wealthiest presidential ticket in history?" Jeeze. If that's going to be their focus, I feel bad for them already.

Type www.kerrypicksedwards.com into your browser and you are redirected to the Republican National Committee's file on John Edwards. A quick search of the WHOIS database shows that the owner of kerrypicksedwards.com is Tim Griffin of Little Rock, AR (A Google search on the name shows a Research Director for the RNC during the 2002 election cycle, so I'm betting he's the same guy).

Griffin must be omniscient, because he purchased the domain on June 23 of this year. If you search kerrypicks(fill-in-the-VP-rumor).com, nothing comes up. I tried the address with Hillary, Gephardt, Vilsack, Bayh, etc., and they're all available. Either the RNC was positive Edwards was the pick, the RNC didn't have any dirt on another candidate (which is unbelievable if you thought Hillary could be the choice), or they didn't have the foresight to go after anyone else. Your guess is as good as mine.

UPDATE: I guess something was wrong with the WHOIS database when I did my search earlier. Via Wonkette, we see that the RNC had domains ready for Gephardt, Vilsack, Clark, and Biden. They all take you to the Edwards slam page. Wonkette also points out...

Escaping their notice? KerryPicksHillary.com and KerryPicksClinton.com (guess Drudge didn't get the memo), KerryPicksGraham.com (so sad!), and, perhaps not even wishing to consider it, KerryPicksMcCain.com.

A repeat of the WHOIS search shows that Tim Griffin does indeed own all the aforementioned domains.

The situation in the Sudan is about to take a turn for the worse.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says a plague of desert locusts could soon hit several north African states.

It says this year's locust swarm looks like being the worst for 15 years.

...

Swarms could eventually reach the Darfur region of Sudan, where conflict has already created a major humanitarian crisis.

Locusts can eat their own weight in food every day, which means a single swarm can consume as much food as several thousand people.

I hope that we have some sort of plan to help these people.

Josh nails it with this quip.

At the end of the day, the intensity of the GOP response is a measure of their anxiety about Kerry's choice of Edwards.

I think so, what about you?

Because you all wanted to know what he thinks.

[Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, said Kerry's choice "really solidifies the fact that this is the most liberal ticket that the Democrats have put up for, basically, modern times. If you look at the voting records of those two guys, they are way out there in left field."

Oh no! Not liberals! Hide the white women! AAAAAHHHH!

At least they're better then Monkey/Mummy '04. (With a sideways smirk towards Dale’s not-so-sanguine take on the Edwards pick. Heh.)

Chariman of the September 11 Commission, Thomas Kean, says this...

The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission said Sunday that al Qaeda had much more interaction with Iran and Pakistan than it did with Iraq, underscoring a controversy over the Bush administration's insistence there was collaboration between the terrorist organization and Saddam Hussein.

Thomas Kean made the comment even as he and other commissioners tried to steer clear of the debate over one of the administration's primary justifications for invading Iraq.

"We believe ... that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq," said Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey.

"Al Qaeda didn't like to get involved with states, unless they were living there. They got involved with Sudan, they got involved ... where they lived, but otherwise no," he said on the Sunday morning talk show circuit.

But then Kean counters with this...

Kean said a commission staff document is an interim report and "we don't see any serious conflicts" with what the administration is saying.

Contacts, collaboration, whatever. It just doesn't make sense. BushCo made a strong effort to tie Iraq to the terrorists. They said Iraq was the biggest threat to America. But without uttering a word, the Iraq link to 9/11 was born. But consistently we get information that counters what BushCo was touting as proof Saddam was helping the terrorists at all. Here's the chain of events...

1. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11.

2. Iraq is accused of having ties to terrorists.

3. People believe, therefore, Iraq is tied to 9/11.

4. Iraq is labeled the biggest threat to America.

5. Bush and Cheney go around the country talking about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.

6. We go to war.

But everytime we get one of these reports that seems to contradict the Administration, and someone on the committee refutes that assertion, there are still some points worth discussiong that come out.

The commission's vice chairman, former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, said the White House and the commission agree on the central point: There is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

Among the differences between what the White House has asserted and what the commission says it has found are:

-Cheney said Iraq deployed a bomb-making expert, a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service, when bin Laden asked for terror training. President Bush said on Feb. 8, 2003, that Iraq had provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. "The vice president, I believe, said that there was a response by Iraq to some of Osama bin Laden's requests. We found no evidence of that response," said Hamilton.

-Cheney said it's "never been proven" and "it's never been refuted" that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official on April 9, 2001 in Prague, Czech Republic. Hamilton said the commission has a picture of Atta taken in Virginia just a few days before the supposed meeting in Prague, as well as his cell phone records with calls placed in the United States at the time of the meeting. Hamilton noted that such data "is not conclusive proof" on Atta's whereabouts and Hamilton added that the vice president himself was saying the proof was not clear one way or the other.

You know how the old saying goes. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I wonder if this will make them rethink the asbestos-liability legislation?

WASHINGTON -- A section of the Capitol is closed on the Senate side because of concerns about asbestos.

Asbestos has been linked to cancer. Apparently, some asbestos particles came loose last week while workers were repairing air ducts.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said tests over the weekend showed low levels of asbestos in the Senate chamber.

The adjacent party cloakrooms and the Senate press gallery remain closed because of the problem.

You think any Senator freaked out?

The truth? They can't handle the truth!

An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted.

But neither the threat nor the withholding of information violated any criminal law, the report said. It accepted the Justice Department's view that Mr. Scully had "the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress." Moreover, it said, the actuary "had no authority to disclose information independently to Congress."

Of course the Justice Department would hold the view that "Mr. Scully 'the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress.'" Bottom line? It's ok to lie. Especially when it involves an important Congressional vote.

I think Michael Berube's take on Edwards' supposed impact on southern voters says it all.

Look, Edwards is a good ole Carolina boy and the GOP is still going to sweep the entire South except for Florida (there, it all depends on how many black folks they can purge from the rolls this time).

Read the whole thing for a broader prospective on the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Should Kerry turn it down? (Via Political Wire)

Some Democratic strategists and fundraisers say Sen. John Kerry should seriously consider opting out of public funding in his bid to defeat President Bush this fall.

They maintain that Kerry’s record fundraising efforts in the Democratic presidential primary show that the senator can reap more money through private contributions than through what the government would provide the campaign.

Until now, it has been assumed that both Kerry and Bush would take the $75 million in public funds after they accept their respective nominations. But this places Kerry, who will be nominated five weeks prior to President Bush, at a significant disadvantage. He has to stretch his money for 14 weeks, an average of about $5 million per week, compared to Bush, who has nine weeks, an average of more than $8 million, to spend his public money.

Reaction so far has been mixed. Ezra isn't quite convinced that it's a good idea.

I'm not sold on Kerry rejecting public financing for the general election. The central spending imbalance, 14 weeks at $5 million a week for Kerry vs 9 weeks at $8 million a week for Bush, is simply not that great, particularly when you include the efforts of 527's. Further, money hasn't done much in this election. Bush's $85 million blitz barely scratched Kerry while Kerry's efforts to define himself have had middling success at best. Same held true in the primary where Edward's initial money boost did him no good and Dean's remarkable spending didn't halt his implosion.

The spending imbalance isn't that big of a deal. This is true. But does anyone remember a couple of months ago when the gap between conventions was big enough to get Kerry to consider whether or not to postpone accepting the nomination. Sure, that's millions in contributions and a lifetime ago, but it is still a central concern. We cannot rely too much on the 527s to pick up any slack. If the FEC ends up ruling against them, questions about impropriety could be raised at a later date. That would make for a not fun situation during Kerry's first term. Jerome has a different take.

Should Kerry opt out of public financing?

Yes, without a doubt. On The Hill (via Political Wire) there's finally chatter about Kerry opting out of taking the public financing in the fall campaign, and instead relying on his donor base for the final three months of the campaign.

There are negatives. It might siphon off campaign funds from other Democratic campaigns. It wouldn't fund GOTV efforts by Kerry, but instead more TV commercials. But one negative, which Tony Coelho argues, is nonexistent; that of it being a "big negative" politically as "pro-[Ralph] Nader people would seize on it." Cohelo apparently forgets that Dean successfully opted out of public financing, and that didn't hurt Dean among the "pro-Nader people."

The positives outweigh the negatives. Kerry will raise over $100 million, at least. Then there is the argument of fiscal responsibility. Imagine the offensive. In a time with record deficits, how can George Bush justify stripping another $72 million out of the treasure just to fund his political campaign? There's no reason why the Government should be paying for political campaigns, none at all, and Bush should back out of campaign welfare, especially given the record deficits he's created.

This is the best point of all. Having the government get out of the campaign game might be a good thing. Of course, it would effectively kill any chance of a third party rising up and taking over (which depending on your view could be good or bad). One more graf from Jerome.

The biggest boon of CFR was that it put the onus back onto the average partisan Joe & Mary to put their money where their vote stood. Post-CFR, without the soft money millions, the Democratic Party was either going to wither on the vine, or resurrect the activist as the financial backbone of the Party. Over $100 million in online donations (most of it small donors) to John Kerry later, the Party is back on it's feet. In what's probably the most underreported story of the election, Kerry has been outraising Bush for months now, forcing the Bush campaign to raise an additional $50-75 million than they had originally planned necessary.

To date, not much has been made out of Kerry's contributions from small donors. Fact of the matter is that the little guy has made an impact so far. A little parity to the game, if you will. As Ezra says, both players have been throwing tons of money at the fire, with little flame to show for it. But imagine if we were once again taken back to the land of large corporate hard-money donors. Anyone think there would be such a huge grassroots effort to raise money for Dems then? Me neither.

Do you think this is an effort to let potential jurors know he's a religious man?

Former Enron Corp. chief executive Kenneth L. Lay surrendered to federal authorities this morning, a day after a federal grand jury in Houston issued a sealed indictment against him.

...

Lay was accompanied to the federal courthouse by his pastor, Steve Wende, of Houston's First United Methodist Church. While Lay did not comment, Wende said that Lay and his wife "have been concerned about three things throughout this ordeal: God's blessing for all those hurt by the Enron debacle; for the truth to come out; and for God to guide the Lays." Then Lay was led away in handcuffs.

Whatever. You're still a scumbag, Kenny Boy. Whenever I hear your name, I just think about the images of Enron employees out on their asses, sitting on the street curb weeping after they were let go.

How long will they try this one on Edwards? Not too long, by the looks of it. (Via Kos)

When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards's lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.

"You've been a great governor," Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. "My only problem with you, governor, is that you've only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship ... Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That's why I'm thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate."

Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday.

Exactly. So shut up already about Edwards' "lack of experience." Some advice to our Dear Leader. If you really want to help unify the Democratic effort, keep suggesting that Dick Cheney could be president.

President Bush on Wednesday curtly dismissed freshman Sen. John Edwards' credentials to be vice president while Democratic challenger John Kerry and his running mate rallied voters in battleground states. "Dick Cheney can be president," Bush declared, and Kerry suggested that was part of the problem.

So sad.

I'm glad to see our nation's security has all the kinks ironed out.

Washington (AP) - Two congressional panels will hear testimony on Thursday about the security breakdown that caused the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol before Ronald Reagan's funeral.

Federal security officials tells The Washington Post that the military was prepared to order the shootdown of a plane that violated restricted airspace on June ninth. The plane turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to the funeral.

Current and former homeland security officials say it was the closest the government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington since the 9/11 attacks

Wow, can you imagine how bad that could've been? Seriously though, I think it underscores the point that things may not be what they seem when it comes to our security. Especially when it come to aviation. I can't wait to find out exactly how bad the situation must have gotten if they were scrambling jets to shoot down the plane.

If you had any credibility left, Neil, it's totally gone now.

Neil Cavuto, FOX News Channel's vice president of business news, reported on July 6 that the stock market was experiencing an "Edwards Dip" as a result of Senator John Kerry's announcement that he had chosen Senator John Edwards (D-NC) as his vice-presidential running mate. Cavuto made the statement despite FOX News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes's past repudiation of the practice of news outlets drawing causal connections between statements by political figures and short-term stock market behavior.

Of course, coming from Mr. Fat Head, this comes as no surprise to me. I must admit something, however. Up until a few years ago, I actually thought that most of the tripe to come from the FNC outside of their prime-time lineup had some credibility to it. But as soon as the run up to the Iraq war started, FNC was the first to get all of their talking heads spouting pro-war boloney. Now it's just ridiculous. The fact that so many people get their "fair and balanced" news from FNC scares me. But what scares me even more is just how bad the Clinton News Network wants a share of FNC viewers.

After showing a video clip of Senator John Kerry (D-MA) making a comment, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, about Senator John Edwards's age -- a comment Kerry characterized minutes later as "not meant to be negative" -- on July 6, CNN anchor Daryn Kagan and CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider portrayed the comments as a "classic" example of Kerry being a "flip-flopper."

...

While CNN considered these relatively innocuous comments a "classic" flip-flop, the network has ignored much more significant "flip-flops" by President George W. Bush. As just one example, in a June 22 article about the Supreme Court's rejection of state laws that give patients in managed care the right to sue insurance companies for damages, The New York Times noted:

The decision came in a pair of closely watched cases from Texas, where a strong patients' rights bill became law in 1997 without the signature of George W. Bush, who was then governor. During his campaign for the presidency four years ago, Governor Bush embraced the state law ... [but] [b]efore the Supreme Court, the Bush administration opposed the Texas law.

Although Bush's flip-flop on the Texas patients' rights law was undoubtedly more significant than the "classic" Kerry flip-flop about Edwards's age, CNN didn't report it at all (much less characterize it as a "flip-flop"); nor has the network characterized other significant Bush flip-flops as such.

Obviously CNN is trying to copy at least some of the FNC formula. From a purely ratings standpoint, I can see why. But by just trying to put out a weak facsimile, CNN will only succeed in further marginalizing themselves.

Lawmakers were wringing their hands up on the hill yesterday. More talk about an over-stretched military.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a bipartisan show of concern that the military is dangerously overworked, lawmakers said Wednesday the Pentagon is stretching troops to their limit and perhaps undermining the nation's future force.

Amid worries the high level of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan could discourage potential new service members, Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, said it was not reassuring that most reserve components were falling below their recruiting goals for the year.

The operative word here is "future." This is my primary concern in regards to what happens next. God forbid something else happens, and say Iran or North Korea is involved, how would be be able to deploy enough troops to the new front? Unless they plan on drastically reducing the amount of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, someone will have to face the possiblity that a new draft is possible. But troop levels in Iraq will not fall anytime soon and the draft is political suicide. So we're really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

At least we're going to finally get the job done right. Oh, wait...

American and Iraqi officials say that a decision in April to pull back American forces from Falluja inadvertently created a safe haven for terrorists and insurgents there. But officials are reluctant to send American troops back into the city for fear of touching off another uprising.

Hmm. Ok, do we have a backup plan?

The officials say they are unsure how to proceed, but agree they merely postponed the problem when the Americans halted an attack in April, brokering a deal to keep Americans out of Falluja and allow local Iraqis to police the city instead.

Iraqi and American officials say they would prefer to re-enter the city with a sizable force of Iraqi soldiers, perhaps backed up by Americans. But they concede that an Iraqi force capable of mounting an effective assault on Falluja, a city of 250,000 people, is months or even years away.

Damn. But wait, there's a new school right down the road next to the new power plant. No, wait, that's just a mirage.

As a result, the Americans and the new Iraqi government are faced with a growing danger that - as long as they adhere to the agreement to stay out of the city - they are nearly powerless to confront.

Mayber we should've done this right the first time. Seems to be a concern that shit getting nasty over there right now might affect the election. Who would'a thunk it?

We should've never been there in the first place.

At least we could've had a better plan for the "post-war" effort.

Little Green Footballs' scientifically correct and relevant presidential poll.

If by any chance it's not the first one, pick president-poll-1 from the drop down menu. Surprisingly, Bush is ahead with 73% of the vote. Kerry's screwed.

Heh.

Krugman says it's a great idea. It definitely is. Too bad it will never happen.

John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured. To pay for that plan, Mr. Kerry wants to rescind recent tax cuts for the roughly 3 percent of the population with incomes above $200,000.

...