If I hurry, I can get 7 minutes of sleep before it's time to awaken and start the whole wonderful existence all over again.
Good
"American government is the entertainment division of the Military Industrial Complex."
"One deluded president plus an army of paralyzed editorialists = many more years of a war that is one big atrocity." - Greg Mitchell, Editor&Publisher "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job." - George W. Bush


Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.
In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.
The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring Iran and Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.
Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.
"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.
"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.
Iraqi forces were dealing with more violence Friday...
Atrios has a post up about those rapacious Option ARMs and how people are getting suckered into even higher mortgage rates by seductive numbers that turn out to be flat-out false, then follows it up with a 'cautious prediction' of a massive wave of foreclosures that is about to hit homeowners at all income levels. He suggests that the Dems get out in front of this by coming up with solid proposals to ensure that people all over this country don't get tossed out of their houses en masse.As for the "sucker every minute", I suspect a fair number of these folks "buy" into this awful plan because circumstances have already pushed them into such dangerous financing in the misguided hope (impossible in the Bush years of only billionaires being worthy) of holidng onto homes already set for foreclosure, thinking they could pull themselves up and out later.
While it can be pointed out that there's a sucker born every minute and that the people going for these mortgages are doing so willingly, the banks are guilty of putting thousands of families in jeopardy of losing their homes. That isn't right, and there should be a crackdown on these lending practices. Dems are the ones who could do it, and they should. It's a good idea, and it would be a good policy idea even if there weren't a foreclosure epidemic looming on the horizon. Bush and his thugs have let the banks get away with murder when it comes to bad lending practices (see Bankruptcy Bill), and the Dems should start casting themselves as the Protectors of the Little Guy now. As in yesterday.
Tonight, just as I heard them announce that pert, perky, and oh too precious Katie Couric would begin as the CBS Evening News anchor on Tuesday (September 5th), I had to race for the bathroom to toss my cookies (and no, no real cookies were involved).
Eww...just talking about it (Katie, not cookies) is making my stomach churn again.
Even though the Democrats have been the targets of the Administration's foreign policy offensive all week long, this is also a great opportunity for them. Last week, there were murmurings inside circles of the Democratic Party about calling for a no-confidence vote of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, anticipating that many moderate Republicans up for reelection would join the resolution.
With the Defense Secretary's latest tirade this week where he compared war critics to Nazi appeasers, the Democrats may have their best opportunity to introduce the "no confidence vote" resolution.
Newt Gingrich spoke at a fundraiser for a GOP Congressional candidate yesterday and made explicit one of the core issues that the 2006 election will resolve:To deal with the threat [of "nuclear bombs destroying U.S. cities"], he said, "we want to replace the North Korean regime. We want to replace the Iranian regime and the Syrian regime. We would like to replace them without using military force if we can."
When Gingrich says "we would like to replace them without using military force if we can," he means, of course, that he wants military force used (i.e. new wars waged) on those countries. It is almost certainly the case that military force is the only way to accomplish regime change in those three countries. That means that, in addition to staying in Iraq indefinitely, we will have three new Iraqs -- including in two countries with far greater military force than Iraq could have dreamed of having (one of which has nuclear capabilities).
It is hard to overstate how extremist is the warmongering agenda of those who exert the most influence among Bush supporters. Isn't that what Democrats should be asking Americans most clearly and aggressively - do you really want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and on top of that, have whole new wars with Iran and Syria, perhaps with North Korea? That is what Newt Gingrich says he wants, and he is hardly alone.
Now this is enough to get your blood boiling. Colorado Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez, who is also running for governor in that state, said in a radio interview on Monday that 70% of all African-American pregnancies end in abortion:"In some of our ethnic communities, we're seeing very, very high percentages of babies, children, pregnancies end in abortion," Beauprez said in an interview broadcast on Colorado Public Radio. "I've seen numbers as high as 70 percent, maybe even more, in the African-American community that I think is just appalling."
It looks like someone is jealous of George Allen! Obviously the number Beauprez gave was inaccurate, and he apologized on Wednesday. Even though he did say he was sorry, Colorado voters have to ask themselves whether they want to elect a governor that just throws around numbers like that in order to score points with a fringe demographic.
Line of FireI'm in almost full agreement with this author's point about that the international forces being used in Lebanon would be a wise addition in other areas where Israel strong arms.
Daoud Kuttab argues that the international military presence in Lebanon makes clear the need for the same strategy in the West Bank and Gaza.
Back in 2005, when the credit card industry lobbyists were corralling republican and Democratic lawmakers to vote for the corporate-written Bankruptcy Bill, Sen. Dick Durbin offered an amendment (details attached) to preserve existing protections for troops serving in Iraq. National guardsmen, for instance, sometimes are forced to take a pay cut from their regular jobs when they are called into service and deployed overseas. Lord knows our soldiers serving in Iraq have enough to worry about - and gutting their bankruptcy protections while they were deployed was something Durbin thought was unacceptable. Unfortunately, only 38 of his Senate colleagues agreed with him, and his amendment was defeated.
[Check out the names of these fuckers!]
Those voting against the amendment included Montana Sen. Conrad Burns (R), Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine (R), Virginia Sen. George Felix Allen [that's George "Macaca" Allen to you!], Jr., Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R), Missouri Sen. Jim Talent (R), Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) - all incumbents facing serious challenges for reelection.
Now, according to a new Pentagon report highlighted by USA Today (story linked below), "As many as one in five members of the armed services are being preyed on by loan centers set up near military bases that can charge cash-strapped military families interestso of 400% or more." Let's be clear - trying to take advantage of soldiers at a time of war when they are under stress is a form of war profiteering. And thanks to our bought-off Congress - it's all perfectly legal. Here's hoping the senators who voted against Durbin's amendment get hammered for it.
THOMAS FRANKI think Thomas Frank raises some decent issues here as he has before.
Rendezvous With Oblivion
Everything I have written about in this space points to the same conclusion: Democratic leaders must learn to talk about class issues again.
How We're Losing the War
» John Lehman Are we killing, capturing, or deterring jihadists faster than they are being produced? The answer is an emphatic no.
According to Baum, Allen had not naively stumbled into a chance meeting with unfamiliar people. He knew exactly who and what the CCC was about and, from Baum's point of view, was engaged in a straightforward political transaction. "It helped us as much as it helped him," Baum told me. "We got our bona fides." And so did Allen.
Descended from the White Citizens' Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, the CCC is designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."
The CCC has hosted several conservative Republican legislators at its conferences, including former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. But mostly it has been a source of embarrassment to Republicans hoping to move their party beyond its race-baiting image. Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."
The rocky course of the Iraq war is at another critical juncture, as U.S. and Iraqi troops try to stop a surge of violence. In frank interviews, the top commanders at the front assess the campaign and what must happen next. Read more »As for Bush's pronouncement, hey:
The rocky course of the Iraq war is at another critical juncture, as U.S. and Iraqi troops try to stop a surge of violence. In frank interviews, the top commanders at the front assess the campaign and what must happen next. Read more »As for Bush's pronouncement, hey:
U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.So this will be a big time version of how, when I criticize Mr. Rumsfeld or question the Pentagon, I get contacted BY some part of the Pentagon. Great.
The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal.
The request for bids comes at a time when Bush administration officials are publicly criticizing media coverage of the war in Iraq.
The proposal, which calls in part for extensive monitoring and analysis of Iraqi, Middle Eastern and American media, is designed to help the coalition forces understand "the communications environment." Its goal is to "develop communication strategies and tactics, identify opportunities, and execute events . . . to effectively communicate Iraqi government and coalition's goals, and build support among our strategic audiences in achieving these goals," according to the statement of work that is publicly available through the Web site http://www.fbodaily.com .


The Bush administration is one of the most secretive and corrupt administrations of modern times. George W. Bush will be President until 2009 and only time will tell what this man will further accomplish in his quest to make war, endanger the lives of Americans, and shift wealth from the hands of those who have little to those who have much. The Bush administration has been marked by contempt for the law, disregard for American lives and gross incompetence.
Bush's presidency has been riddled with scandal from day one. In early 2001, Dick Cheney's energy task force met behind closed doors. The result was energy policy largely written by officials from the energy industry. In 2002, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the secret proceedings of this task force were ordered to be disclosed, but this has not yet happened. A couple of things from the meetings that have seen the light of day are maps of Iraq's oil fields and a document called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." It is worth noting that the energy task force met before Sept. 11.
Bush's warrantless domestic spying, which the administration had attempted to hide from the American people was recently declared illegal. Who would have thought? What is surprising is that leading up to the recent ruling, Department of Justice lawyers didn't even attempt to defend the legality of the program. The argument of Bush's legal team was that the NSA wiretapping was so secret that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had no authority to rule on it. The Department of Justice did not even choose to argue against the claims of the plaintiffs, only that the program couldn't be ruled illegal, because it was secret.
It's arguable which of these individual scandals would be considered high crimes or misdemeanors. But no scandal of the past six years can compare to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush and his friends lied to us in front of our very eyes. Bush warned us about weapons of mass destruction he knew never existed.
If you’re still harboring the notion that the economy is “good,” prepare to be disabused.
Even the best number from yesterday’s Census Bureau report for 2005 is bad news for most Americans. It shows that median income rose 1.1 percent last year, to $46,326, the first increase since it peaked in 1999. But the entire increase is attributable to the 23 million households headed by someone over age 65. So the gain is likely from investment income and Social Security, not wages and salaries.
For the other 91 million households, the median dropped, by half a percent, or $275. Incomes for the under-65 crowd were hurt by a decline in wages and salaries among full-time working men for the second year in a row, and among full-time working women for the third straight year. In all, median income for the under-65 group was $2,000 lower in 2005 than in 2001, when the last recession bottomed out.
Despite the Bush-era expansion, the number of Americans living in poverty in 2005 — 37 million — was the same as in 2004. This is the first time the number has not risen since 2000. But the share of the population now in poverty — 12.6 percent — is still higher than at the trough of the last recession, when it was 11.7 percent. And among the poor, 43 percent were living below half the poverty line in 2005 — $7,800 for a family of three. That’s the highest percentage of people in “deep poverty” since the government started keeping track of those numbers in 1975.
As for the uninsured, their ranks grew in 2005 by 1.3 million people, to a record 46.6 million, or 15.9 percent. That’s also worse than the recession year 2001, reflecting the rising costs of health coverage and a dearth of initiatives to help families and companies cope with the burden. For the first time since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children increased in 2005.
Although it has received scant national attention, two crooks running the Baptist Foundation of Arizona were convicted by a Phoenix jury in July of fleecing 11,000 gullible religious investors out of $585 million. They each face 46 years in prison.
Then there's the darling of the religious right, baby-faced Ralph Reed, the oily architect of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Reed was thoroughly drubbed in the July primary for Georgia lieutenant governor.
Why didn't Reed's sham as a man of faith work with voters? Because like most gluttonous opportunists posing as godly, Reed was outed as a liar and imposter.
Even as he piously claimed special virtues, Republican Reed secretly was demanding several millions of dollars from convicted Washington Republican racketeer-lobbyist Jack Abramoff as payment for recruiting Christians to oppose Texas legislation that would've damaged an Abramoff gambling client.
Presbyterian Reed might've saved himself if he'd honored Chapter 15, Verse 6 of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith: "He that scandalizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended, who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him."

Doing his stations of the Katrina cross, President Bush went for breakfast with Mayor Ray Nagin at Betsy’s Pancake House.Read the rest at Rozius.
As Mr. Bush tried to squeeze past some tightly placed tables, a waitress, Joyce Labruzzo, teased him, saying, “Mr. President, are you going to turn your back on me?’’
“No ma’am,’’ he replied, with a laugh and a pause for effect. “Not again.”
It was a rare unguarded moment — showing that his towering Katrina failure is lodged somewhere in the front of his cerebral cortex — in a trip of staged, studiously happy settings, steering away from the wreckage of buildings and people so searing for anyone who loved the saucy and sauce-laden New Orleans of old.
W.’s anniversary contrition for the cameras was a more elaborate version of his famous Air Force One flyover a year ago, when he had to be shown a DVD of angry news coverage of apartheid suffering here before he belatedly and grudgingly broke off his five-week Crawford vacation.
In an interview on the Upper Ninth Ward’s desolate North Dorgenois Street, the president told NBC’s Brian Williams that, besides Camus, he had recently read a book on the Battle of New Orleans and “three Shakespeares.” A White House aide said one of them was “Hamlet.”
What could be more fitting? A prince who dithers instead of acting and then acts precipitously at the wrong moment, not paying attention when someone vulnerable drowns.
Asked by the anchor whether he was asking people in the country to sacrifice enough, he replied briskly, “Americans are sacrificing — we pay a lot of taxes.”
The last two days in Mississippi and New Orleans were W.’s play within the play. He took the role of the empathetic and engaged chief executive, rallying resources to save the Gulf Coast, even as the larger lens showed a sad picture of American communities that are still decrepit and hurting, while the Bush administration’s billions flow to reconstructing — or rather not reconstructing — Iraq.
You longed for this Crawford Hamlet to just go out there and say, “This just isn’t good enough.”
Instead, he gritted his teeth and put on his blandly optimistic cheerleader-in-chief role and talked about restoring “the soul’’ of New Orleans. It always makes me nervous when W. does soul talk.
He was brazen enough to pose as the man of action even in a city ruined by his initial and continuing inaction. “I’ve been on the levees,’’ he told a crowd at a high school here yesterday. “I’ve seen these good folks working.’’
PRESIDENT BUSH travels to the Gulf Coast this week, ostensibly to mark the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone knows his real mission: to try to make us forget the first anniversary of the downfall of his presidency.Read the entirety at The Progressive American.
As they used to say in the French Quarter, bonne chance! The ineptitude bared by the storm — no planning for a widely predicted catastrophe, no attempt to secure a city besieged by looting, no strategy for anything except spin — is indelible. New Orleans was Iraq redux with an all-American cast. The discrepancy between Mr. Bush's "heckuva job" shtick and the reality on the ground induced a Cronkite-in-Vietnam epiphany for news anchors. At long last they and the country demanded answers to the questions about the administration's competence that had been soft-pedaled two years earlier when the war first went south.
What's amazing on Katrina's first anniversary is how little Mr. Bush seems aware of this change in the political weather. He's still in a bubble. At last week's White House press conference, he sounded as petulant as Tom Cruise on the "Today" show when Matt Lauer challenged him about his boorish criticism of Brooke Shields. Asked what Iraq had to do with the attack on the World Trade Center, Mr. Bush testily responded, "Nothing," adding that "nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks." Like the emasculated movie star, the president is still so infatuated with his own myth that he believes the public will buy such nonsense.
As the rest of the world knows, the White House connived 24/7 to pound in the suggestion that Saddam ordered the attacks on 9/11. "The Bush administration had repeatedly tied the Iraq war to Sept. 11," Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton write in "Without Precedent," their new account of their stewardship of the 9/11 commission. The nonexistent Qaeda-Saddam tie-in was as much a selling point for the war as the nonexistent W.M.D. The salesmanship was so merciless that half the country was brainwashed into believing that the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis.
To achieve this feat, Dick Cheney spent two years publicly hyping a "pretty well confirmed" (translation: unconfirmed) pre-9/11 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and a Saddam intelligence officer, continuing to do so long after this specious theory had been discredited. Mr. Bush's strategy was to histrionically stir 9/11 and Iraq into the same sentence whenever possible, before the invasion and after. Typical was his May 1, 2003, oration declaring the end of "major combat operations." After noting that "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001," he added: "With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." To paraphrase the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this was tantamount to saying that the Japanese attacked us on Dec. 7, 1941, and war with Mexico is what they got.
The Old King put the Boy King over his knee yesterday and gave him a good thwack with a lobster-shaped paddle.Someone noted yesterday - not sure whom - that Bill Clinton has actually paid more visits to the Bush Kennebunkport retreat than Dubya has.
O.K., that didn't happen, but don't you wish it had?
Junior certainly deserves it, with recent attempts to blame his dad for policies that led to 9/11 and the rise of Osama and Middle East terrorism.
As with so many things about this byzantine, Shakespearean relationship between father and son, reunited here at last for a wedding, a christening and a funeral this weekend, it's an ironic turn of events.
The son was furious when the father was painted as a wimp in the 1988 campaign, and now he and his spinners are painting 41 as a weak leader. W.'s pain at what happened to his aristocratic dad with "the wimp factor" led him to overreact in the other direction when he became president, embracing a West Texas-tough, muscle-bound foreign policy that shunned diplomacy, nuance, compromise, multilateral treaties and allied coalitions as measures that reflected impotence.
And now it has led him to scapegoat his own father, and Bill Clinton, for sending signals of weakness that encouraged the terrorists — even as many Middle East experts say it is W.'s culturally obtuse, diplomatically averse and morally simplistic style that has spurred terrorism and made the world more dangerous.
The Bush spokesman Tony Snow recently told reporters that "when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th."
Afterwards, questioned by furious Bush I foreign policy types, Bush II officials tried to claim that Mr. Snow was talking about President Clinton running away from Somalia, but clearly the spokesman was referring, as he originally confirmed, to the truncated end of Desert Storm.
In Crawford recently, the president also criticized previous administrations for policies that indicated that "stability is more important than form of government."
Translation: Dad cuddled up to the corrupt Saudi monarchy and other Middle East dictators and let Saddam stay in power and was tough on Israel. I got rid of Saddam to establish a democracy and uncritically sided with Israel, a democracy.
Of course, now W. has now been reduced to pleading with dictatorial Mideast leaders to help him quell the violence engulfing Iraq and Lebanon, and with the military dictator Musharraf to help him capture Al Qaeda members.
Last September President Bush stood in New Orleans, where the lights had just come on for the first time since Katrina struck, and promised "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." Then he left, and the lights went out again.
What happened next was a replay of what happened after Mr. Bush asked Congress to allocate $18 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. In the months that followed, congressmen who visited Iraq returned with glowing accounts of all the wonderful things we were doing there, like repainting schools and, um, repainting schools.
But when the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was running Iraq, closed up shop nine months later, it turned out that only 2 percent of the $18 billion had been spent, and only a handful of the projects that were supposed to have been financed with that money had even been started. In the end, America failed to deliver even the most basic repair of Iraq's infrastructure; today, Baghdad gets less than seven hours of electricity a day.
And so it is along our own Gulf Coast. The Bush administration likes to talk about all the money it has allocated to the region, and it plans a public relations blitz to persuade America that it's doing a heck of a job aiding Katrina's victims. But as the Iraqis learned, allocating money and actually using it for reconstruction are two different things, and so far the administration has done almost nothing to make good on last year's promises.
It's true that tens of billions have been spent on emergency relief and cleanup. But even the cleanup remains incomplete: almost a third of the hurricane debris in New Orleans has yet to be removed. And the process of going beyond cleanup to actual reconstruction has barely begun.For example, although Congress allocated $17 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Katrina relief, primarily to provide cash assistance to homeowners, as of last week the department had spent only $100 million. The first Louisiana homeowners finally received checks under a federally financed program just three days ago. Mississippi, which has a similar program, has sent out only about two dozen checks so far.
In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver.
An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.
A bill that expands President Bush's ability to wiretap American phones and conduct other forms of domestic surveillance will likely appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday, RAW STORY has learned.
The bill, which was written by judiciary chairman Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and which has been widely and publicly excoriated by Democratic members of the committee, contains provisions—such as the institution of program-wide warrants, and warrants that do not expire for a year—that would weaken the strict limits that currently govern the FISA courts.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was written nearly 20 years ago and offers guidelines about the legal use of wiretaps on phones inside the United States. It includes provisions for the use of courts to issue warrants if the government’s case against a suspect meets legal scrutiny.
The judiciary committee originally sought to bring the NSA wiretapping program into compliance with FISA, but in practice, critics claim, Specter’s FISA amendments actually give the president freedom to expand his wiretapping activities.
A statement released by the office of Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) states that Specter’s bill “gives him even more power than he has asserted under his illegal NSA wiretapping program.”

AS the leader of the Republican party in the US Senate and a possible presidential candidate, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has a reputation for sober rectitude. The same cannot be said of his son Jonathan, a Vanderbilt University student who recently appeared on the internet wearing six cans of beer strapped to his belt.Read on; it actually gets... well, it not worse, at least more perverted.
Nor has Jonathan’s brother Bryan done much to help his father’s attempts to strike a reasonable note about US involvement in Iraq. “I was born an American by God’s amazing grace,” wrote Bryan Frist in an online profile. “Let’s bomb some people.”
While the Bible warns that the sins of the father may be visited upon their sons, the injunction may need to be revised in the age of the teenage blogger and online social networks. The sins of the sons — not to mention the daughters — are making the titans of Washington and Wall Street nervous as the internet opens public doors to what would once have been private family business.
Frist is one of at least half a dozen US politicians — and at least one US Supreme Court judge — whose public images have been dented in recent months by the internet antics of their offspring. Pictures of scantily clad daughters whooping it up have become a staple of internet gossip.
A recent analysis of President Bush's popularity poll numbers startled me.
It noted, with apparent surprise, that Bush's approval rating didn't rise noticeably after the announcement that the British had foiled a terrorist plot to destroy 10 transatlantic passenger jets in flight from England to America.
I wondered, ``Was it supposed to rise?''
The perception that Bush's popularity grows as the threat of terrorism rises remains a powerful one, particularly with Vice President and chief White House ideologue Dick Cheney. If news reports are correct, Cheney both pressured the British to reveal their investigation earlier than they felt necessary, then used this prior knowledge to try to frighten U.S. voters inclined to support anti-Iraq war candidates like Ned Lamont, who upset Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's recent Democratic primary.
This perception is built on the notion that a frightened, trembling America is a pro-Bush America. It certainly seemed so in the period after Sept. 11, when most Americans gave Bush high marks for his war on terror. And, as reflected by a compliant Congress, they also gave him carte blanche to fight it.