holiday in cambodia

bloody computer problems :-(

* nice to see rummy again

* joshmarshall is prolly the best mainstream political blogger, not known for being weird or his rhetorical flourishes - but i think he's just flipped:
"In a startling development late in the presidential campaign cycle, editors of the satirical magazine The Onion have taken over the Bush-Cheney '04 Communications Office" and "Can we re-check the sprinkler system in the Reichstag?" http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.php#003520

* "Australia's leading expert on weapons of mass destruction defied political and bureaucratic barriers to warn the Prime Minister that his case for war against Iraq was based on falsehoods and would make Australia a bigger terrorist target." this is a good read. the same thing happened in 3 countries. fairfax leads with the story, but murdoch misses it. strangely. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/24/1095961864769.html?from=top5

* zarq is everywhere. in the media. mini-profiles hither&dither. ive always thought he the most likely candidate for an electoral attack. his specialties seem to include personally beheading (masked and introducing himself (i luv that one), setting off carbombs near police recruiting, and of course, and most importantly, he's alqs poisons/chem expert. i wonder if he makes cleland jealous?

* heres another ap trick "Democrat John Kerry wrongly questioned the credibility of the interim Iraqi leader, and "you can't lead this country" while undercutting an ally, President Bush said Friday." - they make the statement as fact (not quoted), and then tidy up by add the 'bush said' bit on the end. its a nice trick.

*bush: "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Mr. Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."" - heres the thing, the entire cadmin questioned lathams cred, and he's 40%+ chance of being a leader of an ally in abuot 14 days.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040924/ap_on_el_pr/bush_26

* btw - 43 said that same 'there will be much more fighting in the lead up to the jauary iraq election' - and made it very clear. l,ike it was underlined, thrice, in red. pause pause pause. which is really quite an odd thing to say (sternly), even in this bizarro world, where they all keep pretending that its disneyland in iraq (didnt mmoore get ridiculed for the same thing?) in the same speeches. wot is the logic in him saying that? preempting the situation by innoculating? it doesnt make sense - he is taking a definite hit, today (pre-amelection), for some possible damage later, if theres lots more violence, if he is president (sic), and if the media cant cover it up like they are so capable of. it seems he is making the statement for the purpose of either 1) influencing the amelection (ie politicking) 2) or for some post amelection timeframe. i cant see for a minute how they thuoght it might be good for his campaign to say something like that - the only thing i can come up with is that they wanna get people worried that kerry might be in charge when car bombs are going off somewhere. but of course the aminauguration wont be till after the iraq elections anyway - after which we are being told that iraq really will be disneyland anyways, so it doesnt matter so much if jfk is in charge cos itll just be peacekeeping. (speaking of inauguration, was it tommyfranks who also came up with that bollox that it was the pre-inaug timeframe that we should be worried about, not the pre-election) so anyways, i cant think of a domestic political rationale for 43's 'there will be lots more violence in iraq' - which begs the question - wot the hell is he saying it for? one thing is for sure, he said it for a reason. and at best its a partial admission that things arent going great, and certainly undermines the other side of his mouth saying 'things are great' - so it presumably comes with at least some political damage. one possible scenario is that he *knows* he will win the election (so theres no electoral risk), and is trying to innoculate the audience into rooting for more war in nov & dec. cancel your holidays to fallujah.

* in a separate note, fauxnews banner on the iran-iaea thingy "trigger for war?" cancel your holidays to tehran. btw - from what i can gather, the iaea doesnt have the legal right to tell iran to do what theyve asked the 'belligerent/defiant' iranians

* its amazing how quickly allawi learnt to read from the cadmin memo hymnsheet.



________________________________________________________________________________
Your More Fears. Your More Fears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com