Stand Naked

Daily Boost

Encouraging Poll Results

For those who may have been discouraged by the much-ballyhooed Gallup pole last week, and other polls with similarly flawed methodologies, here are some more recent, and more encouraging results from polls from well-regarded sources.

---Democracy Corps

Kerry 46%, Bush 47%. Poll of 1017 likely voters conducted Sept. 19-21. Margin of Error +/- 3.1%. May overstate Bush vote, in that 51% of repondents reported having voted for Bush and only 43% for Gore in 2000

---Economist/YouGov

Kerry 46%, Bush 45%Bush Approval Rating - Approve 43%, -Disapprove 53%. This is ongoing weekly poll. Last week's results were Bush 47%, Kerry 46%, so this week shows a nice shift. Respondents in 18-24 age group prefer Kerry 53% to Bush 33% (Get those kids to the polls) Poll of 1660 likely voters conducted Sept 20-22. MOE +/- 2%

---American Research Group

ARG is conducting on-going polling of each of the 50 states and weighting the results to derive overall national numbers. The current results, on the basis of polling of 600 likely voters from each state (MOE +/- 4%) during September:

-George W. Bush is at 47% and John Kerry is at 46% in the weighted national popular vote.
-Bush leads outside the margin of error in 17 states with 133 electoral votes.
-Kerry leads outside the margin of error in 10 states with 132 electoral votes.
-Bush has any lead in 29 states with 253 electoral votes.
-Kerry has any lead in 20 states with 270 electoral votes.
-Bush and Kerry are tied in Wisconsin and West Virginia.
-Bush needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
-Kerry needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

Even the Voice of Darkness (Fox News) has the race at Bush 45%, Kerry 43% in its poll conducted Sept 21-22 of 1000 likely voters (MOE +/- 3%). So don't give up hope!

Who's the Real Flip-Flopper

The media finally seems ready to look at which candidate is more deserving of the infamous "flip-flop" label with which BushCo has been able to tag Kerry. The Washington Post addressed the issue yesterday:

The flip-flopper, Democrats say, is President Bush. Over the past four years, he abandoned positions on issues such as how to regulate air pollution or whether states should be allowed to sanction same-sex marriage. He changed his mind about the merits of creating the Homeland Security Department, and made a major exception to his stance on free trade by agreeing to tariffs on steel. After resisting, the president yielded to pressure in supporting an independent commission to study policy failures preceding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush did the same with questions about whether he would allow his national security adviser to testify, or whether he would answer commissioners' questions for only an hour, or for as long they needed.

The WaPo actually looked at Bush's record and agreed:

The record, however, suggests a fair degree of political calculation has gone into some of Bush's about-faces. During his first term, the paramount goals -- such as cutting taxes or pursuing a confrontation with Saddam Hussein -- have been fixed. But this has allowed room for tactical maneuvering on other questions. In 2000, Bush said he would include carbon dioxide on a list of air pollutants requiring federal oversight, a stand he abandoned within weeks of taking office. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush's spokesman said the president believed a homeland security department that Democrats proposed was "just not necessary." A year after that, Bush had switched course and was lashing some Democrats for not moving quickly enough to approve the agency.

While Bush professes himself a strong free-trader, most other free-trade proponents said he bent on principle in March 2002 when he ordered tariffs on imported steel -- a move that resonated politically in electorally important industrial states such as Pennsylvania. Facing an escalating global trade dispute, he lifted the tariffs at the end of last year.

On CNN Inside Politics today, GOP lap-poodle Judy Woodruff served up the issue to Marc Raicot, Chairman of the BushCo campaign, so that he could deliver an unchallenged response that ignores the question of Bush's changes of position, instead listing Kerry's supposed flip-flops:

WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of changing positions, "The Washington Post" today, a front-page story reporting that, over the last four years, it says the president has -- quote -- "abandoned positions on issues such as how to regulate air pollution, whether states should be allowed to sanction same-sex marriage, changed his mind about the merits of creating a Homeland Security Department, about whether there should be an independent 9/11 Commission" and so on and so on.

The question it raises is, is President Bush every bit the flip- flopper that John Kerry is claimed to be by the campaign?

RACICOT: Well, I think the American people understand that's not even remotely close to accurate.

The fact of the matter is, there are different moments in time in the production of a decision or a vote. And, of course, you go through a public discussion and the marketplace of ideas is considered and then you take a position. The senator and the president have had exactly the same opportunities to take exactly the same positions at virtually every moment in time in reference to Iraq. The senator votes for the use of force aggressively. He votes against the appropriations.

He claims to be an anti-war candidate. He claims then it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. And then he in essence says we're going to admit defeat and retreat from Iraq because we would be safer had it been the other way from what it is that I voted throughout the course of this past several months.

So the bottom line here is, Judy, these are two entirely different people who reflect two entirely different capacities to be leaders and to take this nation to a position of being safe and secure.

WOODRUFF: Governor Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush campaign, thank you very much.

Woodruff did, at least, later bring on Harris to discuss the Bush flip=flops he had written about in the Post:

WOODRUFF: What about in the president's background, in his record? How much is -- is there any fertile territory there for the Kerry people to exploit at this late date in terms of the president's changing his mind?

HARRIS: Well, I think you put your finger on it by saying at this late date. The president -- and you can point to polls that prove this -- is seen as somebody who's very strong, resolute, to the point of stubbornness.

They tried making this accusation that President Bush is a flip- flopper also, and it just wasn't resonating with the public, because that is not how he's perceived. That's not to say, as I think my article made clear, that the president's perfectly consistent on everything. But political ground it's just not been terribly fertile for Kerry.

WOODRUFF: What has the president changed his mind on? I mean, most prominently.

HARRIS: I sort of put it in two categories. There's issues where he has substantively done what I think we'll call some tap dancing.

He's a free trader, and yet he did in 2002 impose steel tariffs for what looked like political reasons. Then later backed off that.

Things like the Department of Homeland security in 2002. He initially thought it was a bad idea. Then came around to support it. Those are sort of policy positions.

And then rhetorically, even where his goals have been consistent, some of his rationales for those policy goals have changed. Iraq is a great example.

It started off about being about weapons of mass destruction. Now, of course, it's more about democracy building in the Middle East.

Tax cuts is another place where initially the rationale was, because we got a surplus we can afford tax cuts. Then it became, because we've got a deficit and a lagging economy, we need them. So, anyway, there's examples there.

In her interview with Harris, Woodruff had the temerity to ask: "Why do you think that the Bush people, though, have been so better able to capitalize on this thing of changing minds?" As if she didn't know. The reason that these Karl Rove concocted slogans gain credence is because the hacks posing as journalists on the tube are willing to repeat them over and over, without any challenge to their factual basis.

Daily Boost

Zogby Battleground Poll:
Kerry Leads Electoral College 297-241

Someone phone John Kerry. According to John Zogby, Kerry is winning the Electoral College handily 297-241. There is no bad news in this “poll” for John Kerry, he leads everywhere. He’s ahead in these crucial states according to Zogby, Florida, Iowa, Arkansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin. In fact, I highly recommend that all of the democrats that see other polling data showing Kerry losing ground in many states, only look at this "poll." According to Zogby, Kerry has even taken back control of the race.

Edwards Plays Mortgage Interest Card
In a major speech on economic policy yesterday in Cleveland, John Edwards delivered a stinging attack on the tax reform goals BushCo will pursue if elected for a second term:

George Bush is talking about building an ownership society, but he has spent four years building a debt society for everyone except those at the top. His economic vision has one goal: to get rid of taxes on unearned income and shift the tax burden onto people who work. And he has moved toward that goal with the tax cuts he has passed already.

The President's new "tax reform" is the ultimate expression of his values. We don't know all of the details, but we know a lot of them because of a memo released by his former Treasury Secretary.

We know people who inherit hundreds of millions will pay nothing; firemen and waitresses and working people will pay everything. And we know his plan will take away the most important incentive for the single most important form of ownership: it will eliminate entirely the tax deduction for home mortgage interest.

If this issue gets media attention it could have enormous impact. For Edwards to raise the charge now will force BushCo to confirm or deny their plans for a regressive flat tax.

What if America were Iraq?
Juan Cole provides a sobering look at the realities that destroy Clueless Leader's claims about "progress" in Iraq. An excerpt:

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

New York Times Editorial Slams Bush U.N. Speech

Bush spoke before the U.N. General Assembly yesterday. He got a lukewarm reception from the delegates. He got a scathing review today from the NYT:

President Bush's Lead Balloon
We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.

Kerry Continuing to Hit Hard on Iraq

John Kerry has turned the focus of the campaign to the BushCo disaster in Iraq. His speech at NYU on Monday (the transcript and video of the speech are available here) laid out a comprehensive indictment of the BushCo record and an outline of what needs to be done to at least stabilize the chaos there. He continued to press the attack in a press conference yesterday, which can be viewed at C-Span, critiquing Clueless Leader's U.N. spiel.

Clueless Leader's response so far ahs been to duck the issues, choosing instead to lie about what Kerry said. This may work for awhile with most of the lapdog media. However Peter Jennings called him on it last night on ABC:

PETER JENNINGS: We were struck today by a very pointed attack by President Bush on John Kerry.

First of all, this is what Mr. Bush said.

[begin video clip]

BUSH: We agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell.

And that stands in stark contrast to the statement that my opponent made yesterday, when he said that the world was better off with Saddam in power.

I strongly disagree.

[end video clip]

JENNINGS: And this is what Mr. Kerry actually said. [emphasis original]

[begin video clip]

KERRY: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell.

But that was not...in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

The satisfaction...that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact:

We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

[end video clip]

JENNINGS: Trying to keep track of the Iraq debate.

More Later

CNN Reads Osama's Mind

CNN's Senior BusbCo Shill took it over the top today. Bill Schneider clearly has joined the Dark Side. Yesterday, one of the Vice-Lords of Darkness, House Maj Leader Darth Hastert, reached deep into the loaded Repug deck to play a Cheneyesque fear card. CNN's Elaine Quijano reports on CNN Live Sunday today:

QUIJANO (voice-over): In the battle to convince voters who would make a stronger leader, House Speaker Dennis Hastert fired another salvo against John Kerry.

Hastert said what many, including officials in the Bush administration, have said before, that he believes al Qaeda could try to influence the election. But then said of the terrorists...

REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I would think that they would be more apt to go -- somebody who would file a -- you know, a lawsuit with a world court or something rather than respond with troops.

QUIJANO: Earlier a reporter asked him directly whether he believed al Qaeda could operate with a little more comfort with John Kerry as president rather than George Bush. Hastert's answer...

HASTERT: That's my opinion, yes.

After giving his usual useless spin on recent polls, without bothering to mention the skewing produced by their methodologies, Schneider took on the mantle of foreign policy expert:

LIN: So what do you make of what Dennis Hastert said today? I mean, do you think he really meant to say that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda want John Kerry as the president of the United States?

SCHNEIDER: Well, I can guarantee you, they don't like George Bush. Do they think there's a difference?

I think Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda network, who I am certain follow American politics, look at the messages coming out on their tapes. They seem to follow politics very closely.

They would very much like to defeat President Bush. But the question is, can they pull off the same trick that they pulled off in Spain?

What Dennis Hastert said is, "They'd better not try that. It won't work here." And my guess is, he's right about that.

In Spain they staged an attack a few days before the election, and in the end the government got defeated because it mishandled the response to the attack.

My guess is, there would be two ways of reading this.

If there's an attack shortly before the election, the Democrats would argue it proves that America is more vulnerable as a result of the war in Iraq. And therefore, Bush should be defeated. We are not safer.

The Republicans will say, "There's fear out there. There's anger. Trust us. We'll be strong. We'll show resolve."

My feeling is, when Americans are fearful and angry, they're very likely to stick with President Bush. And if -- if al Qaeda were to try that, God forbid, I think it would not work.

So now the stage is set for the October Surprise. We have the Voices of Darkness saying that alQaeda wants BushCo out, and may try an attack to bring about what the talking heads now call "the same trick that they pulled off in Spain." But Hastert and Schneider assure us "it won't work here." If they do attack it will be proof that they want Kerry elected. Cheney, Hastert, et al along with their CNN Waargs will make sure they aren't allowed to bully America, and Americans, driven by fear and anger, will embrace Clueless Leader.

(Oh, by the way, if there is no alQaeda attack, it will of course be proof of how BushCo is winning the War on Terra.)

God!! They have no shame. They will use every ugly weapon available to manipulate us. How the hell can Wormtongue Schneider "guarantee" that alQaeda doesn't like BushCo or "would very much like to defeat George Bush." Isn't it BushCo that let him escape? Hasn't the Iraq disaster been the best alQaeda recruitment device imaginable?

MayDay! Another Major Hit on SWB Liars for Bush Boat

The WaPo reports that a Vietnam vet who was a POW with 2 of the Swift Boat Liars who appear in latest anti-Kerry ad are lying:

Phil Butler, who spent eight years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, took issue with suggestions by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry's antiwar protests caused the POWs to be treated badly. "I lived with two of the POWs who are now in that group -- Mr. [Ken] Courdier and Mr. [Paul] Gallanti -- and I am telling you, they are full of it. We never heard a blooming thing about John Kerry while we were there," said Butler, who contacted the campaign months ago to support Kerry and only recently heard back from Kerry's veterans coordinator, John Hurley.
Butler said that while he was tortured and mistreated until 1969, by the time Kerry was protesting the war and speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1971, the POWs were better treated.

How much more badly could this possibly blow up in their face.  The SBLiars and BushCo have been suckered into continuing their lies, and every day now they get hit with a new ambush.  Their boat is sinking fast.

Why Kerry's 1971 Sen Testimony is Important

Attention to Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony could help refocus some issues about what's going on in Iraq right now - if it is loooked at truthfully. The only piece of the testimony the Swift Boat Liars have brought up - and thus the only part the SCLM will focus on - involves the 2 or 3 paragraphs in which he reported on the testimony of 150 Vietnam vets at the Winter Soldier hearings. And the SBL's distort even this part of it. First, they make it look like Kerry was the sole source of any claims about atrocities.  That of course is untrue. As Kerry makes clear in his testimomy, he was simply summarizing what many others had reported. Kerry testified on April 22, 1971. The entire record of the Winter Soldier Hearings had alsready been submitted to Congress and made a part of the Congressional Record by Sen. Mark Hatfield on April 5th. Mark Hatfield - a Republican, a veteran who served at Iwo Jima and Okinawa - had this to say on the Senate floor when he presented the Winter Soldier transcripts:

There has recently been brought to my attention testimony relating to the policy and conduct of American forces in Indochina which has grave and very serious implications. The testimony is given by honorably discharged veterans who had served in Vietnam, and was conducted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Three days of testimony were conducted in Detroit, Mich. on January 31, February 1, and 2 of this year. This group, which represents 11,000 veterans, plans to send several thousand to Washington the week of April 19 to petition Congress for full congressional hearings. I, of course, have no way of ascertaining the veracity of all the testimony given, and I am not in agreement with certain of the statements and judgments made by those who testified. However, I believe that the allegations made by these Americans, who served their country in Vietnam, are so serious and so grave that they demand the full study by the appropriate committees of Congress as well as by the executive branch. The testimony and allegations raised by the experience of these veterans includes charges regarding: the torture and murder of suspects and prisoners of war captured by Americans and South Vietnamese forces; the wanton killing of innocent, unarmed civilians; the brutalization and rape of Vietnamese women in the villages; military policies which enabled indiscriminate bombing and the random firing of artillery into villages which resulted in the burning to death of women, children and old people; the widespread defoliation of lands of forests; the use of various types of gases; the mutilation of enemy bodies, and others. A recurrent theme running throughout the testimony is that of institutionalized racist attitudes of the military in their training of the men who are sent to Vietnam--training which has indoctrinated them to think of all Vietnamese as "gooks" and subhuman. Further, the thrust of the allegations made in the 3-day testimony is that such actions were the consequence of reasonable and known policy adopted by our military commanders and that the knowledge of incidents resulting from these policies was widely shared. Several of the allegations made in this testimony would place the United States in violation of the Geneva Convention and other international agreements relating to the conduct of war which have been ratified by our Government.

Was Hatfield giving aid and comfort to the enemy when he did this?  Someone should ask the SBL.

By April of 1971, the whole world knew about the My Lai massacre.  Sy Hersh's book cane out in November of 1969.  The Peers inquiry comissioned by the Army to investigate the atrocities issued its report in March 1970:

The Peers report told a comprehensive story of what had happened on March 16, 1968. The crimes had included murders by individuals and groups, rape, sodomy, maiming and assault of civilians.

The report concluded that both Col Henderson, the brigade commander, and Lt Col Frank Barker, the commanding officer of the task force, had substantial knowledge of the war crime, but did nothing about it.

The Peers inquiry recommended that charges should be brought against 28 officers and two non-commissioned officers involved in the concealment of the massacre.

The court martial of William Calley began in November of 1970 and involved weeks of horrific testimony and Calley's eventual conviction in March of 1971.
So did Kerry's three paragraphs about atrocities really air anything new or injurious to the war effort?  Not likely.

The SBL's ignore the real thrust of Kerry's Testimony.  He testified about the feelings of veterans who had been lied to about why they were being sent to fight:

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.
As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

He testified about the people of Vietnam:

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

He testified about the plight of returning veterans:

you think about a poster in this country with a picture of Uncle Sam and the picture says "I want you." And a young man comes out of high school and says, "That is fine. I am going to serve my country." And he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted, because the largest unemployment figure in the country- it varies depending on who you get it from, the VA Administration 15 percent, various other sources 22 percent. But the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 percent of the unemployed are black. That means 1 out of every 10 of the Nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't, or can't meet their demands. It is not a question of not trying. They don't have the appropriations. A man recently died after he had a tracheotomy in California, not because of the operation but because there weren't enough personnel to clean the mucous out of his tube and he suffocated to death.

And he asked: "Where is the Leadership?":

We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.
The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.

Finally, he begged Congress to find a way to end the war and heal the wounds:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbarous war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last 10 years and more and so when, in 30 years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory but mean instead the pace where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

These are the very issues that need to be focused on about Iraq today.  And it is the Iraq veterans of today, who like John Kerry 33 years ago did, are speaking out and raising questions about the war who need to be encouraged to do so and who need to be listened to.
We need to be asking why Joseph Darby, the soldier who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib, is now, along with his wife, under Army protective custody because of death threats made against him by so-called patriots.
The SBL attack on John Kerry is an attack on anyone who would dare speak out.  It sends a message, just like the outing of Valerie Plame sent a message - "If you rock the boat, you will pay.  Maybe now, maybe 30 years from now.  But you will pay.  So keep your mouth such and be a good lamb as we lead the country to slaughter."
That is what is at stake here.  That is why Kerry and the rest of us have to stand up to the SBL, to the Bushies who support them, and to the media who dutifuly pass along along their lies.

WaPo Finds another witness for Kerry

This should be the death knell for the Swift Boat Liars.  Their sole remaiming shred of argument about the validity of Kerry's Bronze Star is the factual dispute between Kerry's shipmates and the SBL about whether the 5 swiftboats were under fire during the incident when Kerry rescued Rassmann.  

While all the records support the Kerry version, the SBL's argue that Kerry wrote the reports.  Now the Post has located an honest crewmemeber from one of the other boats:

Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's.
Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was approached several months ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests to speak out against Kerry.

The SBL's couldn't get this guy to lie.  Now their toast.  Couple this with William Rood from the Chicago Trib breaking silence today to support Kerry's accounts of his Siver Star action.  SBL, it's game, set, match