Go see what Seeing the Forest is nominated for, and add your own categories and nominations in the comments.
In case you missed this today: U.S. weekly jobless claims rise:
“The number of Americans seeking first-time jobless benefits jumped unexpectedly last week as the impact of recent hurricanes battering the Southern United States continued to be felt.
For the week, first-time claims rose to 369,000 for the week ended Sept. 25, from 351,000 the week before.”
Not good at all. We’re a big country — lots of people lose jobs and find jobs each week. Brad DeLong has said that approx. 350,000 is a break-even level for our economy — anything higher than 350,000 means the overall economy is losing jobs.
They say this is beause of the weather in Florida, and it may be. But that’s still a lot more people who have lost jobs than are finding them.
Some post-debate ideas from an e-mail I received:
National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls during and after the debate asking for readers’ opinions. Look for online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in every one of them:
ABC News: http://www.abcnews.com/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/
And be sure to check the websites of your local newspapers and TV stations for online polls. It is crucial that you do this in the minutes immediately following the debate.
Tax dollars blatantly spent to propagandize Americans and influence the election: U.S. Effort Aims to Improve Opinions About Iraq Conflict (washingtonpost.com):
“The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls ‘good news’ about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country.
The unusual public-relations effort by the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development comes as details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush’s reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Combined, they indicate that the federal government is working assiduously to improve Americans’ opinions about the Iraq conflict — a key element of Bush’s reelection message.” [all emphasis added]
This is the kind of thing people go to jail for in free countries, unlike here. Bush brings us closer to the old Soviet model every day, with The State promoting The Party and The Party making all decisions.
See this story, Bush camp rips Kerry rhetoric:
“President Bush’s campaign manager yesterday accused Sen. John Kerry’s campaign of parroting the rhetoric of terrorists, signaling a new level of aggressiveness in advance of tomorrow’s presidential debate.
‘The enemy listens,’ Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters on a conference call. ‘All listen to what the president said, and all listen to what Senator Kerry said.’ “
Criticizing the President in wartime… ‘FIRE BAD!’
My prediction: After the election – if Bush is the one in office (notice how I never say “elected” or “wins.” We have learned that there are other ways to take office…) – the Congress will pass a partner to the Patriot Act. It will be a Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize the govenment, especially the President, in time of war.
A Thought Experiment, over at Media Matters for America:
“A thought experiment
Substitute the name ‘President George W. Bush’ wherever Senator John Kerry’s name appears in this Amazon.com interview with Ann Coulter and ask yourself if the FBI wouldn’t be knocking on her door right about now.”
In How to Win the Heartland, E.J. Dionne says what us bloggers have been all about ever since 9/11 happened:
“The reluctance to explore what Bush knew before Sept. 11 and what he did about it stands as one of the great mysteries of American journalism.”
Yes, it does. Perhaps THE great mystery of American journalism – what’s left of it, anyway.
To people who accuse Kerry of “flip-flopping”: If you want to be an honest person you owe it to yourself to actually read and understand Kerry’s position before you accuse him of things like changing positions. Fair enough?
I encourage anyone who really wants to know what Kerry’s position on the war was to read the statement he made to the Senate when he voted to allow the use of force. He says his vote was based on President Bush’s promises to get sufficient UN authorization (Bush didn’t) if he was going to use force, and only to use that force as a last resort if Iraq did not let weapons inspectors in. (Bush didn’t.)
Excerpts from John Kerry’s Statement on Iraq Before the War:
First, he had been told by the Administration that there were WMD. (Remember, the Administration was NOT sharing intelligence reports that contradicted this case for war.):
“… Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? … Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? … Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? … Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? [. . .] Although Iraq’s chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program–R&D, production and weaponization–are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland.”
ALL of these “intelligence reports” given to the Senate by the Bush administration turned out to be untrue, largely based on reports supplied by Chalabi plants — and the Bush administration KNEW IT.
Eventually he starts to get around to his reasons for voting for the resolution,
… I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.”
And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they–all of them–will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.
[. . .] If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action–without good cause or reason–the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.
[. . .] I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world’s case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
[. . .] I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
[. . .] The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces–and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that–then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.
It’s all there. It is exactly what he is saying now. He was voting for this in order to force Iraq to let weapons inspectors back in, which Iraq did. Kerry goes on to predict what will happen if we do not build a solid international coalition in conjunction with the UN, and the prediction is what is now occurring.
It’s long, really long, and it goes on (and on and on and on) from where I left off, but I encourage you to read it so that you will understand what Kerry said he was voting for, what the President had promised the Congress and the UN, and how the President broke the promise.
The President asked Kerry for his support, appealing to his patriotism. It was a trick and a betrayal, and Bush is now twisting what Kerry did to make him appear unpatriotic!
It is Bush who has flip-flopped all over the place. But worse, Bush conducted a bait-and-switch operation on us, and launched aggressive war, and is using every dirty trick lie in the book, accusing everyone else of what he himself has done, calling people unpatriotic, even treasonous, BECAUSE they supported him when he asked, in the name of the country.