Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Big Media to Mike Moore, "Your money's no good here. Seriously we won't take your money. Go away before Mike Powell catches us talking to you.

L.A. Weekly has learned that CBS, NBC and ABC all refused Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertising during any of the networks’ news programming. Executives at Sony Pictures, the distributor of the movie for the home-entertainment market, were stunned. And even more shocked when the three networks explained why.

“They said explicitly they were reluctant because of the closeness of the release to the election. All three networks said no,” one Sony insider explains. “It was certainly a judgment that Sony disagrees with and is in the process of protesting.”

WHERE IS THE LEVEL playing field? Gone, thanks to the shenanigans of Big Media. Nor is it an exaggeration to state that the networks increasingly look like they’re doing everything possible to help George W. win re-election.

People. People who hate People.

For some reason it just tickles me that Barbra Streisand and I agree about the way the press get beaten up by the White House. Her September 28th statement "Where is our Free Press?" sounds a lot like the things I have been writing!

I think I feel a song coming on!

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Gallup polls: Throwing the game for the Republicans

There are doing it AGAIN! Gallup oversamples the Republicans for their Presidential poll.

I'll write the local TV stations again. But they are so high level anything that isn't so simple a 5th grader can understand just gets dropped. They will report the top line and say, "There is some controversy about the polls. Let's ask random people who don't know anything and then ask some statistics professor who can't talk to a 5th grade level and consider ourselves fair."

Thanks again to good folks at The Left Coaster!

Monday, September 27, 2004

Adam Nagourney speaks on polls. Did Sam Seder's campaign have an impact?

New York Times editor Adam Nagourney talks about polls on the News Hour.
Did Sam Seder's campaign to educate him make a difference?
You be the judge.

Listen here. (Required Real player) about 17 seconds.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

War photography is essentially antiwar

If people see photos of the horrific human destruction in this war they'll be angry.

Solution? Simple, don't show too many harsh war photographs.

A rigid system of image control was imposed in Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf war. Though the Pentagon's experiment with embedding loosened some of those controls, there were still limits. No soldiers bleeding in the sand, please. No body bags. No coffins.

The Pentagon image-mongers had learned from Vietnam that all great war photography is essentially antiwar photography. Too often their goals are assisted by squeamish editors, with generally honorable intentions, far from the killing fields.
Pete Hamill, NY Times

Editors don't want to seen hiding the truth; they give lots of other rationales for why they don't show the photos. Privacy. Not supportive of the troops. Bad taste. Possible desensitizing. The children might see. Embolden the enemy. Bad for morale. All good reasons, but also all dancing around the truth. If we were exposed to the images of the limbs ripped off children, soldiers with brains spilling down their worthless body armor, a lot more people would say, "Enough! This must stop!" The press understands the simple act of showing an image is antiwar, so in any attempt to be "fair and balanced" about the war they must NOT show real horrific images.

This administration is selling a product that no sane person would continue to buy if they knew the horrible truth about it. They might tolerate it for awhile if they can hold in their heads either fear for their own safety or good, noble reasons to kill humans and bomb children. But if the fear doesn't really exist and the noble reasons are shown to be a sham, a steady diet of gruesome images will quickly weaken any residual resolve.

Bush and Cheney keep the focus on abstract "truths" like freedom and independence. The media will use numbers, bar charts, and still photos of people in uniform to symbolize the dead. But you will never the image of their faces contorted from a violent painful death.

Can an image change your mind about how you feel about something and then how you act? Yes. That is deepest reason real war photos are not printed in the mainstream press.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Do NOT question the Emperor!

Check out this clip from the Bush Allawi speechifying with 3 questions tacked on at the end so they could give the illusion of a responsive president. Oops, someone didn't read the script that says, "Do NOT ask real questions! If the president doesn't answer your question just sit there and fume. Insolence will NOT be tolerated" Go to 27:44 and watch Bush's answer and especially the response when the NBC reporter, Gregory, had the GALL to ask the question again, after he evades it the first time. Bush is an Emperor. "The look" is at about 29:17.

There were other things that came out of this "Steno Sue "news" conference", John Kerry made a nice ad out of it. Check it out here.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

George W. Bush: shoe store manager

I know you said you were a size 8 and the inside of your old shoe says size 8 and the measurement with the stick here says size 8, but these are just guesses. I think you should be wearing a size 6. Your feet are small and getting smaller. Let me get you a box of size 6 shoes.

[Bush walks back with box in hand]

Here they are. They look great don't they? Okay, slip one on. Hmmm. Push hard. Harder. Come on, bear down! It has to fit. I'm not going to leave this seat until that shoe fits. I don't care if the measuring stick says size 8. I'm not going to get up and get another box because of some ruler.
I'm in charge here, you are just the customer. Why don't you believe me? Who is the expert on shoes here? Me or you?

This is the right size for you. Try again. Don't pull your foot out, push harder. A little pain is worth it for appearances sake. Trust me, you aren't going to be able to wear any shoes if you can't wear these. These are the best shoes we sell.

The price for the shoes? A million two. You don't want to pay now? Buy them on credit. Why don't you just charge it and let your children and grandchildren pay the bill? If they give you any grief tell them that if you have to choose between walking on glass or getting shoes, you'd choose shoes everytime.

By the way, the shoes are made in China so you are helping the environment here by buying goods made overseas.

Sorry if I can't give you a receipt, the accounting is all messed up. My big boss, Mr. Rove and the district manager Mr. Cheney kept giving away shoes on credit to their buddies and we haven't gotten around to getting the books straightened out yet.

Thanks for coming back to our store, "The Sole of America".

(tip o' the hat to Vinnie on Atrios for the idea)

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Sorry, no follow up questions

My letter to the author of this column.

Dear E. J.:

Why do the press continue to allow the president to hide from their questions? One of the most amazing tricks of this White House is their ability to keep their candidate out of anything that requires him to personally answer hard questions.

I have noticed the methods and techniques:

1) Limit press conferences (14 in 3 and ½ years! That is a travesty!)
2) Set rules to “no follow up questions”
3) Punish the press that ask hard questions by limiting access, browbeating them and complaining to their bosses
4) Limit overall question time (and therefore number of questions) at press conferences (he took a total of three today)
5) Handpick "reporters" who have one-on-one interviews with him
6) Control the audience at his appearances so no real questions will be asked
7) Set up the press to the public as “filters” so that people don’t trust them

How it is that the President can get away with so many controlled settings and the press doesn’t scream foul? Actually I think I do know why. In addition to the way the White House controls access and sets the rules, it appears the media will not cooperate with each other and refuse to let the White House push them around. This is where the White House is using the media’s own egos and careerism against them. Would it be considered a conspiracy if all the press covering the White House got together and said to the Bush administration, “We will not accept your rules about no follow ups. We want at least two press conferences a month. We insist you and your staff treat everyone with respect and if you threaten one of us, you threaten all of us.”

Why is it important to have the president answering the questions himself? For one it is because a surrogate can always be "out of the loop" on some critical question. It is one thing for Scott McClellan to dodge and lie, but it is another for we the people to see President Bush avoiding questions, giving weak answers and dancing around real issues. We are a nation of people that now respond strongly to images, both good and bad ones. Remember watching Clinton’s facial expressions while he was attacked by Ken Starr? It was played over and over on TV because for some people that said everything about his character. Don’t we deserve the same opportunity with this President? Of course his handlers know this, because as Michael Moore has shown, if you show the President in anything that is not tightly controlled he doesn’t always come off as “Presidential”.

If the press finally started to pull together in the quest for truth, what would this look like?

Well first you could start by demanding Helen Thomson get placed back in the front of the room during press conferences.

Second you could refuse to allow the White House to limit you to one question with no follow ups.

Third, support your fellow press members. Say the guy from UPI asks a great question like in the last press conference I saw, "Why aren't you and the vice president testifying to the 9/11 committee separately like they asked?"
He is given a bullshit answer. So he asks again. Luckily the person who had the mike didn’t move away fast enough so he got to ask the question again. He still got the same bullshit answer. Wouldn’t it have been great if other press members would put their own precious question on hold and ask, "Mr. President, I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered the question posed by the UPI reporter. Your answer is a non-answer. The American public needs to understand why you aren't talking to the 9/11 commission separately like they requested. Please answer the question.”

I suppose it is too late for all this. And of course if Kerry uses the same tricks as Bush the right wing will scream bloody murder about how the press isn’t being given enough access and aren’t allowed follow up questions.


Monday, September 20, 2004

Yes, I am the Muffin Man

Berkeley celebrates passion for peculiar / Parade features humor, art, jabs at president, Iraq war Greg Solberg (center) and Lisa Pongrace (right), both of Berkeley, take a spin in their electric muffins. Chronicle photo by Penni Gladstone

Friday, September 17, 2004

Shorter Gallup: "Republicans are more equal than Democrats"

What should we make of the Gallup poll that shows Bush leading Kerry? It's been corrupted to favor Republicans.

Luckily people more math savvy than I have figured out that the polling methods of Gallup are skewed in favor of Republicans.

Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. (Thanks go to The Left Coaster)

I'm glad this was found, but the problem is that this poll will get released all over for an entire news cycle without anyone getting to the press and saying, "BTW, the methodology behind this poll is wrong." When the press don't do their job, and the Republican's know it, they can get away with this crap over and over. The press should be skeptical of EVERYTHING. Too many people know how to twist a press that is too busy and understaffed to question things that were trustworthy years ago, but might not be any longer.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Why preaching to the choir is important

When discussing the political campaign someone will often say, "Don’t bother, you're preaching to the choir, what's the point?"

The point is that not everyone in the choir has the depth of knowledge you do. Some may even know things that you don't. By reading a political blog or following the issues you have already proved you are a thought leader. By talking about what you have learned you might give some less knowledgeable person just the right bit of information that will help them sway an undecided voter. Or you might help make a voter more confident in his position. Perhaps they can move from an Anyone But Bush person to a genuine Kerry fan with enough good information.

If you can give others good arguments, story lines, sound bites, examples of outrageous mendacity or snappy comebacks to stupid right-wing arguments, you can short circuit the progress of stupid right-wing ideas to others.

I hate to argue, I suspect a lot of people do. I don't really want to spend time with people who have a pocketful of debate tricks, Rush Limbaugh sound bites and one-sided statistics. If you liked to argue you might already spent time to understand the techniques, create comments that blow holes in the other side’s logic, have facts memorized that dispute their one sided statistics and Limbaugh fabrications. But most people don't. They think, “I don't want to engage someone from the other side, so why should I expend the energy to keep all that information in my mind?

Another reason people might not want to engage others is that it often feels that nothing you can say or do would really convince the other person to change their mind. It takes a tremendous amount of stories, personal experiences, and self awareness for people to change their position on something they firmly believe in. Facts alone don’t always do the trick.

But even if you don’t plan to engage others it is important to start gathering these arguments, facts and personal stories. Why? You don’t always know what story, fact, statistic, strongly reasoned viewpoint, personal experience or emotional appeal will change someone’s mind. Your personal story or memorized fact might be the tipping point.

So along those lines here are a few pieces of information that you might not know about, but might prove useful in the future.

From the Schlesinger Report about Abu Ghraib released, August 26, 2004

Five detainees died from abuse during interrogations, it said. Twenty-three cases of detainee deaths were still under investigation -- three in Afghanistan and 20 in Iraq -- the report said.
Get that. It is confirmed that at least five detainees were tortured to death. Twenty-three others still under investigation.

Rumsfeld knew about torture
Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published by the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Listen to Seymour Hersh talk about Abu Ghraib on Tuesday's Fresh Air

Listen to Investigative Reporter Seymour Hersh

His new book is Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib.

He won a Pulitzer prize 35 years ago when he first reported the story of the massacre at My Lai in Vietnam.

I'm always interested to read all arguments about why we must torture people. Be sure to ask anyone who is pro-torture, "Are you a Christian?"

He says the guys at the top, Rice and Rumsfield, knew there were serious problems in the prisons and did nothing about it.


Saturday, September 11, 2004

Follow the bouncing blogger theory

Here is what to notice from September 10th"The Note" by ABC News staff.

The infrastructure of the right-wing media influencers have a hierarchy.

The process of getting an idea in the media is the equivalent of following the money.

I often wonder how you can stop these distracting ideas in their tracks or at least have a source to refute them that the press can read in a parallel timeline so the ideas don't get legs. So for every wacky Free Republic idea is there a blog or blogger that will beat it down because it is a stupid bogus idea? Will the press read that blog before they run with wacky Freeper news?

Based on this timeline for this story we know who reads what and which ones need to be targeted to debunk quickly before they move up the chain.

At 8:00 pm ET Wednesday night, CBS News does the story on Bush and his National Guard service. . . . at 11:59 pm ET (8:59 pm PT), the documents come into question via a poster named Buckhead on the Free Republic Web site. Here is the order from there to ABC:

1) Free Republic
2) Little Green Footballs
3) Powerlineblog
4) Spacetownusa
5) allahpundit
8) drudgereport
9) weeklystandard
10) Fox
11) AP
12) ABC

From the rabidly partisan web log the "loon font theory" story got to the "respectable" AP in 10 easy steps. (I'm hesitating to call AP respectable, is this the level they have sunk too? The hops might even be fewer. It might have been LGF passes to Rogerlsimon who laterals to Drudge with a final hand off to Fox.).

Friday, September 10, 2004

Friday Kitten Blogging

From the brilliant photographer Sharon Beals

Her books and cards make great gifts for pet lovers.
You can see some of her work here.
Order books or cards at

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Roman Catholics may vote for Kerry! RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES!

This is so great. Now my Mom can vote for Kerry!

St. Louis Cleric Softens Stand on Voting by Catholics

Published: September 5, 2004

ST. LOUIS, Sept. 4 (AP) - The archbishop of St. Louis, who has said he would deny the sacrament of Communion to Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, because he supports abortion rights, now says Roman Catholics may vote for such candidates under certain circumstances.

Archbishop Raymond Burke said Catholic voters must believe that the candidate's position on other moral issues outweighs the abortion-rights stance, but said it would be a grave sin to vote for an abortion-rights candidate because of that position. "That is what's called formal cooperation in an intrinsically evil act," The St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoted him as saying on Friday.

In July, he said Catholics could not vote for candidates or policies in support of abortion and be worthy to receive communion. On Friday, he told the newspaper he wanted to clarify his position "in order to make the discussion full, to articulate the matter as fully as possible."

"We always have to remember that it's objectively wrong to vote for a pro-choice politician," Archbishop Burke told KMOX Radio. "People could be in ignorance of how serious this is."

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Techniques of Deception

Regarding Bush’s Texas Air National Guard record it might be instructive to look at the process and techniques of the people who have covered this up. It might reveal what they will do next and it might also reveal if they are using the same techniques in other areas.

First the Fixer has to find out the total extent of the “bad acts”. They must determine:
a) Who knows about them?
b) What they know
c) When did they know it?
d) What hard proof do they have of the “bad acts?”

Second the Fixer examines their psychological profile of witnesses to see what drives them to determine if they will talk or keep their mouth shut.
Third the Fixer Determines the various techniques and leverage points that can be used to make the bad data go away.
Finally the Fixer implements the plan in steps.

1) Destroy the evidence. The Fixer contacts loyalist who act as Scrubbers to destroy the easily obtainable evidence.
2) Reclassify the hard to get evidence as personal, medical or secret.
3) Create a simple alternative story to replace the bad story.
4) If one of the witnesses won’t keep their mouth shut, discredit them and look for inconsistencies in their story and then human or career leverage points to use against them.
5) Obscure the story with irrelevant technical data filled with misleading information.
6) If witnesses keep coming, threaten people’s jobs or career. Alternatively appeal to their “patriotism”. And desire to do what is “right” for the country based on current situation. “Things will be worst for you and the military if this comes out because Blank would be President and he won’t fund you like we know Blank will.”
7) Go on the offensive and attack the other side in some similar area.
8) If rumors of “bad acts” evidence do leak out, point out the partisan nature of leak source and ask questions to see if they have a financial incentive to leak this info (e.g. sell a book, received money from partisan source or media.)
9) If rumors of “bad acts” evidence leak out, downplay the scope and the nature of the bad act(s). Convince the other side to say, “Nobody cares. There are more important things that we should focus on.”
10) Contextualize bad acts as acceptable in their historical context: “Everyone was doing it.” At the time it was no big deal. People only care about it now because of the famousness of the “bad actor” if a non-famous person acted the same way then they would have the same treatment for their “bad acts”, namely ignored.
11) If some facts of bad evidence do leak out, claim that it was the fault of “previous groups or individuals who are now dead and can’t defend their actions which were simply sloppy mistakes and not pre-meditated acts of covering up information.”
12) Focus on current behavior that is 180 degrees opposed from bad behavior that happened decades ago.
This is where we are at now with Bush and his service in TANG. The next steps will probably return to steps 6 -12. Then here are some possible next steps.

13) Finally admit to the evidence. Apologize. Ask the public to forgive you, talk about your shame and how this shame caused you to hide bad acts. Don’t focus on “legal’ repercussions of bad acts, just the moral ones because you can be forgiven for moral failures and don’t have to go to jail for them. Focus on the redemptive power of being born again which happened after the bad acts. Focus on what you are doing now that is NOT like what you did then and how your bad act at the time in fact LEAD to the good acts that you are doing now. So those bad acts actually HELPED you be the good person you are now.
14) Blame others for digging into “private” information that others don’t have to provide. Claim right to privacy and executive privilege. Act for investigations into others people’s acts if they are going to investigate yours. Get a quid pro quid from the media out of the deal so they can feel “balanced.”
15) Profit!

The Safest Baby Stroller Money can Buy!

“The new RBBB 3X stroller has a built in GPS tracker in case your baby is stolen by babyjackers. With its pneumatic tube, no puncture tires the RBBB 3X stroller can race over broken glass following a terrorist attack. Following a biological attack the internal sensors intantly deploy an industrial grade filtering system that protects against Anthrax, smallpox, diphtheria and whooping cough. Isn’t your baby worth protecting in today’s modern world of terrorists? How can you look into the eyes of the mother of your child when you come home with a stroller that DOESN’T protect your offspring from terrorist attacks? What would you say? “Look honey I got the cheapest stroller I could find. Our kid just isn’t worth the RBBB 3x. Now Beer me!”
Don’t you love your children? Don’t you want to protect them? Aren’t your children worthy of protection?

The RBBB 3x costs less than a new home. It costs less than a Mercedes Benz SLK 350. It costs less than a Cosmograph Daytona Rolex.
Remember, the RBBB 3x stroller is the ultimate in baby protection in this dangerous century!

The Rubber Baby Buggy Bumper Company is not responsible from any children that are injured in the RBBB 3X Stroller. You are responsible from your child at all times. The RBBB 3X is a not an armored vehicle. The RBBB 3X is not a toy. Failure to protect children against terrorism is the responsibility of the Federal Government. If you are unhappy with the Federal Government protection of your child talk to your congressman or ask your president a question at a pep rally.

--Good luck to my buddy Brent and his upcoming offspring. Brent was the funniest guy at San Franicsco' s comedy club, the Rose & Thistle, since King "The Heat" Collins.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

How much are Iraqis worth? $6.5 million each -- to kill them

As of Sept. 7, 2004

13,802 is the estimated number of civilians killed by military intervention in Iraq

6,370 is the estimated number of Iraqi military killed

20,172 is the total estimated number of military and civilian dead

Take the total war cost of $131,500,000,000 /20,172 dead Iraqis we get

$6,518,937. Therefore, by this calculation

It costs over $6.5 million dollars to kill each Iraq

Sunday, September 05, 2004

I'm a War Christian President!

Even when he talks about funding faith-based organizations he uses a war metaphor.
Listen, our society is going to change one heart and one soul at a time. (Applause.) It changes from the bottom up, not the top down. It changes when the soldiers in the armies of compassion feel wanted, encouraged, and empowered.

Render unto Caesar? Hail Caesar? Hail Mary? Which is it?

Is the President Karen Hughes' bitch?

Karen Hughes is credited by some with coming up with the phrase compassionate conserative. Others credit Marvin Olasky. But I'm thinking that they both heard it from their favorite homophobic, hate-mongering talk show host, Michael Savage.

Whoever came up with that brilliant alliterative oxymoron should get the Joseph Goebbels Minister for Public Enlightenment award.

Anyway, I've talked before about how the media is not only threatened with loss of access if they ask tough questions, they are also brow-beaten and yelled at by the White House if they write something they don't like. Josh Marshall of Talking points memo talks about her getting caught in public yelling at an AP writer.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Friday CAT blogging

Did Georgia's schools cheat again?

From Bush's speech last night:
In northeast Georgia, Gainesville Elementary School is mostly Hispanic and 90 percent poor-and this year 90 percent of its students passed state tests in reading and math.
Last year in Georgia the state reading and math tests had to be scratched at the last minute for all but fourth-sixth- and eighth-graders after it was learned that some teachers had inadvertently used actual test questions to prepare students.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mary MacDonald 6-03-2004

Did the schools cheat like the ones in Texas did when Bush was governor? Isn't it suspicious when ALL the schools in Zell Miller's home state had to throw out an entire year's test results for five out of the eight grades?

The stakes are high. The teachers and administrators might loose their jobs if they don't manipulate the system. How many kids were "ill" that day? Were there any kids that didn't look like they were going to score high quietly dropped from the roles so as not to throw off the score? Were the Bart Simpsons and Ralph Wiggims of the world told to play out side while the Lisa Simpsons and Martin Princes of the world told to take the test?

They had the means, motive and opportunity and they have a verifiable history of screwing it up. The results might be real. I'm just saying.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Osama bin Laden has been captured in Pakistan?

The reason they didn't mention this at the convention is that it would spoil the October surprise. Note that they have had Osama captive for WEEKS!

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

I'll swallow your soul! I'll swallow your soul!

Born Again. The greatest free pass in American Politics

Do you know what Bush has going for him that he never gets questioned on?

The magical personal history eraser called being "Born Again"
It works so well that nobody questions it in the mainstream press.

Everything bad that he did before his conversion is effectively gone in the eyes of the believers. Past lies, drug and drinking abuse, patterns of behavior and immoral actions vanish with the speaking of the magic words, "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and Savior".

Here is yet another of the problems with the Christian Right pushing Christianity as the official state religion. It might be good for them, but it’s not good for America.

If you simply say you are born again, everything is forgiven. People who aren't believers aren't permitted to attack the man for his past. If they do, then they are not letting him have his freedom of religion.

Since Bush has made his faith the centerpiece of his campaign can we attack his Christianity? Just how good of a Christian is he? By whose standards do we measure? His official church? His buddies in the study group in Crawford? The MDivs and Ph.Ds at the Pacific School of Religion at the Graduate Theological Union?

What judgment of his faith can others hold him to? Like “cafeteria Christians” Bush has selected and defined for himself what it means to be Christian as something that never holds him accountability for external acts. Again he has a get out of criticism free card in an area that he has defined as important in his presidency.

All he has to do is show himself praying (note the recent story about him the kneeling in the Oval Office, it plants the seed of piousness at the same time evokes Monica). He drops the phrase "I talk to God all the time". He has the right wing religious patter down, but what are his actions?

We are not able to examine the content of his soul, but we can see the results of his actions and they do not reflect what Christ professed.

Bush should not have it both ways with his Christian base. Either he is a good Christian doing what Christ tells us to do, or he is a War President. Bush should either use the New Testament, including the part about taking care of the poor, the hungry and those in jail, or he shouldn't. And if he doesn’t he should be called on it by people of faith.

Oh, he can pull out the "I'm a sinner" line a few times, but after awhile that shouldn't work for the Christian's either.

Another problem with examining his religiosity is that if you are not one of the faithful you are supposedly not allowed to comment on it.

It is a wonderful position for Bush to be and all he has to do is drop a few code words and have a few photo ops with him on his knees.