To Kerry supporters who argue otherwise, is it really necessary to point out that Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt never saw combat before going on to become America's greatest wartime strategists? Or that the very men who dispatched Kerry to Vietnam were themselves decorated veterans? To be sure, politicians who have served in war have an essential understanding of the horrors of war. But what does it tell us about their strategic wisdom or their fitness to be commander-in-chief? In truth, very little. None other than George McGovern boasted, accurately, that he was "a decorated combat pilot in World War II," while his opponent "was stationed far from battle." Did this make McGovern "stronger" than Nixon on national security?

The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy.

I was born in Colorado, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.
And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.
I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.

To believe that the Dems have suddenly adopted a strong defense and foreign policy posture is beyond absurd. Nothing could matter less than what Kerry has to say tonight in his infomercial, er, speech regarding the War on Terror. His own history, recent and ancient, belies his own sudden conversion, and his own party would become ungovernable should he have to actually lead us in War. This is still the party of McGovern, Carter, and Dean...the adults, Lieberman and Gephardt (who might have warranted presidential consideration), were emphatically rejected in the primaries. A presidential win by Kerry will simply mark our own surrender, and no amount of phony posturing will change that.

The New Yorker commentator Hendrick Hertzberg, who has given $900 to John Kerry's presidential bid -- earning him a spot in a report on political donations by journalists released last week by a freelance watchdog and a mild scolding from one media ethicist -- arrived at his pre-assigned spot wearing running sneakers, jeans, and a denim shirt embroidered with the Kerry campaign logo. After venturing onto the convention floor, he returned around 10:35, midway through Edwards's address, looking slightly overheated but nonetheless elated, like a fan leaving a concert by his favorite band. He had taken off the Kerry button-down, revealing a nonpartisan T-shirt underneath, and was carrying two of the rectangular Edwards placards that had been distributed to delegates and assorted convention-goers. Hertzberg placed them on the writing stand and disappeared again into the crowd, presumably with plans to retrieve his booty before repairing to his hotel. (Conventioneer has heard that New Yorker staffers are staying at the Fairmont Copley Plaza's new Gold Floor, which features its own concierge, a private lounge with working fireplace, and a butler's pantry stocked with self-serve snacks. Conventioneer relishes this bit of gossip the way others might word of Ben Affleck's rumored lodging at the Charles.)
Hertzberg, a former Carter speechwriter who makes no secret of his liberal leanings in his "Talk of the Town" commentaries, has defended his donations to Kerry as a perfectly reasonable extension of the positions he takes as an opinion writer. But to Conventioneer, the Kerry shirt seemed a bit much.

"America's armed forces need better equipment, better training, and better pay," Bush said in his 2000 convention speech. If that line sounds familiar, it's because just about every major Democratic speaker this week has said almost exactly the same thing. Who would have thought that the man many believe to be the most conservative president in modern history could be outflanked from the right? And by the so-called most liberal man in the Senate.

It's never good to see a former chairman of the joint chiefs endorsing a Democrat.

We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always... We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.
And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.)

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right.
A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel.

The truth is, the truth is that what John and I want, what all of us want if for our children and our grandchildren to be the first generations that grown up in an America that's no longer divided by race. We must build one America. We must be one America, strong and united for another very important reason: because we are at war.

And everybody listening here and at home is thinking one thing right now: OK, how are you going to pay for it? Right?
Well, let me tell you how we're going to pay for it. And I want to be very clear about this. We are going to keep and protect the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans -- 98 percent. We're going to roll back -- we're going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And we're going to close corporate loopholes.

The July 27 op-ed column by Howell Raines misspelled the last name of David Kusnet and incorrectly said he was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. Kusnet worked for President Bill Clinton.

In the entry about the Simpsons character that will be coming out of the closet, you forgot Principal Skinner, who appears to be the obvious (and best) choice. Principal Skinner is a well respected professional male in his mid 40s. He is single (and has never had a serious relationship that we know of), and lives at home with his mother. Like many closeted homosexuals who struggle with their sexual orientation before coming out, Principal Skinner was caught hooking up with Ms. Edna Krabappel, a divorced and desperate co-worker (anyone else's gaydar would have instantly picked up on Skinner's secret). Moreover, he proposed marriage to Selma, Marge's sister, who is obviously a lesbian. His attraction to women is clearly a facade, designed to be an elaborate lie to both fool the community and perhaps even continue to deny his true sexuality.
Moreover, Principal Skinner is obsessed with his image. He sits for endless sessions where his mother sketches his silhouette, and then he tacks the images all around his house. Additionally, he is a very neat and tidy person, always looking presentable and well-kempt, attributes that straight men of his age and situation do not usually personify.
In sum, Andrew, it has becomes obvious that you ignored the most clear-cut choice when predicting which character will come out of the closet. Moreover, given his persuasion as a white, middle-aged, educated man, homosexual man, I would ask that you recommend Principal Skinner for honorary membership in the Log Cabin Republicans.

From the Beer Baron episode:

Banner (Robert Stack-like incoming police chief): Well, what are you waiting for? Somebody to kiss you goodbye?
Wiggum (wistfully): Well... no, no, no... I guess not...

From the episode where Ned's wife dies:

(Homer prepares a video promoting Ned Flanders' availability:)
Homer: But don't take my word for it. Listen to this testimonial.
Wiggum: [on tape] Oh I would date Ned in a second if I was a woman or gay. He looks like a cuddler, that Ned. I, I like that. I like to be held, I like to be pampered.

From the Marge on the lam episode:

Wiggum: Aw, just get one of those inflatable women. But make sure it's a woman, though, because one time I ... heh.

One Exceedingly Trivial Thing You Probably Didn’t Know About Larry King. He doesn't walk, he sashays -- left hand on hip, pinkie and ring-finger sticking out at dramatic angles, as he swivel-shoulders down the hallway with his jacket collar half flipped up. Looks like a 70-year-old former Teddy Boy who is very comfortable with his feminine side.

It amazes me that you have become so disturbed by the Republican rhetorical attacks that you are throwing away strategy in favor of useless emotional retribution. Every recent extremist Republican maneuver against gays has served only to assist the gay rights agenda. Whether it be the anti-gay anti-sodomy state laws that were overturned or the rejection of a vote on the FMA. The conservatives are aiding the gay cause by creating a legal paper trail of defeats for their side.
Additionally, having radical anti-gay conservatives polarizes Americans in favor of gay rights. Not to sound too much like the Shining Path, but creating a vastly unfair current situation can be a faster method of eventually reaching the goal of fairness than patching up the inequity with half solutions (civil unions.) Separate but equal had a very long life span in race relations; we don’t want the same to happen with gay rights. Supporting democrats who support the 'separate but equal' standard is a step back in achieving equality.

This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations.

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never– ever– go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued – and they must be defeated.
John Kerry knows this.

The people I meet – in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks – they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead – and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.
Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn – they know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.
No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.
They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

With the situation in Iraq seen by many as a mess, Afghanistan has a constitution, is registering voters and is moving toward holding a presidential election in October. And the survey of 804 randomly selected male and female Afghan citizens, commissioned by the Asia Foundation notes that:
* 64 percent say the country is heading in the right direction.
* 81 percent say that they plan to vote in the October election.
* 77 percent say they believe the elections will "make a difference."
* 64 percent say they rarely or never worry about their personal safety, while under the Taliban only 36 percent felt that way.
* 62 percent rate President Hamid Karzai's performance as either good or excellent.

The biggest problem so far, organizers say, is that among the groups that want to take part, there has been an almost unmanageable number of candidates. In Kut, a Shiite city south of Baghdad, 1,248 people competed for 22 seats. In Najaf, a city considered sacred by Shiites because of its shrines, there were 920 candidates for 20 seats, prompting complaints from Mr. Sadr's group and other leaders that the process was not inclusive or democratic enough.

The message from Altman and Rubin was that Kerry is a passionate advocate of Clintonomics--especially an emphasis on deficit reduction and the return of congressional spending rules. Altman made a point of noting that like no other politician he knows, Kerry has publicly said he would trim some of his spending priorities back to achieve a fiscally conservative budget. Rubin made a point of answering a question about Kerry's decision-making style by telling an anecdote about how he and Sperling once left a meeting with Kerry marveling about how he reminded them of their old boss. "Gene said to me, 'You know, this is just like being with Clinton,'" Rubin said.

Today -- today our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty -- and he served with honor and distinction. He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January he would restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.

After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world.
But in just 34 months we have watched with deep concern as all this good will has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations.

As the Democratic National Convention begins, 66 percent of African-American registered voters called themselves Democrats and just 7 percent say they are Republicans, numbers almost unchanged since 2000, when it was 65 to 7 percent. Among registered Hispanics, Democrats now outnumber Republicans 45 to 24 percent, compared to a 39 to 21 percent margin in 2000.
But among registered white Protestants who described themselves as born-again or evangelical - a share of the population bigger than blacks and Hispanics together -- Republicans now enjoy majority status. Fifty-one percent of this group called themselves Republicans, while 22 percent said they were Democrats. Four years ago, 43 percent said they were Republicans and 24 percent said they were Democrats.
Seventy-one percent of registered white evangelical and born-again Christians now view Bush favorably and just 19 percent see him unfavorably, up from 63 percent favorable, 19 percent unfavorable in 2000. That ratio is reversed among African-Americans, where 12 percent view Bush favorably and 72 percent unfavorably. In July of 2000, 34 percent had a favorable view and just 40 percent an unfavorable opinion.

Why don't you just admit it Andrew? Whom ever supports Gay marriage can count on your support.

The past two episodes of "Six Feet Under" on HBO (July 18 and 25) included several anti-Bush lines spoken by the performers, plus a prominent product placement for an anti-Republican book. None of these occurences advanced a story line or character; they were gratuitous throwaways.
Here, as best as I can recollect, is what I saw:
In the July 18 episode, Nat is reading the paper, and says (paraphrasing), "Man that Bush just lies and lies and nobody does anything about it." His mother Ruth responds only by addressing his recent bitterness. The political angle never comes up again.
Until the July 25th episode. This time it's Ruth's husband George, reading "Perfectly Legal," a book by a New York Times reporter claiming that the super-rich gouge the middle class. As he puts the book down he says (paraphrasing), "They're just hollowing out the middle class until there's nobody left." Later in the episode he's seen reading the book again. Nothing else in these scenes addresses this activity.
In the same episode, Claire and her friends create art on the walls of her room, making several comments along the lines of "dropping bombs and calling it peace," and painting the phrase "Terror Starts at Home" on the wall.
Here's the ironic thing about this kind of stealth political campaigning: it's easier to follow the money behind it than in the more up-front kind.

I don't know how the reader whose letter you posted can see Bush as in any way libertarian. Does s/he not remember the state of the union address where he called for mandatory drug testing for high school students? Does s/he not remember that he federalized crime by signing the partial birth abortion ban? Does s/he not remember that he favors state intervention into a woman's womb, or that he was appalled by the Lawrence decision or favored sodomy laws while Governor of Texas? Does s/he not think that anti-smoking laws are just as much products of the puritan right as of the politically correct left? Did s/he not notice that Bush was itching to re-up the assault rifle ban? Or that he has used federal dollars for "faith based initiatives" which could impede both the establishment clause as well as the equal protection clause when homos are able to be disriminated against? Where in anything that Bush has done is the spirit of John Stuart Mill, John Locke or Ronald Reagan?

You posed the question "Why would libertarians vote for Bush?" Well, I hold many libertarian views, hate the war on drugs, and yet support Bush emphatically. Why? Well, I don't think the left will do anything to remediate the drug problem right now (to be fair, they can't without getting whacked). But the left does and will support infringements such as anti-smoking laws, seatbelt laws, hate crime laws (and maybe hate speech laws soon?) and so on. I assert that, overall, the much greater threats to our civil liberties emanate from the left.
Furthermore, the left will infringe upon us with ever greater spending, ever spiraling entitlement programs, and ever more punitive taxation. If you believe that a Kerry administration will reduce the deficit, I think you must be smoking some of that "stronger" pot! Income taxes are regressive and damaging to productivity and personal incentive, not to mention a blatant and expensive method of redistributing wealth.

Let me now address those in the world who believe that the United States, under a Democratic president, will cower before terror or respond to any future attacks with passivity and weakness. Nothing could be further from the truth. As president, I will pursue this country's real enemies every day I am in the Oval Office; I will seek them out and bring them to justice; I will ensure that our historic duty to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq is met in full, however long it takes, however hard the task. To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.

He is married to the former Erma Ora James, his high school sweetheart and a coal miner's daughter. They are the parents of two daughters, Mrs. Mohammad (Mona Byrd) Fatemi and Mrs. Jon (Marjorie Byrd) Moore. Senator and Mrs. Byrd have been blessed with six grandchildren -- Erik, Darius, and Fredrik Fatemi; Michael (deceased), Mona, and Mary Anne Moore -- and four great-granddaughters: Caroline Byrd Fatemi and Kathryn James Fatemi; Emma James Clarkson and Hannah Byrd Clarkson. In February 2004, Senator and Mrs. Byrd welcomed their first great-grandson, Michael Yoo Fatemi.

I am gay and conservative. I am disinterested in the gay marriage cause, both in the sense of bored and distanced. I am not opposed but I agree with my Senator, the earnest Santorum, marriage is for the protection of children.
In fact, consistent with his and Dr. Dobson's position, I would wish to see its state mandated protections denied to all childless couples and reserved only for those who do breed or rear whether they are heterosexual or gay. I understand the desirability of queer ratification and I think state recognized contracts which enumerate a couple's privileges and benefits could be the acceptable alternative for same sex pairings. However I do not think that the state should be obliged to afford life sustaining support benefits to such childless couples as are automatically granted to married couples (health insurance and social security for example) in the interest of preserving the viability of surviving family if the breadwinner dies.

Put another way, the administration has two Iran policies, and the result has been a mix of good and bad. Kerry, by contrast, boasts a single, coherent, and--to judge by the description of Teheran's activities in yesterday's report--utterly delusional Iran policy. Now, if only the Bush team could sort out its own, it might have an opportunity to draw a meaningful distinction.

RS: I'm interested that you expressed a cautious admiration for [the Bush administration's] political skill. Any other places where you looked and said, "Boy, that's good"?

Clinton: Well, no. I would say, though -- you know, one of the great things in politics that you have to know is when not to play a card -- because you might win a hand and lose the match. And that's the mistake, I think, they made in 2002. President Bush would have been far better off in his reelection if he'd let the natural rhythm of 2002 unfold and let the Democrats pick up a few seats. We would have held the Senate and maybe increased our margin by one or two; the House would be very close. But it would have compelled him to take a more moderate position.

[W]hat alienated Republicans from federalism? It's not simple hypocrisy. True, their sympathy for states' rights was partly the product of a historical accident. From the New Deal onward, state governments were generally less activist than the federal government, where the legislature was under almost unbroken Democratic control for half a century. So, conservatives preferred to keep decision-making in places where they could prevail. But their fondness for states' rights also stemmed from conservatives' sincere distrust of government power and their belief that one crucial way to constrain it was to diffuse it among 50 capitals instead of channeling it all into one.
That perspective lost much of its appeal once the GOP found it could not only elect presidents with reasonable consistency but also dominate Congress as well. Virtue is harder to practice once temptation is beckoning.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing.

The group said its investigator also obtained eyewitness testimony about employees "ripping birds' beaks off, spray-painting their faces, twisting their heads off, spitting tobacco into their mouths and eyes, and breaking them in half -- all while the birds are still alive."

Thirty years ago in the small West Virginia town where my father grew up, I participated in what was billed as a "cakewalk." The contestants simply walked around in a circle. One person standing just outside this circle was blindfolded and held a broom. At his whim he let the broom fall across the path of the circling contestants. If the broom fell behind you, you won the cake. Thus I have always assumed that a "cakewalk" referred to something accomplished by blind luck, without any element of skill. Perhaps this Appalachian contest, helps explain the etymology of the first definition of "cakewalk" provided by your reader.

The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.
At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

He has reinvigorated centrism in Britain, as the DLC and similar organisations did for the United States. Again like his transatlantic partner [Clinton], Blair's mark was to make many of the economic reforms of Thatcherism palatable to the left. As a result, the British economy has in our lives never been stronger. Whereas a quarter-century ago it had fallen past the Federal Republic of Germany and France, and was about to fall past Italy as well, it is now closing in on Germany for the European crown, and its per capita GDP mark it as the second richest country in Europe past Luxembourg.

In a study of 33 HIV+ couples who engaged in frequent, unprotected sex, researchers at the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Francisco found no evidence of superinfection, the sequential acquisition of multiple HIV variants.
HIV is a highly mutable virus encompassing two quite different types around the world, HIV-1 and HIV-2. Within those types there are variations known as "subclades" that are typically subdivided further into genetically differentiated strains.
The epidemic in the U.S. consists almost entirely of a single subclade, HIV-1B, while HIV epidemics in other parts of the world involve a mix of subclades. In the study, researchers investigated potential superinfection involving variations within HIV-1B.
In 28 of the 33 couples, each participant was infected with a strain of HIV-1B that was genetically different than that of the person's partner, and the 28 couples were particularly relevant for these preliminary results.

Gay marriage is not the only cause of rising out-of-wedlock birthrates. I never said it was and it doesn't take a demographer to realize that lots of factors contribute to husbandless women having babies.

a group of five scholars in the Netherlands issued a letter addressed to "parliaments of the world debating the issue of same-sex marriage." The Netherlands was the first country to adopt full-fledged same-sex marriage, and this letter is the first serious indication of Dutch concern about the consequences of that decision.

The Reformatorisch Dagblad is of course a small partisan conservative Christian newspaper, there are just 5 university professors who state their opinion (now what would you say if 5 Berkeley scholars would issue a letter "proving" gay marriage is healthy?) and the facts they try to connect are actually uncorrelated. Yes marriage is in decline in the Netherlands as it has been for decades and the bigger part of that happened long before gay marriage was legalized. In fact, there has been some increase in (straight) marriages lately.
The reason why out of wedlock births are on the increase is because it is simply possible to arrange proper contracts for joint parenthood quite easily without marriage in the Netherlands now and quite a few people like it that way. The insinuation that this results in unstable parenting is preposterous.

[T]he meaning of traditional marriage was transformed every bit as much by the decade-long national movement for gay marriage in Holland as by eventual legal success. That's why the impact of gay marriage on declining Dutch marriage rates and rising out-of-wedlock birthrates begins well before the actual legal changes were instituted.

All this fumbling has left Mr. Obama, the smooth-talking, Harvard-educated law professor from Chicago, looking like the only candidate in a race that may make him the only African-American in the Senate. Voters who don't know him yet surely will after the Democratic National Convention, where he will be keynote speaker. But it would be too bad if Mr. Obama cakewalked into Washington. Not just for Mr. Obama, who would take office with an asterisk ("*ran against incompetents"). Illinois voters deserve to see a capable opponent force him to answer tough questions and defend his positions. In other words, they deserve a nonludicrous race.

1. Something easily accomplished: Winning the race was a cakewalk for her. 2. A 19th-century public entertainment among African Americans in which walkers performing the most accomplished or amusing steps won cakes as prizes. 1. A strutting dance, often performed in minstrel shows. 2. The music for this dance.

Mr. Bush noted: "The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years." He repeated the words "peace" or "peaceful" many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances.

Republicans accused him on Tuesday of stashing the material in his clothing, but Mr. Breuer called that accusation "ridiculous" and politically inspired. He said the documents' removal was accidental.

Mr. Breuer, the lawyer, said Mr. Berger inadvertently put three or four versions of the report on the plots in a leather portfolio he had with him. "He had lots of papers, and the memos got caught up in the portfolio," he said. "It was an accident."
Mr. Berger also put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents, Mr. Breuer said.

A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government's response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified "codeword," the government's highest level of document security.

Texas law allows for the sale of sexual toys as long as they are billed as novelties. But when a person markets the items in a direct manner that shows how they are used in sex, it is considered criminal obscenity.

Let's compare two important statements—Bush’s famous 16 words, and Wilson’s amazing new admission:

BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

WILSON: I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Finally! This is what we've always told you — Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a "lie-lie-lie-lie," over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note). And now, alas, Dems will start to pay a price for investing so much in his presentations.

I will have to soldier on, and draw what comfort I can from a recent exchange with an ex-boyfriend who, as we reminisced about our relationship said wistfully, "You were the best girlfriend in the world. You let me bring curry home from the pub every night and I could fart as much as I liked." I'm putting it in my next personal ad.

The blog seems to have it partially wrong while the reader letter is partially right. Bush is trying to cut in Kerry's Catholic base around Cleveland. The problem is that he risks further alienating liberal and moderate Republicans as well as Independents in the Cleveland suburbs. Running an abortion ad is high stakes poker because most campaigns view the risk as greater than the reward. Also the conventional wisdom says that the loser tends to be the one who brings it up. Bush is obviously convinced that his economic message isn't viable in the area and has therefore resorted to his nuclear daisy-cutter. This is about fear not opportunity. Bush has plenty of wedge issues working against Kerry among traditional Catholics without dropping the a-word.
Another thing to consider is the choice of the medium. 60 Minutes? Why would you broadcast this message to such a wide audience? Granted the audience does tend to skew older, but why run the risk when you can target the message more precisely to a more narror audience and cheaper as well?
Finally the blog does contain one piece of wisdom explaining why. "Because according to Voinovich, the Bush administration has not been doing enough to stop Ohio from "bleeding jobs." That's a fairly damning source. Even if the recovery numbers are there, Voinovich clearly doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the perception.

The alternative--at once bolder and riskier, but with a larger potential electorate--involves targeting the ordinary Republicans who rejected at least one generation of Bushes to back Perot or McCain. These voters--not a few thousand elites but millions of the rank and file--are concentrated in the middle-class precincts of swing states like Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and the Pacific Coast.

The suggestion that the Bush campaign is running abortion ads in the Cleveland market only because they are having problems with its base -- to be baseless. Here is why:
Cleveland is Democrat territory. Period. The Republican Party has no base in Cleveland. However, the Democrat voters in that area are Catholics and pro-life. Until his failed run for the presidency, even Dennis Kucinich who was the mayor of the city and represents the city in Congress, was against abortion. I see this effort by the campaign as a way of cutting into the Democrat base. Nothing more. Nothing less. If the campaign can peel away a few percentage points from the Kerry column in Cleveland, it will certainly help them win the state.

You find half of bin Laden's family and top assistants in Tehran? Not to worry, maybe the mullahs didn't know. You discover that that 9/11 band crossed Iran and were assisted by the border guards and customs officials? Not to worry, that wasn't necessarily the actual policy — this from the lips of the acting director of Central Intelligence on Fox News yesterday. Scores of Iranian intelligence agents are found in Iraq, some in the act of preparing bombs? Some bright bulb in the intelligence community puts out the line that Iran is actually helpful to us, and has actually restrained Hezbollah. We find Iranian involvement in the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? The evidence is quashed by the Saudis, with the complicity of State and large sectors of the intelligence community.

France's prison population is more than 50 percent Muslim.

Why is it that in many polls, Bush's job approval rating is higher than the percentage who say they will vote for him? Fabrizio calls this difference the "approval gap." In his 19-state poll the percentage of people who approve of the job Bush is doing but say they will vote for Kerry is 8.6 percent.
Approval-gap voters seem to be the great anomaly of American politics. Kerry voters tend to intensely dislike Bush, and Bush voters seem to intensely dislike Kerry. Undecided voters often get tagged as wishy-washy, but secretly they seem to be just as polarized as everyone else about Bush and Kerry. Approval-gap voters, by contrast, are the true equivocators. They are both pro-Bush and pro-Kerry. They just happen to be a little more pro-Kerry. They have a net favorable opinion of Bush (48 percent favorable to 30 percent unfavorable), but an even higher net favorable opinion of Kerry (54 percent favorable to 15 percent unfavorable).

He says he supports my civil rights and I oppose his. Is Andrew capable of writing anything on this topic that's not question-begging? Opponents of gay marriage like myself don't believe that a civil right to marry someone of the same sex exists. We obviously aren't for denying to gays the rights to speak, vote, own guns, etc. If Andrew reformulated the point in neutral, non-question begging terms, it would be something like: Lowry and I disagree about the definition of civil rights in this instance.

When it's one of your first presidential elections — as it is for me — it's no trivial matter that voting Republican means a vote for a party catering to the worst prejudices about our brothers, sisters, friends from high school, college roommates, co-workers, bosses, drinking buddies and the like.
I'm not sure I can do it. And, if it weren't for the War on Terror, I know few for whom it would even be a question.

Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bear-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic. 

Their music was brutal, degenerate, loud - amplified by maximum distortion and feedback, and terribly, terribly bad; their one-time manager Malcolm McLaren (who went on to manage the Sex Pistols) described them as "chaos incarnate". They released only two albums, including the presciently-entitled Too Much Too Soon.

I am a Christian and for the life of me cannot understand how the FMA is protecting what my wife and I share together. People should take a good look at what heterosexuals are doing to marriage. (example: Brittney, J-LO, and the reality TV shows that toy with marriage) It makes me sick when some leaders of this country get on a crusade that would limit freedom for certain individuals. I am from a very small town in West Tennessee. The first time that I ever went to school with someone from a different ethnic group was in college. The first gay person that I meet was in college. I never once had any trouble accepting the differences that we had. So how can the people, who have sworn to protect the Constitution, want to add an amendment that would limit freedom? I hate that I have to cut this short, Andrew, but remember that there are Christians that support your right to live free and open. I assure you that I will raise my children to keep their beliefs and faith strong, but never judge someone for being themselves.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use "jurisdiction stripping" measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Was there an Edwards bounce? Yes. Kerry picked up 30 electoral votes since yesterday and now leads by 117 EV. Of the new state polls, Kerry is ahead in 12, Bush is ahead in 4, and one is an exact tie. Since all of these are battleground states, this is good news for Kerry. He is ahead in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. There is no conceivable scenario in which Bush can lose the majority of these states and win the election. But before Kerry supporters start popping the champagne corks, note that the vice-presidential bounce is usually short lived. Two weeks from now we will find out how much real change there is, if any.

A quiet, kindly man who had been a practitioner of martial arts in his younger days, on July 2 Father Oswald Baker declared: "I am ready to die" - which he then did.

• Darrell Green (Green played for the Washington Redskins for twenty years, earning seven trips to the Pro-Bowl.  Once the fastest man in the NFL, he retired as the oldest defensive back ever in the NFL)                      
• Dean Jones (Jones was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in 1971, and is known chiefly as one of Disney's top stars in the 1960s and 1970s.  He is also known for his leading role in " Herbie the Love Bug.")                      
• Marvin Winans (Marvin is a member of the gospel group The Winans, who are Grammy, Dove and Stellar award-winners.  He is also pastor of a church in Detroit, Michigan.)                      
• Pat Boone (Boone was the second most-popular singer in the United States in the 1950s - second only to Elvis Presley.  He's recognized by Billboard Magazine as the #10 rock recording artist in history.)

Senator McCain’s opposition to the amendment came just hours after Senator John Warner (R-VA) took to the floor and announced his opposition to the anti-family amendment. In addition to Senator McCain and Senator Warner's floor statements, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) told reporters on Tuesday that, "I see no need for a constitutional amendment ... at a time when we already have a federal law on the books that protects the rights of states to define marriage as between a man and a woman."
Log Cabin has made it clear from day one that this debate is not about protecting marriage, but is really about protecting the Constitution and protecting federalism. Over this past weekend, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) added to the growing voices of Republican opposition to this unnecessary amendment by stating, "I believe that marriage should be defined as a marriage between man and woman, but I don't think that a constitutional amendment is necessary."
Even some of the most conservative members of the Senate expressed reservations about amending the Constitution. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, "a federal constitutional Amendment is premature at this time, as federal law already gives authority to the states in recognizing marriage."
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) made his opposition to this amendment clear. "I do not support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriage at this time."
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) courageously spoke out against the amendment in the midst of a difficult primary campaign against an anti-gay opponent. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) went as far as to circulate a letter to his colleagues asking fellow Republicans to reject this anti-family amendment.

No matter what one's position is on the socially divisive questions of same-sex marriage, civil unions and other nontraditional arrangements, the Constitution is not the place to engrave social policy - as we should have learned eight decades ago with Prohibition. Some true constitutionalists of both parties, to their credit, realize that.
So the states, for now, remain in control of marriage law; the federal Defense of Marriage Act, for now, inoculates those states whose residents do not wish to recognize marriages licensed in other states. That's a status quo that can stand while American society, in the way that it does, works out what it will - or will not - accept in relationships among its members.

The plain truth is this: British troops went to kill and be killed last year on a false premise. We were told Saddam had WMD and he did not; we were told he was a threat to us and he was not. So far that act has brought no consequences on its perpetrators.
Those who made bad errors in shedding light on the act - at the BBC and the Daily Mirror - have paid for their errors. But for the act itself, there has been no punishment. This suggests a failure of our very system of governance: it allowed a government to go to war in defiance of its people and on a false pretext and get away with it. The system needs to prove that it can correct itself - and to do it soon.

Any senator of either party who votes against traditional marriage will be opposed for reelection by the Campaign for Working Families Political Action Committee. If a dozen or more Republican senators jump ship on this fundamental issue it will be a sad day for the Party of Lincoln and Reagan and it could go a long way to causing an electoral disaster for the party in November.

"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level."

"Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear."

Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure. As many as a dozen Republicans, various aides and lobbyists said, might bolt from their party on the issue. Many Republicans have long been wary of federal intrusion on what has always been a state domain, believing an amendment would violate their basic principle of keeping the federal government out of state matters. Many also have expressed concern that the current wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment also would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships that are considered legal alternatives to marriage.

Since the territories before the Six Day War in 1967 weren't part of a sovereign state, one couldn't speak of an "occupation," therefore the Geneva Convention wasn't applicable, the argument went. But out of "generosity," Israel said it was prepared to follow parts of the convention. But after the ruling in The Hague, the days of such selective generosity should be over. Now, it's official: Israel is an occupying force, and does have to abide by international law if it doesn't wish to be treated as a pariah.

Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed] boasts that while the Americans possess nuclear weapons, he has seen "something in the form of a hair dryer" that causes "the most horrible death possible" by suffocation.

Surprising as it sounds, the American brewer of Budweiser, Anheuser-Busch, also owns the SeaWorld chain, home to several performing killer whales. A British group, Born Free, has no problem with beer, but believes that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity. The most prominent case is that of Corky the orca, currently living at SeaWorld San Diego.

"I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans. Very difficult to look in the rear-view mirror, 20/20 hindsight and say what you would have done under those circumstances.  Jay [Rockefeller] has indicated he wouldn't have voted for it.  Jay has also indicated that there probably wouldn't have been the votes to go to war.  I think if we went back to the no-fly zones and the resolutions by the U.N. and an awful lot of talk, I doubt if the votes would have been there."

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (My italics)

For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two year old kids without help, anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there's no logic in it.

At the heart of Moore's film lies the malevolent influence of "the Saudis," a phrase that in the US is increasingly spat out with utter contempt, reminiscent of the tone reserved for "the Jews" in anti-Semitic discourse, ascribing to millions of otherwise heterogeneous people the same menacing and hostile essence. In a great deal of contemporary American discourse, any group of Saudis - including the government, security services, and any collection of citizens, not to mention Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001 - all represent "the Saudis."

Moderate Republican senators grumble that some longtime contributors are refusing their usual contribution to the Republican presidential campaign. Their biggest grievance: Bush's endorsement of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

The party seems poised to keep some of its most articulate spokesmen such as Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum and Representatives Henry Hyde and Mike Pence and other leaders on life and family issues behind the scenes. By keeping them on the sidelines they have missed a chance to emphasize the real heart of the party and the sharp contrast between the Republican Party and Democratic Party. By treating the vast majority of the GOP faithful like "fly over" country, the convention organizers douse the enthusiasm of pro-family voters - meanwhile they may show up to vote, they may not bring two or three friends along with them to the polls. Note to Republican Party organizers: Find a primetime spot for a speaker who the pro-family community knows and trusts and who will speak to the issues that have driven so many voters to pull the lever for the GOP in the past.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution.

When I read Mickey Kaus, a man I know and like, was voting for John Kerry, a man he pretty much despises, in the coming election, I was reminded again what painful times we live in (sometimes even more painful than most of us realize). And, yes, I know politics is about compromise (triple duh with a brass ring on top!), but the compromises people are making now are of a substantial nature.

[Michael Moore]: Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

[Lileks]: Let me see if I can find the right way to put this:

No.

Again, the high-school-level thinking: “the rest of the world.” It’s simplistic to identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as evil. It’s simplistic to state in the immediate wake of 9/11 that nations are either with the terrorists, or the United States. But it’s a sign of complex nuanced thinking to say that “the rest of the world . . . looks at us with disdain and disgust.” Yes, the world poured out its heart; it cost them nothing. Hearts are easily tipped and just as easily refilled. When the French newspaper said “We are all Americans now” it sounded nice, and I suppose it was, but in retrospect it looks as if there was an undercurrent of appeasement and surrender: we are all Americans because we are all victims in a sense, non? We ceased to earn the precious coin of French approval when we fired the chief procurer for their favorite customer, Iraq. C’est dommage. We can live with it.

Wait until France gets a hard shot in the nose. Wait until France reacts with some nasty work. They’ll get a golf-clap from the chattering class over here and a you-go-girl from Red America. France could nuke an Algerian terrorist camp and the rest of the world would tut-tut for a day, then ask if the missiles France used were for sale. And of course the answer would be oui.

Cassidy's story is not science. It's just her own feelings. Many researchers say most kids do just fine in these alternative family forms. Cassidy doesn't buy that research, though. "I don't think a fair study could be conducted because children currently in that family wouldn't necessarily be open to speaking their true feelings about it."

[W]e survived Carter and we'd survive Kerry (though it will be a long, hard slog!). I plan to vote for him because I think a) we need to take a time out from Bush's strident public global terror war in order to prevent it from becoming a damaging, lifelong West vs. Islam clash--in order to "rebrand" America and digest the hard-won gains we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan (if they even remain gains by next January). Plus, b) it would be nice to make some progress on national health care, even if it's only dialectical "try a solution and find out it doesn't work" progress. I could change my mind--if, for example, I thought Kerry would actually sell out an incipient Iraqi democracy in a fit of "realistic" Scowcroftian stability-seeking (an issue Josh Marshall's recent Atlantic piece doesn't resolve). But I don't intend to agonize like last time."

The American people may come to feel that George W. Bush did the job history sent him to do. He handled 9/11, turned the economy around, went into Afghanistan, captured and removed Saddam Hussein. And now let's hire someone who'll just by his presence function as an emollient. A big greasy one but an emollient nonetheless. I just have a feeling this sort of thing may have some impact this year. "A return to normalcy," with Mr. Kerry as the normal guy.

Here's what a really smart Democratic contender could say to the president this fall: "Thank you, Mr president, for your leadership in difficult times. You took some tough decisions and we are safer as a result. But the very qualities that made you a perfect pick for the war so far are the very ones that make you less effective from now on. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq. You are too unpopular to allow European governments to cooperate fully in the attempt to hunt down terrorists. And your deep unpopularity in half the country makes it impossible for you to make the necessary compromises that the country needs domestically. Thanks for all you've done, but bye-bye."

Americans, moreover, are somewhat drained. War is a terrifying and enervating thing. The fear of annihilation at any moment at the hands of terrorists with WMDs is a difficult thing to live with - and, fairly or unfairly, they associate this fear with the Bush administration. The soothing dullness of a Boston Brahmin can appear somewhat attractive in contrast.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

"We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture [Zarqawi] and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people... This is the last warning. If you don't stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do." (My italics).

Edwards Said States Should Decide Civil Unions Status.
"Palmieri said Edwards believes states should decide whether to allow civil unions, a legal status conveying many of the same benefits as marriage, that was first recognized in Vermont during the tenure of Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 presidential rival." - Raleigh News and Observer.

Not having listened to Kerry speak since the primaries, I was surprised how awful and meandering his speech was. Even worse, it was politically tone-deaf. When discussing America's role in the world, he put the emphasis on restoring alliances rather than keeping America safe and strong. He's inviting the Republicans to translate his remarks into, "He won't go to war without permission from France." He also had a riff about investing in education rather than spending the money on prisons. That sounded very much like a belief that prisons come at the expense of education. (In truth, criminals prey mainly on the poor. Keeping criminals off the streets allows poor kids the safety they need to have some chance at getting ahead.) Substance aside, I think Clinton showed pretty clearly that the right political message for Democrats is to be tough on crime. What made Kerry's departure from the Clinton pattern all the more striking is that there was nothing about prisons in the prepared text. It was all ad-libbed. Talk about bad instincts.

So this was the dilemma: Edwards was the best salesman, but Kerry was the best product. If you had to choose one or the other, I thought it was more important to pick the salesman, since the consequences of losing the election were far more serious than the consequences of electing the less qualified Democrat. The logic made sense, but the premise was mistaken. Democrats didn't have to choose. They could get the best product along with the best salesman, if Kerry had the wisdom to pick Edwards.

Excuse me, folks, but when candidates don't even have to have sex to be brought down by a sex scandal, we should be asking ourselves whether we are beginning to ratchet the bar up too high for mere mortals who might have an interest in public service.

purchase at amazon.com [USA]
purchase at amazon.ca [Canada]
purchase at amazon.co.uk [Europe]

During the American Revolution, when the Continental Army Lieutenant Enslin was found "attempting to commit sodomy," Commander George Washington issued an order "with abhorrence and detestation." Enslin was to be "drummed out of the camp ... never to return." Thomas Jefferson authorized legislation to penalize sodomy with castration. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states of New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey each implemented the death penalty fo those who committed sodomy."

"What benefit has the public now derived from knowing this information? There is no allegation, as you know, of breaking any laws, no allegation of infidelity, no allegation of breaking any marriage vows," he said. He said this sort of intrusion into candidates' personal lives will prevent qualified candidates from entering politics, and said it is "not good for American Democracy." "I can't tell you how many calls I got in the last two weeks from people who said, 'I always thought about maybe going into public service. But not now, not, not after I've seen what's happened to you.' And so this cannot be the right standard now for entering into American politics," he told Stosssel.

"Conservatives around him didn't want him to get involved because of the people who had [AIDS]," Koop remembered. "They said, 'Homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, heterosexuals who are sexually promiscuous, prostitutes -- don't they deserve what they got?' I've always resented that. I think I could have saved a lot more people."

As one example, Koop cited his failed attempt to add an AIDS awareness spin to First Lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No to Drugs" campaign. Koop saw the First Lady's campaign as a perfect opportunity for President Reagan to address the AIDS crisis. "I contacted him [Reagan] through personal friends and suggested he could accomplish more if he appeared with her and for him to say something like, 'That includes IV drugs like heroin. You're not just saying no to drugs, you're saying no to AIDS,'" Koop said.
After asking Koop several well-informed questions regarding AIDS, Reagan took the idea to his domestic policy council the next morning.
"It caused an uproar," Koop said. "They said, 'That's lose-lose, you want win-win.' He listened to those who he thought were acting on his best behalf."