A few media items on their way here today...We'll start with the easy one. Finally found ABC News Now on my digital dial (Channel 190 for Los Angelenos in the Adelphia digital 'hood). That would be their new Online and/or Digital Only news operation that began during the Conventions when the Entertainment division thought that Americans were better served by watching "According to Jim" on the free public airwaves instead of learning about the two parties who would be leading the "Free" World for the next four years.

Haven't gotten to watch a whole lot yet, but after the hour or so I did see at 2am last night, so far I can say it a delight! Being able to watch real journalists (well, okay, Sam Donaldson and Jonathan Karl, but you get the idea) talk politics all night long without commercial interruption other than for a few ABC Entertainment plugs was awesome.

I don't think many folks yet get this refreshing alternative to the Cable News spews, but so far, I'm thrilled to have an alternative to the boredom, laziness and Adminstration brown-nosing of CNN, the pedantic schizophrenia of MSNBC, and the out and out Republican Infomercial that is Fox News.

From what I've seen so far, it's a charming mix of the free-form take-all-the-time-ya-need pacing of C-SPAN with the full resources of an actual major news organization that seem to be enjoying themselves without all the pressures of commercial television. We'll see how long it lasts that way...But check it out for yourself if you're lucky enough to pick it up where you are (and lucky enough to be able to figure out where the hell it is! Here's some help!)

Was gone all day today. Which is too bad. Cause there was much going on, and much to blog about. Many many thoughts as this thing is heatin' up and just getting fun.

Tomorrow (later today, I guess) I will tell you how Kerry gets his landslide in one fell policy swoop. I know there are a few heavy-hitters in the Kerry/Dem camp who frequent this blog...so pay attention. 2am now though, so I better call it a night and try to get caught up tomorrow. In the meantime, think about those guys on the right. Nite.

In the buildup to War on Iraq, when the idea was very unpopular amongst Americans just prior to the 2002 Elections, Bush and his surrogates went out of their way to tell the American people that he had no plans for war on his desk...

As we later learned, of course, plans for War on Iraq were being readied at the time by the Pentagon even if they weren't yet "on Bush's desk".

This morning, on ABC's This Week Colin Powell made a careful mid-sentence correction when answering a question about whether there are plans for re-instating the Draft in the U.S.:

In other words, Bush "has no plans for a Draft on his desk."

We report, you decide.

(Fool me twice, shame on me?)

Today Sec. of State Colin Powell said about the Iraq insurgency, "It's getting worse."

A rare moment of honesty from the Bush Administration. Here's the numbers they don't usually enjoy mentioning to the American People...As of 9/26/04:

Attacks by Insurgents per day:
70-80 avg.

U.S. Military Killed in the past Week:
15

U.S. Military Killed from "Mission Accomplished" through hand-over of "Sovereignty":
1.89 per day

U.S. Military Killed from hand-over of "Sovereignty" through Today:
2.34 per day

Total U.S. Military Killed since hand-over of "Sovereignty" (90 days ago):
194

Total UK Military Killed since then:
6

Total U.S. Military Dead since start of War:
1,048

U.S. Military Amputees, Wounded, Injured & Psychologically Disabled,
All now evacuated from Iraq:
27,800 est.

Iraqi Civilians Killed since start of War:
20,900 est.

Iraqi Military Killed (by end of "major hostilities"):
28,000 est.

Total Iraqis Killed (Civilian and Military):
48,900 est.

Population of Iraq:
25 million

Killed in the US on 9/11:
2,973

Population of US:
293 million

Stockpiles of WMD's found in Iraq so far:
0

Sources: Iraq Coalition Casuality Count, U.S. Dept. of Defense, McLaughlin Group

Bush tells O'Reilly in his interview (to be run over three days starting Monday...not spinning at all) that he would do the "Mission Accomplished" thing all over again.

From Reuters:

It brings to mind what John Stewart has been saying lately about Bush. "He drove us into a brick wall...but he didn't blink!"

...More "Republican Jesus" right here, courtesy of Jesus' General.

You may remember the various outrageous and unsupported statements by Cheney, Bush, Hastert and the rest of the Wingnuts suggesting outright that "The Terrorists support John Kerry". (In case you don't, the ad at right was on Drudge a few months ago. Just one of many created to send the message). UPDATE: Another story on this point, just released by AFP

Of course, in none of those cases did any of the irresponsible folks making the claim have a shred of actual evidence to support their smear. They were just smearing for Smear & Fear sake. Anything to win a Presidential election.

It seems obvious to me that Bush has been a terrorist's Dream President as he's effectively done everything they could have hoped for. Even Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that our actions in Iraq are likely "creating terrorists faster than we can kill them".

When it comes to hard evidence one way or another as to whom "The Terrorists" support however, there is only one clear statement from any Terrorist that I know of. And they have firmly endorsed George W. Bush for President as reported by the International Herald Tribune last March just after the Madrid bombings.

The note claiming responsibility for those bombings made "The Terrorists" preference for George W. Bush quite clear:

So shouldn't the ad at right be changed to "1 out of 1 Terrorist Agrees! VOTE BUSH!"? Or should Bush/Cheney change their slogan to "Bush/Cheney - Even the Terrorists Support Us!"?

At least there is actual documented evidence to back up those claims.

(Thanks John Aravosis for the tip)

This is the ad currently appearing on Drudge's site...

Ironic today, if only for this item. Not to mention the countless hundreds of other biased and incorrect reports like the one I pointed to that are featured every single month on Drudge and echoed in the rest of the Right Biased media chamber.

The beat goes on. Anything to win.

For how long now has the White House told us they've "released everything pertaining to Bush's National Guard service"?

From Reuters:

Yes, it was another late-on-Friday-night, too-late-to-make-it-onto-the-Nightly-News coincidence again this week.

Yesterday, The Washington Times lied in a story about a John Kerry appearance on CNN's Crossfire in 1997 where they claimed, after viewing a copy of the tape, that John Kerry had said: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. ... We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

Unfortunately, the piece was a complete lie, as blogged yesterday right here, made even more destructive as it was picked up by Drudge, and thus predictably carried by the rest of the Rightwing Echo Chamber (Rush, Sean, Fox, the wingnut Blogosphere, etc.) Drudge, predictably, has not bothered to carry the "Correction" posted today.

Today, The Times has just made matters worse by running a "Correction" to the story right here.

Here is the letter I just sent off to Mr. McCaslin (following up a note I sent yesterday) along with a CC to his Managing Editor. Feel free to do the same!

(But seriously...stay safe guys! It's not your fault! Our prayers are with ya!)

Bad news for Kerry! DRUDGE has the scoop! Right on the top of his page, you can still click on this headline: "Kerry Argued Case For Unilateral Preemptive Action In Iraq On CNN's CROSSFIRE In 1997..."

The link is to a new Washington Times piece by John McCaslin quoting Kerry on CNN's Crossfire in 1997, when we are told Kerry said: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. ... We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." McCaslin also said that "no 'Crossfire' transcripts from 1997 are available" but that he recieved a tape of the show.

Only problem? Kerry never said it.

Media Matters has the full story of what Kerry actually said...along with the transcript!

In the wake of "Rather-Gate" has anyone yet heard the cries for McCaslin and Drudge to resign? McCaslin had the actual tape of the show, so why would he put quotes around what he knows full well that John Kerry didn't say? I think you know the answer.

John McCaslin - jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com
Mng. Editor, Francis B. Coombs Jr. - fcoombs@washingtontimes.com

What Bush actually said yesterday was:
"I saw a poll that said, uh, uh...the right trong, ri...right track, wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

Still trying to decipher what message he thinks he was actually sending with that quote, but in the meantime, the Kerry Campaign has responded --- and quickly! --- with another new ad. Good rapid response. Good to see.

As I've received so much Email of late on the topic of the Jimmy Swaggart video ad I released recently, I've been pondering a few of the related ideas.

Swaggart, as many "Christian" homophobes enjoy mentioning, said in his sermon after announcing that he'd kill a gay man who looked at him the wrong way and then "tell God he died", that the bible says homosexuality is "an abomination". He reminded us of that just before he endorsed George W. Bush from his pulpit.

Swaggart is right, of course, on the bible calling homosexuality "an abomination" in Leviticus 18:22. Subsequently, God also is quoted as suggesting in Romans 1:32 that those "who commit such things are worthy of death".

This got me pondering about which of the bible thumpers out there (and I know we have one or two who read this Blog regularly) might agree that gays should be put to death as the bible would seem to advocate? Any of you Theo-Cons willing to ring in on that? You know where the Comment button is.

So I started looking around for more information on what else Leviticus has to say about things, and I came again across this letter to Dr. Laura that has made it's way around the Internet starting sometime in 2000, not long after Dr. Laura informed her listeners that homosexuality was a "mistake of nature", "a biological error" and that gays are in fact "deviants".

I don't know if Laura (not an actual medical or psychological or sociological Doctor, by the way) still feels that way as she seems to flip-flop on her opinions quite a bit. For example, she had years ago converted to Orthodox Judiasm, only to then renounce her religion on the air in July of 2003.

In any case, if you haven't seen this letter, or even if you have, it seems timely in this day and age to reprint it here again, along with a picture of the good "Doctor" (pictured upper-right, I'm sorry, it was amongst the least pornographic shots that I felt it proper to display on the front page here as it was one of the few without visible pubic hair from the series of photos it seems she posed for during one of her extra-marital affairs) to remind folks who Dr. Laura is, in case they're not familiar with her work. It's interesting to "heathens" like myself, what else the bible, including Leviticus and other chapters, has to say about a few other things:

No word yet, four years after this letter was sent, on Dr. Laura's reply.