Yes, polls are polls. But the numbers displayed in the graphic at left are startlingly one-sided, so perhaps worth taking note of.

(Please note, the exact same poll also shows Bush and Kerry tied up (within the margin of error) in the direct face-off question. So the usual "CBS and NY Times run a biased poll!" nonsense won't do much good in regards to this rather stunning and rare point of virtual unanimous agreement amongst Americans.)

According to the AP report just just out since the Bush/Cheney joint meeting this morning with the 9/11 Commission, it seems that the pattern continues...

Do bad stuff, let the genie out of the bottle, apologize for it later. (By the way, Joe Wilson's wife is named Valerie Plame and she is a covert CIA agent!...Whoops, that was wrong of me to mention that. I apologize and will investigate!)

* * * The "disappointing" and "finger pointing" Gorelick memo that was declassified in time for Ashcroft's meeting with the 9/11 Commission, can still be found right here on the Justice Department Website! But we're very sorry for that. * * *

Once again, Mission Accomplished.

Tomorrow, Dubya and his friend Dick Cheney will answer the tough questions from the 9/11 Commission. Together. At the same time. The joint "visit", as Bush refers to it, is unprecedented before such a committee, but such were the demands of the Whitehouse if they wanted the President to answer any questions at all essentially. So, the two boys will be able to get their story straight and stick to it.

Since the "visit" must also be in private, off the record, unrecorded, not under oath, and will not be transcribed, all as demanded by the Whitehouse, all that we --- the American Public who have entrusted these guys to protect us --- can do is speculate on what may go down.

Oh, well then. Here is one such amusing speculation of the transcript that won't be taken courtesy of DemocraticUnderground.com.

As Brad Blog readers will know, I've never been much of a Kerry supporter. I am, however, ardently against another disastrous four years under this dangerous and incompetent administration and to that extent will be considering, at least, a nose-holding-vote for Kerry this November. I've argued for some months that it's Bush's election to lose (which he seems to be working hard on), rather than Kerry's to win (which he doesn't seem to be working as hard on).

But now the mostly Far Left-ish Village Voice has out and out called for Kerry to go, a position I'm not necessarily against, though the efficacy of such a move in regaining the Whitehouse is certainly questionable at this late date.

The most notable and agreeable graf in the short editorial, the final one:

Uh...yup.

Following up last night's item displaying just the tip of Cheney's Hypocratic Iceberg, here's a bit more detail on the programs Cheney is now (misleadingly) accusing Kerry of being against, even while Cheney himself was attempting to gut these programs himself back when he was Secretary of Defense.

Will these guys say anything just to get elected? Apparently so...

As a comment made on the previous items attempts to continue the misleadingly errant echoes of the Right concerning Kerry, it seems details are in order.

This item, well sourced, courtesy of our friends at the O'Franken Factor. As O'Franken doesn't yet include direct links to their blog items, I'm forced to re-post the whole thing here in it's entirety. Sorry about that.

"Senator Kerry has voted against funding weapons systems vital to fighting and winning the war on terror."
- Vice-President, Dick Cheney 4/27/2004

"Over the course of the last year, since I've been secretary, I've recommended terminating, canceling, shutting down 20 separate weapons programs. In most cases, most cases, Congress has resisted those cuts."
- Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney 1990

(P.S. Who's the flip-flopper again? Don't even get me started on the many flips and even more flops of Dubya!)

(P.P.S. Wondering about the many faces of Richard B. Cheney? Take a look at the official Whitehouse photo on the right. Cover the left half of his face and take a look at the nice old man. Now, cover the right half of his face and meet his evil twin!)

There's an elephant in the living room. It's the $700 Million that Woodward reports Bush as having spent to prepare for War in Iraq back in July of 2002 - long before General Tommy Franks claims that his Commander-in-Chief had instructed him to prepare for War in Iraq.

The appropriation of the money, Woodward suggests, may have come from the money appropriated by Congress to wage War in Afghanastan.

The White House isn't talking. Perhaps, because few in the "Liberal Media" seem to be bothering to ask. So I will.

Having perused the US Constitution just now again, it still seems clear that only Congress may authorize the spending of US Tax Dollars.

Given the lack of explanation for this questionable, and possibly unlawful, expenditure by the President it's no wonder Team Bush is being silly enough to try and attack John Kerry on his war record! Even though such attacks inevitably lead back to questions of Bush's own military records (or lack thereof). I suppose the gambit to exhaust folks with Scandal Fatigue over a 30 year old issue, ridiculous in the case of Kerry's record, but on-the-mark in regards to Bush who's released records are still conspicuously absent of many key documents, is a goose chase the Administration would rather see followed by the sycophants in the Media rather than a potentially lethal question of High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Bush while in office just a year or two ago.

Of the scant reporting on the topic so far, Cass R. Sunstein in Salon offers a rather to-the-point examination of the possible authority from Congress that Bush may have felt had allowed him to use such funds in this clandestine expenditure.

It seems there are two different Congressional Acts from which Bush may have drawn his authority::

He raises a very good question. But is anybody other than Sunstein (and me and a handful of others in the blogosphere) actually asking it? If they aren't, why aren't they? How lazy is this supposed "Liberal Media" anyway?

But back to the point and the other legislated possibility:

Don't know. But John Kerry might have thrown ribbons instead of medals over the fence in 1971! And Michael Jackson has fired his attorneys!

But I digress...

...Ah, there ya go. The "rule of law". We know it applies to Presidential Blowjobs, worthy of a Constitutional Crisis when lied about. But the secret, perhaps illegal, expenditure of $700 million of tax payer money to prepare for a war against a sovereign nation which --- even by the vaguest terms (and the terms were vague indeed when finally authorized by Congress several months later) - hadn't yet been approved by the branch of governement constitutionally mandated to do so is, apparently, just another one of those things not worth worrying about for the "Liberal Media".

After all, Kobe Bryant is still facing rape charges! And Rush Limbaugh's medical records may be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution against him!

The beat goes on. The fatigue sets in. And that's precisely what Karl Rove and Friends are counting on.

In the meantime, I'd love to remind the made-up and hair-sprayed crowd in the "Liberal Media" set that Woodward actually earned his reputation as an investigative reporter by actually investigating and reporting. I realize that remaining on Scott McClellan's "must call" list is important to keep your face regularly on the Nightly News, but so is doing the dirty work of following up on the tough issues that the American Public needs to know about. Even if the man who might have committed such illegal appropriations of American Funds wasn't running for re-election. The fact that he is, makes it even more important. Please get to work!

Doing some behind the scenes server work, and the COMMENTS may have been un-commentable for a few hours on Monday. Should all be cleared up now. Please comment away as you see fit. Or not. - BF

Various quotes of note from a few of the Sunday News Shows:

Joe "Anonymous" Klein on The Chris Matthews Show:

The Bush Administration's new man in Iraq, U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, on This Week in re: the possibility of full-frontal attacks on the insurgencies in Fallujah and Najaf:

Hope so. But we'll see. One could apply that argument to every mis-step the Bushies have made so far in their "War on Terror" and yet they never paid it any mind prior to today.

Newsweek's Farid Zakaria, also on This Week, adds the old Neocon-ignored chesnut :

In the meantime, here's Brahimi on Bush throwing in with Sharon on the Palestinian "Right of Return" issue:

If true, it's another good point, since even by the most Conservative standards, it is understood that peace --- if it's ever to come to Israel/Palestine --- will be brokered by negotiations lead by the United States. All pretenses of impartiality in the matter would seem to be completely gone as of now.

And finally, Republican Senator Jon Kyl on the War in Iraq:

So far, the most conservative estimates of Iraqi Civilian Casusualties is a minimum of 8930 and a maximum of 10,781. John McLaughlin reports the number of Iraqi Civilians Killed at over 14,000.

That's all in a country with a population of a little more than 24.5 million according to the CIA World Factbook.

The United States --- with a population of 290.5 million --- lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11. We got kinda unsettled and angry at the perpetrators of that event as I recall.

You can do the math. Any idea how the Iraqis might feel about Americans at this point?

(Not to mention their 1.1 BILLION Arab brethren?)

And just to pile on, I'll add this quote again for perspective on it all. From George HW Bush (Dubya's Dad) in his 1998 Memoirs:

Father knows best, I guess.

From TIME's "Numbers" column last week (Sources - Washington Post and NYPD):

Josh Marshall caught the following this morning:

Good question, Josh.

No, in fact, the "conservatives" absolutely love having their hackles raised by Democrats who either use or nearly use or they can bait into using (Hello, Hannity!) the "L" word. As if calling the President of the United States a "liar" (well, this one anyway) would be the absolute proof of the name callers Lack of Patriotism or Hate Americanism. Thus, that word is usually avoided by pundits, and certainly the media.

But I guess Kerry's not the President, yet? So it's okay?

Anyway, another "Liberal Media" myth shattered. From that headline, it would again seem to prove that ABC, at least, is not part of that elite "Liberal Media".

On the actual substantive point --- and it's truly beyond me why Team Bush would want to keep going back to this same well, since it always gives Bush Opponents permission to remind everyone of Bush's Lack-of-Military Record --- Marshall reminds us that Bush has challenged the military records of every opponent he's ever faced while running for President.

He (or more accurately his Attack Monkey Surrogates) have now challenged the records of all three Gore, McCain and Kerry.

I suppose it's a good thing Pat Tillman didn't live to run against George W. Bush at some point.

Marshall offers Kerry the following pretty-decent advise:

Good advice. Let's see if the Kerry Operatives are paying attention to Josh Marshall.

UPDATE: Since posting the above, ABC has now changed it's headline on the story to: "Medal Dispute, EXCLUSIVE: Why did Kerry change story about Vietnam medals?" - To which one might add "Why did ABC News change it's headline inferring that John Kerry is a Liar"?

That straight-faced report courtesy of Media Watch on the FOX News Channel.

We report, you decide.