"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Vice President Dick Cheney, March 16 2003

A boy no older than 10 ground his heel into a burned head. "Where is Bush?" the boy yelled. "Let him come here and see this!" Masked men gathered around him, punching their fists into the air. The streets filled with hundreds of people. "Falluja is the graveyard of Americans!" they chanted. Falluja Iraq, March 31 2004

The White House is now even trying to spin the David Letterman show. Check out Dave’s funny bit here and the attempts by the White House to spin it on CNN here. Pathetic… NOTE! Real Media Player required to view.

I mentioned the Gallup Poll yesterday that showed 51% of likely voters supporting George W. Bush. Bush's current approval rating at 53% is very close to the voter support number. Take a look at Bush's approval rating since he took office:

The first big spike is 9/11. The second spike is the War in Iraq. The third spike is the capture of Saddam. The trend is tracking upward this last week. But imagine if this chart was showing a stock value. Would you buy? As I mentioned earlier, the incumbent President has the advantage in an election. As opposed to interviewing two applicants for the job, the election is a referendum on the job performance of the President. While this chart does not look good for Bush, his numbers are at worst even with Kerry, at best his numbers are slightly higher. The next two months are going to be critical for Kerry. His pick for Vice President, the message that he delivers to the American people and his ability to get that message out in an effective way will determine the viability of his candidacy.

The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara

I saw the Errol Morris Academy Award winning documentary tonight. It was basically an interview of Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. McNamara, now 85 years old, reflects upon his professional career and a life in service to his country. His work in bombing mission analysis allowed the Allies to develop the fire bomb mission that killed 100,000 Japanese citizens on March 9th 1945. His work as Defense Secretary and his loyalty to President Johnson kept the United States on a path of war in Vietnam that would eventually lead to the deaths of over 58,000 US soldiers. McNamara defends his work as a necessary evil during war time. Yet, the emotion of McNamara, the pain he still feels for the loss of Kennedy, the struggle between the goal of war and the effect of war, all come across during the course of the film. "How much evil must we do, to do good?" McNamara asks during the course of the film. It’s clear that he continues to struggle with the answer to this question after all these years. I recommend this film.

Round two of the 2004 Cycling World Cup continues this Sunday in Belgium with the 88th Tour of Flanders.

The 257km (160 miles) races, known in Belgium as De Ronde, starts in the 2000 year old city of Brugge, proceeds due west to the English Channel city of Oostende before doubling back towards the southeast.

At 138km the riders will hit the first climb of the “Flemish Ardennes”, the Grotenberge. This is the first of 18 climbs that the race will cover before the finish in Meerbeke. Some of these climbs are asphalt, some are paved with cobble stones, but all of the climbs are quite steep. However, the Tour of Flanders is not a race for a climber. Typically the older, and more experienced members of the professional racing community do well at this race. Knowing the course, having the strength to get over the climbs with the leaders but also having the power to stay at the front of the race on the flat sections between the climbs, being at the right place at the right time are critical for success in De Ronde. Who will win? I am going to pick a Belgian to win on their home turf. Peter Van Petegem has won twice in the last five years but this is Johan Museeuw’s final year of racing and he will be pretty motivated to win this race. So I am going to pick Museeuw!

217 Days The latest Gallup Snapshot Poll shows George W. Bush at 51% and John Kerry at 47% of likely voters as of March 28th. Make no mistake, in incumbent President has the advantage. Something is going on between the Kerry campaign and Ralph Nader. I think Nader has a real opportunity here to show that he wants to do what is best for the country rather than what best serves his ego. We shall see…

You will be missed. You served our nation with distinction and honor. A handwritten note from President Bush, given to Richard Clarke upon Clarke’s resignation from the Bush Administration.

John Kerry needs to fill out his ticket and get his Vice Presidential candidate named. It’s going to be easier to fund raise with two people rather than just one. Personally, of all the potential candidates out there, only John Edwards will bring enough benefit to Kerry to make their campaign competitive. Tom Friedman, in the New York Times this morning, writes that John McCain would be his dream for Vice President. Friedman believes that McCain would bring a bipartisan spirit to the executive office should a Kerry/McCain ticket achieve victory. If Friedman actually thinks that Republicans would embrace John McCain after defecting in everything but name to the Democratic party, he needs to wake up.

I have received a few e-mails complaining about the "liberal" slant of my blog. I guess I have to apologize to those of you who might take offense, but I am just calling things as I see them. If you feel that’s liberal, so be it. However, I am really having a difficult time seeing our current political situation as a battle between a "liberal" camp and a "conservative" camp. Instead, I view the battle as being between Ideology and Pragmatism. The fact is that the Bush Administration began talking about going to war with Iraq at a National Security Council Meeting on February 1 2001, over 7 months before the attacks of 9/11. This after Bush declared, during his Presidential campaign, that his administration would present a more humble global posture than the Clinton Administration and that he felt that the United States had no role in "nation building." The attacks of 9/11 gave the Bush Administration the opportunity to pursue their ideological belief that Saddam Hussein had to go. You’ll get no argument from me that Saddam was a real bad man, but the United States was under attack from a group that had nothing to do with Saddam and Iraq. A more pragmatic approach would have been to dedicate all resources to continue the search for Osama bin Laden, to continue the work of destroying the al-Qaeda network and to put pressure on the governments of the Middle East countries to solve the social problems that generate such hatred for the west among their citizens. Yet, just last week, Secretary of State Collin Powell assured Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that they are exempt from the democratic reforms that the United States is calling for in the Middle East. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. It would be incredibly cynical to believe that the Bush Administration is not interested in fighting terrorism. However, because they are following their ideology rather than pragmatic facts, I believe that this Administration is obsessed with trying to solve the wrong problem. They need to be replaced.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed Richard A. Clarke's criticisms against the Bush Administration yesterday and said Clarke "conveniently" released his book in the middle of the campaign season. "If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns, why wait so long?" McClellan said. "Why wait until the election?" The truth is that the White House has had Clarke's book for six months. It is standard policy for a book to be reviewed by the White House and the Pentagon if the author of the book is a former staff member of the current administration. Why did the book get released now? Ask the Bush Administration. They probably knew that they could not hold onto the book until after the November elections and that, by releasing it now, they felt that they would have enough time to deal with the issues of this book before November. Obviously I have not had a chance to read this book yet. I've got another book that I am in the middle of right now but I'll pick up Clarke's book next. From the reviews that I have read however, it sounds like Clarke is pretty even handed with the last three Presidential administrations. He criticizes the first Bush administration for not taking action in 1991 after Saddam Hussein brutally put down a Shiite uprising in Iraq. He criticizes the Clinton administration for not taking a much more vigorous bombing campaign in response to the attempted assassination of former president George H.W. Bush. I think it can be stipulated that it may not have been possible to prevent the attacks of 9/11 even if Osama bin Laden would have been killed before the attacks. Clarke has also praised President Bush for war with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I think the real explosive issue is the War in Iraq and the fact that the resources that were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq allowed bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda to escape. 120,000 US troops were deployed in Iraq versus only 11,000 troops in Afghanistan. Predator UAV drones that were in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden were diverted to Iraq and have only recently been moved back to Afghanistan. Iraq has been nothing more than a two year distraction that has prevented the work in Afghanistan from being properly finished.

Vice President Dick Cheney opened himself up to media scrutiny today and was asked some hard hitting questions. Oops, no he wasn't, he just went on the Rush Limbaugh show and hit softball questions out of the park. You can find a transcript of the "interview" here. It began as such: LIMBAUGH All right, let's get straight to what the news is all about now, before we branch out to things. Why did the administration keep Richard Clarke on the counterterrorism team when you all assumed office in January of 2001? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't directly involved in that decision. He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cyber security side of things, that is he was given a new assignment at some point here. I don't recall the exact time frame. LIMBAUGH Cyber security, meaning Internet security? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, worried about attacks on the computer systems and the sophisticated information technology systems we have these days that an adversary would use or try to the system against us. LIMBAUGH Well, now that explains a lot, that answer right there explains -- (Laughter.) THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, he wasn't -- he wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff. And I saw part of his interview last night, and he wasn't -- LIMBAUGH He was demoted. THE VICE PRESIDENT: It was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on. OK, Cheney kicks off the interview saying that Clarke was moved out of counterterrorism "at some point" and that he wasn't in the loop. Limbaugh then makes the implication that Clarke was demoted out of counterterrorism because he was incompetent. Clarke was not only in the loop, but as the head of the Counterterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council until well after September 11 2001, Clarke was the loop. On January 3 2001, over eight months before the attacks of 9/11, Clarke had a meeting with members of the Bush Administration, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. During the course of this meeting Clarke advised: - Attacking al-Qaida's terror cells - Freezing al-Qaida's financial assets - Stopping the flow of money from Wahhabi charities to al-Qaida - Breaking up al-Qaida's financial network - Air strikes and Special Forces operations in Afghanistan The reply, from Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense in April 2001, was "Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States. You give bin Laden too much credit" Clarke was moved out of counterterrosim after the attacks of 9/11. It was not that the Bush Administration thought that Clarke was not competent, it was just that they were distracted with something else they believed was much more important. Iraq. You can find additional myths about Clarke and his supposed poor job performance here.

BOOK REVIEW - Bush's Brain : How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, James Moore and Wayne Slater

"Without Karl Rove, there would be no President George W. Bush." Moore and Slater’s book traces the political history of Karl Rove, the man who convinced the "reluctant political warrior," George W. Bush, to run for Governor of Texas and guided the campaigns that eventually took both of them to the White House. Throughout the book are the details of Rove’s political genius, his obsessive drive and his incredible success in getting his candidates elected. Also shown are Rove’s distasteful tactics, his loose ethics and his petty vindictiveness. Gone are the days of the party bosses and the smoke filled rooms. They have been replaced with political consultants and the permanent campaigns. Rove, now the senior political advisor to President Bush, has an office inside the White House. Anyone considering running against one of Karl Rove’s clients should read this book to see what they are going to be up against. Rove does not just fight to win, he fights to destroy the opposition.

Senator Arlen Specter - “The Bush administration never made any claim that there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.” 3/21/04 President Bush - “You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” 9/25/02 President Bush - “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” 9/17/03 Vice President Cheney - "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." 1/22/04 Vice President Cheney - “There was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” 9/14/03 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - "Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions." 9/26/02 National Security Advisor Rice - "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." 9/25/02

Ex-White House anti-terror advisor Richard Clarke has his 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl tonight. From a April 2001 meeting, 5 months before the attacks of 9/11: Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' "And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Hey, John Kerry, you have a lot of work to do. Get off the ski slopes and get to it. The incumbent President has a distinct advantage. The voters barely know you. The Bush Campaign is successfully defining you in a negative way before you are getting your own message out. They are ready to capitalize on any misstep you make and you have been giving them ammunition to fire at you. The only chance you have to win this election is to starting playing by Karl Rove’s rules. Attack, attack, attack. The clock is ticking and time is running out for you.

I understand that some of you are having occasional problems loading up this page. I apologize for the delays. I am trying to get some answers from the host of this service. I can't complain too much I guess as this is a free service. If things stay bad I might move to another server. Stay tuned!

Cracks in the Coalition of the Willing are starting to show. The new government in Spain maintains their commitment to pull their troops from Iraq. Now today, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski states that he feels Poland was misled regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He insisted, however, that Poland would not be pulling their 9500 troops from Iraq. If these bombing attacks continue in Iraq, if the June deadline comes and goes without the US turning over control of Iraq to the provisional government, if Iraq disintegrates into ethnic war and if there is a continued erosion of support for the war by coalition partners, this entire situation is going to be a very large albatross around George W. Bush's neck come November.

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, the group claiming to have links with al-Qaeda and that has claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings, has endorsed George W. Bush for President. The group prefers that President Bush win the election in November as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization." "Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected." Hey, if President Bush is being endorsed by foreign leaders he should just come out and say so himself.

I will be out on business March 18 - 30, so I might not be posting as often. Keep checking back because I will be posting as I have the time. Thanks for reading!

Juan Cole has an excellent posting yesterday regarding the War in Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole. He states: The Aznar government dragged Spain into the war against Iraq and the subsequent occupation even though 91% of Spaniards opposed it. It is only logical that the voters would take the first opportunity to rebuke the Popular Party for ignoring popular opinion. Although it keeps being said that the conservatives were leading in the polls before the Madrid bombings, polls are notoriously unreliable. Polls once suggested Dewey would beat Truman, too. I think the conservatives were doomed all along, and the polling just wasn't showing how unhappy people were. Was the ruling Popular Party set for defeat before the train attacks took place? The Aznar government seemed very interested in steering suspicion away from al-Qaeda following the attacks. From Kevin Drum Monday: The PP knew that their antiterrorist policy (against ETA) was one of its main winning cards, and they didn't hesitate to blatantly manipulate the 11-M attack, suppressing information, calling people to demonstrate against ETA, knowing all the while that the Antiterrorist Information Brigade had as good as discarded ETA authorship a few hours after the attack. The antiterrorist police heads even threatened to resign at the madness of it all, and this was leaked to the opposition and the press. And all the while the state TVE showing documentaries about ETA activities right until late Saturday night, on the eve of the election, and failing to report live on Minister Acebes informing about the Al-Q line of investigation which he had been forced to acknowledge — forced by his own angered police heads and by the media which had all the information but was withholding it just long enough for the Minister to do the decent thing. This heartless manipulation of the dead for political gain clinched it.... Aznar knew that the Popular Party had more to gain in galvanizing public opinion against ETA rather than al-Qaeda. The Washington Post reports today that, immediately following the attack, Aznar and other officials telephoned journalists, stressing ETA's responsibility and dismissing speculation that Islamic extremists might be involved. Spanish diplomats pushed a hastily drafted resolution blaming ETA through the U.N. Security Council. At an afternoon news conference, when a reporter suggested the possibility of an al-Qaeda connection, the interior minister, Angel Acebes, angrily denounced it as "a miserable attempt to disrupt information and confuse people. There is no doubt that ETA is responsible." So did al-Qaeda achieve a victory in Spain? Does it really matter? If the terrorists have been successful at anything it has been their ability to continue with their attacks while the United States and its allies have been distracted in Iraq. Cole’s more important point is as follows: • With neither evidence of weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver any weapons of mass destruction being found so far in Iraq… • With no evidence of any significant collaboration between Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator, and al-Qaeda, a Sunni fundamentalist religious movement… • With $1.3 Billion being spent in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden currently resides, versus $250 Billion being spent in Iraq… • With al-Qaeda attacks in Bali Indonesia (10/12/02 - 202 dead), Mombasa Kenya (11/28/02 - 15 dead), Casablanca Morocco (5/16/03 - 45 dead), Riyadh Saudi Arabia (11/9/03 - 17 dead), Istanbul Turkey (11/15/03 - 23 dead), Madrid Spain (3/11/04 – 198 dead) and elsewhere since the end of the Afghanistan War… Isn’t it time to start viewing the War in Iraq as what is really was: a pointless and a colossal waste of time, money and resources in the fight against al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups? Cole adds: There is not and cannot be such a thing as a "war on terror." Terror is a tactic. There can be a global counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred organizations. But a large part of such a struggle must be to deny al-Qaeda recruitment tools and propaganda victories. The way the Bush administration pursued the war against Iraq, as a superpower-led act of Nietzschean will to power, simply made it look in the Middle East as though al-Qaeda had been right. Bin Laden's message was that Middle Easterners are being colonized and occupied by the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with the “War on Terror.” But the War in Iraq has certainly created the conditions for terrorists to make things a lot worse.

From CNN, March 5 2004: U.S. forces searching for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan will soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region, enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, CNN has learned. Didn't the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon take place two and a half years ago? Why did the hunt for Osama bin Laden only become a 24 hour a day, seven day a week operation last week?

The 2004 Cycling World Cup starts this Saturday in Italy with the 95th Milan-San Remo.

The 297km (184 miles) race, known to the Italian fans as 'La Primavera', starts in the industrial city of Milan, proceeds directly south to the Mediterranean coast city of Voltri, and then follows along the shore to the city of San Remo. With the exception of the Passo del Turchino, a 20km climb that reaches a height of 532 meters above sea level, the race is mostly a parade until the peloton reaches Voltri with 142km left in the race. It's at that point that the television broadcast begins and the speed of the race increases dramatically. If the peloton is not already together at this point the increase in speed means that any breakaway riders are soon caught. It then becomes a drag race as the peloton screams along the Mediterranean costal roads at speeds above 30mph. There are five climbs towards the back end of the race, but only two of these climbs are severe enough to affect the outcome of the race: the Cipressa and then the twisting, hairpin climb and descent of the Poggio. Bunch sprints are not uncommon in Milan-San Remo. Historically any individual or group of riders hoping to stay clear of the hard charging peloton will need to have at least 8 seconds gap in front of the peloton at the summit of the Poggio in order to stay clear to the finish. Sometimes even that is not enough. Italian Moreno Argentin was taught this lesson by Irishman Sean Kelly when Kelly used a kamikaze descent of the Poggio to catch Argentin and then beat him at the finish line in the 1992 race. Cycling coach Dr. Michele Ferrari says this about Milan-San Remo: • The course itself is relatively easy, making the race all the more difficult to interpret. It is almost impossible for only one team, no matter how strong, to control all the attacks while trying to save two or three men for the final - and usually most decisive - phase from the Cipressa to the finish line. • It is a disadvantage to show up at the start in Milan as the big favorite, or even as the strongest team likely to take charge of the race in the final stretches. • There have been several surprise winners in recent editions. • Tension and stress can build dangerously on the favorite as he plays out his waiting game strategy, causing him to burn precious resources earlier than expected.

• The race itself is very fast and nervous with a high risk of falls, which increases energy expenditure and makes the rider feel the whole weight of the nearly 300 kilometer race during the last stretches, often leaving him with nothing left in his legs at the race's critical and decisive final moments. • If one hopes for success in such a race, the rider must be very accurately prepared and careful to remain full of psycho-physical energy by not expending too much or taking on excessively heavy responsibilities in preceding events. So who will win? Who knows! Milan-San Remo is totally unpredictable and I have only been right once in ten years. I am going to bet on last years winner Paolo Bettini. He is a little guy with a lot of power and he rides for a strong team. His team can get him to the final climbs in one piece and he is small and powerful enough to get over the climbs in front. He just needs to maintain that "psycho-physical energy!"

From the Associated Press, March 13 2004: “The Army is spread so thin around the globe that when it needs fresh combat troops for Iraq this fall it will have little choice but to call on the same soldiers who led the charge into Baghdad last spring. The 3rd Infantry Division already has been given an official "warning order" to prepare to return to Iraq as soon as Thanksgiving. When those soldiers flew home from Iraq last summer to their bases in Georgia, few of them could have known they were, in effect, on a roundtrip ticket. They are not alone in facing back-to-back deployments to Iraq. Some of the same Marines who teamed up with the 3rd Infantry to topple Baghdad are already assembling again in Kuwait, only a matter of months after returning home, and more Marines will go next year.” United States soldiers account for 79% of the coalition forces currently deployed in Iraq (120,000 troops). These troops were responsible for fighting and defeating the army of Saddam Hussein, securing the country and trying to keep the peace as Iraq attempts to move towards a democratic system of government. Iraq is 170,000 square miles in size. Compare that to the 61% of the coalition forces that US soldiers accounted for the in first Gulf War (540,000 troops). The only goal in the first Gulf War was to oust Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait, a country 6900 square miles in size. Compare the First Gulf War to the current Iraq War: • 83% fewer troops overall in Iraq War versus the First Gulf War • 67% fewer US troops in Iraq War versus First Gulf War • US troops represent nearly 20% more of the coalition forces in Iraq War versus First Gulf War • Iraq is 25 times larger than Kuwait • Cost of First Gulf War: $60 Billion, 90% of which was paid for by countries other than USA • Cost estimates of Iraq War: $153 Billion and rising (could reach up to $250 Billion by Spring 2005), to be paid for by the USA Of course, the Bush Administration planned for a much different war. Again, from the Associated Press, March 13 2004: “When the Saddam Hussein government collapsed, U.S. troops in Iraq figured the war was over, except for some mopping up. But as the acting secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, acknowledged to Congress last week, ‘we simply were not prepared’ for the insurgency that developed in early summer, prolonging the war and taking the lives of hundreds of American soldiers. One 3rd Infantry soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Eric Wright, put it this way in Iraq last June: ‘What was told to us was that we would fight and win and go home.’ It's not that simple.”

On the Ron Rosenbaum and Mark O'Connell show this morning, Ron was talking about the attacks in Spain and their relation to the Spanish election result. He is of the believe that the elections should have been postponed due to the shock of the attacks. I still maintain that the terrorists achieved a victory in the surprise outcome of the Spanish election. This victory was not that the party that advocated the withdrawal from Iraq won the election, it was instead the fact that the final outcome of the election was affected. However, I believe the only thing the terrorists may have wanted more than to affect the outcome of the election would have been to postpone the election itself. It is the disruption of society that is the ultimate goal of terrorism. As we in the United States move towards our elections in November we need to resist the urge to fall prey to the intimidation or coercion of terrorism. Those that advocate a possible postponement of elections in this country in case of a terrorist attack are simply playing into the hands of the terrorists.

From the New York Times today: Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines. The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government. In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law. Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law. What a good idea! If the stupid, so called, mainstream media reporters are not giving the correct spin to your bogus and misleading programs, just hire some of your own "reporters" and write your own "news" stories! That will get the job done right.

I received an e-mail from a good friend of mine in regards to my previous post statement: “If the train attacks of last Thursday are the work of al-Qaeda, and these attacks have caused Spain to decide to withdrawal from Iraq, it then appears that al-Qaeda has achieved a victory.” He points out that the new Socialist Workers government in Spain would pull out of Iraq, not in reaction to the train attacks of last week, but instead because they felt that war was not legitimate in the first place. He is completely correct. The Socialist Workers Party has been campaigning against the war in Iraq since the start and party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said all along that, if elected, he would pull Spanish troops from Iraq. However, until the attacks, polls showed that the Socialist Workers Party did not appear set for a victory in the election. It was not until after the attacks that the citizens of Spain mobilized to defeat the ruling Popular Party and elect the Socialist Workers Party into power. Whether the new Spanish government pulls their troops from Iraq because they never felt that the war was legitimate or troops are pulled from Iraq in reaction to the attacks last week, the result is the same: no more Spanish troops in Iraq. What I was trying to point out is that the conditions for the Socialist Workers Party to take power in Spain (and therefore pull troops from Iraq) did not appear to exist until after the attacks. The terrorists created these conditions (with their attack), the citizens of Spain reacted to these conditions in a way that the terrorists wanted (the disruption of a typical election), a new government is put into place (that will pull troops from Iraq), thus the terrorists win. I do believe that, if the terrorists have won, it is only a battle that they have won, not the war. I think the Spanish will now realize that a military solution to terrorism is not effective and will instead rely upon infiltration, investigation and law enforcement to fight terrorism. The fact that Western intelligence had no clue that these attacks were to take place shows how much work is left to be done in regards to the field of intelligence.

After leading in the polls, Spain's ruling Popular Party was ousted by voters last Sunday and replaced with the Spanish Socialist Workers. Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will take over from outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Aznar has been a loyal supporter of the US led war in Iraq. Zapatero said today he would probably withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from the "disaster" in Iraq and attacked U.S. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. This is obviously bad news for the Bush Administration but I think it's also bad news for Spain. As opposed to a continuing as a partner in the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration now appears to have to deal with another central European country that does not support their plan in Iraq and will be swinging away from a "pro-American" position to a "pro-European" position. Josh Marshall points out that the train attacks of last Thursday, instead of galvanizing the Spanish citizens to continue the fight the war on terror (the Bush Administration believes the current front line in the war on terror is in Iraq), may have caused Spain to chose to move in the opposite direction. If the train attacks of last Thursday are the work of al-Qaeda, and these attacks have caused Spain to decide to withdrawal from Iraq, it then appears that al-Qaeda has achieved a victory. This is not to say that Spain does not have the right to remove their troops from Iraq whenever they see fit. However, the central aim of terrorism is to direct public opinion into not opposing the terrorists' goals. If the purpose of the train attacks last week was to attempt to get Spain to change their policy in Iraq, and if Spain pulls out of Iraq as a result of the attacks, the terrorists will have achieved their goal.

Today John Kerry called for monthly debates with President Bush. “Surely, if the attack ads can start now, at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America’s future. We confront big issues — as big as any in our history — and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas. 2004 can’t be just another year of politics as usual." Kerry feels that these debates will elevate the campaign away from simple negative attacks ads. Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign dismissed the suggestion, arguing that Kerry is largely responsible for the campaign’s tenor. “After calling Republicans crooks and liars and spending $6.3 million on ads attacking the president, John Kerry is now calling for a civil debate." Not hard to figure out who would have more to lose.

What's wrong with Bush's people? From an interview between reporters and Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis Hastert (R-Il.) regarding the federal highway bill yesterday: Speaker Hastert: We need to go forward, we need to go to conference with the Senate, and then if they want to be involved in that conference, they certainly will be able to be involved in it. Q: But did they say they would sign? Speaker Hastert: They didn't make a commitment. Q: Did they say they would veto it? Speaker Hastert: They didn't say they would veto it. Q: Is that with the President or with the people? Speaker Hastert: That is with the President. I don't deal with his people anymore. Burned once to often I guess.

Big shouts out to my good friend Dave. I had a lunch with Dave today and he has been a big supporter of my blog for a long time now. Thanks Dave!

The UCI, governing body for professional and amateur cycling world wide, has come up with a proposal to ban the use of ear radios in racing. Their rational is that radios have made racing boring and less safe. UCI technical consultant Jean Wauthier has argued for the ban, saying, "The riders have less say, it's as if they were robots. Many races remain closed because the team leaders have decided everything. And the riders are more easily distracted. The earpiece came for safety, but Kivilev still crashed when his transmitter worked. And team directors can no longer drive the cars because they are continually screaming instructions." The riders and team directors want the radios to stay. They say that with the group of riders twice as big as in years past, narrow road and the increased use of speed bumps and roundabouts, radios have made racing much safer. I think that this is just another case where officials at the UCI want to bring back what they believe are the glory days of bike racing. Time and time again the UCI has made decisions to stifle technological developments in cycling. The Deda Synapsi handlebar is a perfect example of this. UCI rules stated that, in events outside of individual time trials, no part of the handlebar could extend beyond the brake levers. This was to prevent the use of clip-on aero bars that kept riders hands away from their brake levers. The UCI had no evidence that these clip-on bars were not safe but they banned their use regardless. After analyzing the rule, Deda designed the Synapsi handlebar. This carbon fiber bar had a section that extended in front of the stem to allow for an aero position when using this part of the bar. This part of the bar did not extend past the brake levers and Deda felt that this handlebar would be safe for riders to use in mass start events. When Deda presented these bars for inspection the UCI, after agreeing that these bars fell within their guidelines, promptly banned their use. Other UCI decisions, like both front and rear wheels must be of the same size and the bicycle frame must be the traditional diamond shape, have nothing to do with rider safety and more to do with trying to maintain a certain look for the sport. The UCI needs to get out of the way of technological innovation in cycling. It will be better for the riders, better for the sport and better for the cycling industry.

In his first assault on Kerry’s record in the Senate, President Bush has derided Kerry’s 1995 proposal to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. Bush has stated that “two years after the [first] attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war." The reason that Kerry’s $1.5 billion cut had no co-sponsors is because the Republicans instead had their own proposal to cut $3.8 billion from the intelligence budget. Specifically, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa) wanted cuts in the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). This was the same department that Kerry’s cuts were targeting. It had become public knowledge by 1995 that the NRO, an intelligence branch that designs, builds and operates spy satellites, had accumulated a surplus of funds. It was reported that the NRO had $1 billion to $1.7 billion of unspent funds and had not informed either the CIA or the Pentagon about these excess funds. The NRO had used some of these excess funds to build a new headquarters and this unnecessary expenditure prompted the CIA to launch an investigation of the NRO. When Specter proposed his plan to cut funding to the NRO, Kerry dropped his proposal and became a co-sponsor of the Specter bill along with Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Specter’s bill, which took $1.9 billion from the NRO in 1995 and another $1.9 billion over the next two years, became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the GOP leadership. So what was it that Kerry said again the other day? Something about a “crooked, lying group?”

From Knight-Ridder, the government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan. And that's the way things operate in the Bush Administration. Tell the truth? You're fired.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." George W. Bush regarding the deployment of US troops in Kosovo, Houston Chronicle April 1999

As I mentioned earlier, the train attacks today in Spain were similar to attacks that al-Qaeda were blamed for in Turkey. Spanish officials have now found a van with detonators and an Arabic-language tape containing verses from the Quran. Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper now reports that it has received a claim of responsibility for the bombings issued by a self-proclaimed "Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri" acting in the name of al-Qaeda. “This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America’s ally in its war against Islam,” the claim said. Referring to Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, the statement asked: “Aznar, where is America? Who will protect you, Britain, Japan, Italy and others from us?” Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has the next nation-state in its sights. Syria will soon be subject to sanctions under the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. Bush maintains that Syria sponsors terrorism, is developing unconventional weapons, and has failed to stop anti-American fighters from crossing into Iraq. The bombs used in the Spain attack today were backpacks filled with compressed dynamite. While the US is distracted looking for nation-states who might have unconventional weapons, small bands of terrorists are killing using the most simple means.

I spend the afternoons listening to Rush Limbaugh while I work. He usually has something interesting to say that gets me thinking. But he's kind of been weirding me out lately. Just now he referred to himself as a lovable fuzz ball. A few weeks ago he stated that he was someone that you could trust your wife and daughter with in a hotel room over night. Does Rush think he has an image problem? Trust my wife and daughter with him in a hotel room overnight? Hey Rush, that's creepy...

Ten separate explosions on three different trains killed 199 today in Madrid Spain. That's 31 more than were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. Spanish officials immediately blamed the Basque separatist group ETA for the attacks but there are some that believe that an al-Qaeda cell may have been responsible. al-Qaeda is blamed for similar simultaneous bombing attacks against British interests in Turkey in November 2003. If ETA is responsible for the attacks it would be the worst attack ever by the group, exceeding the 21 killed in a supermarket blast in Barcelona in 1987. Spain has been fighting ETA terrorist attacks since 1968. The history of ETA can be found here.

An interesting article on Salon.com, by Craig Unger, regarding the Bush approved evacuation of Saudi citizens from the United States in the days following September 11 2001. One of the Saudis in the evacuation, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, may have had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. Prince Ahmed was allowed to leave the US on September 16 2001, with the permission and blessing of the Bush Administration, without having been interrogated by the FBI. Numerous Saudi citizens were allowed to leave on special chartered flights in the days immediately after 9/11. All of these flight required special clearance by the FAA, which was directed to do so by the Bush Administration, as national flight restrictions were still in place. Roughly two dozen members of the bin Laden family were included in the group of Saudis that were allowed to depart without having been interviewed by the FBI. As Unger puts it, "it was an inauspicious start to the just-declared war on terror."

A friend of mine sent me a 1787 quote from Alexander Tyler. Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh around the time the original 13 states adopted their new constitution, had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage. I have often thought about the fact that our American Democracy is simply an experiment in government, there is no guarantee that it will succeed. Most of us take our current civilization completely for granted. I would bet that, at the apex of their civilizations, the majority of Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans all took it for granted that things would never change. Undoubtedly there were those who warned against overindulgence and weakness, who warned that each citizen is responsible for his nation, and that that responsibility cannot be shrugged off on officials. But to those who warned of impending trouble there was then as now the smug sneer, 'It can't happen here.'

Paul Krugman's graphic from his March 9th NYT Op-Ed column. To their credit, each Administration job forecast gets closer to reality. It appears that the failure of job creation is to by laid at the foot of the media.

Bush’s proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage may have resulted in a softening of the opposition to gay marriage. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll has found that opposition to gay marriage is now 61%, down 3% in the past three weeks. Support for the Constitutional Amendment has also dropped 3% moving from 53% to 50%. Of greater significance, those against civil unions has dropped from 57% in July to 42% now. Those in favor of Civil Unions has moved from 40% to 54%. My feeling remains that civil union should be a viable option that offers all the economic and social benefits of marriage. If civil union is thus allowed, the controversial issue of gay marriage can be taken off the table.

Stage 4 of Paris-Nice was cancelled this morning due to 24° F temperatures and falling snow. Northern Europe seems to be staying in the grip of winter longer than usual this year. Het Volk had to be cancelled on February 28th due to snow.

In a debate with Vice President Al Gore in October 2000, Candidate Bush said: "I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country." 1997 CNN story regarding Clinton contributors staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. 2004 Associated Press story regarding Bush contributors staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. I guess Bush never had the opportunity to move that sign back to the Oval Office…

I received my 1000th visitor today. I did not expect to reach this number so quickly. Any guess as to which day Calpundit linked to my site? I thank all those that have come by to check it out and I appreciate all those who check back regularly.

Frank Luntz had an article in The Hill on March 4th regarding the Estate Tax, or as he refers to it, the Death Tax. The estate tax is applied to estates that exceed $1 million in value for an individual or $2 million for couples. Businesses can pass on $5 million before the estate tax is applied, for farms the figure is $8 million. Luntz states that the majority of Americans would vote to repeal the estate tax “even after being told that the death tax affects only the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.” This is understandable with the misleading statements he makes regarding the estate tax. “The most frequent victims of the death tax come from the most credible professions in the country — farmers and small business owners.” The Responsible Wealth web site reports that only 3 in 10,000 estates are left in which a family business or farm forms the majority of the estate. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that family farms and businesses are already eligible for special treatment under existing law. For instance, estates containing family farms and businesses may use special rules to reduce or exempt estate tax debt. In addition, when the business or farm accounts for at least 35 percent of the estate, tax payments can be deferred for up to 14 years. Tax relief for family farms and businesses can be provided without repealing the estate tax. The New York Times reports that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. “The government taxes their income, taxes their savings, and taxes their investments. Then, when it comes time to pass on that legacy, the government steps in one last time, seizing as much as half of a person’s life’s work.” Unrealized capital gains, which form the majority of the value of the largest estates, have never been subject to taxation as income. Repealing the estate tax means that these gains would never be taxed. “Even after being told that the death tax affects only the wealthiest 2% of Americans — people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump — fully 58% of the electorate would vote for a candidate who wants to repeal the death tax, while only 32% would vote for the candidate who wanted to keep the tax.” Bill Gates, for one, is fully in favor of the estate tax. So is billionaire Warren Buffett and David Rockefeller Sr. The estate tax encourages billionaires to pass most of their fortunes to charity to reduce their estate tax debt. Given this information, the 58% in favor of repeal drops considerably. “Virtually everyone in America and a majority in Congress believe the death tax is bad policy.” No they don’t. The estate tax is fair. It is collected from those most able to pay. It prevents the creation of family dynasties that would distort our democracy and limit economic opportunities for succeeding generations. The fact is that the estate tax is a tax on unearned income. The estate tax generated $30 billion in revenue in the year 2000. The elimination of the estate tax will further shift the tax burden from those that pay taxes on unearned income (estate tax, tax on stock dividends, tax on interest, etc.) to those that pay taxes on earned income (income tax, payroll tax). That is not just bad policy. During times of federal deficit spending it’s a recipe for economic ruin.

The temporary constitution was signed yesterday in Iraq and the ink was not even dry before the criticism began. Turkey stated that the Iraqi constitution “increases our concerns” in regards to the amount of autonomy provided to the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Turkey is worried that the 18 provinces in Iraq will isolate themselves into separate ethnic territories. Three of these provinces are predominantly Kurdish. If these Kurdish regions are allowed a degree of autonomy from Baghdad it could provide the inspiration for the Kurds within Turkey to begin to demand more autonomy for themselves. The signing of the temporary constitution nearly broke down completely over Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s concerns regarding the provision that allowed any three Iraqi provinces to reject a new constitution when it is crafted. Sistani, one of only five living grand ayatollahs and the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq, believes that the US occupation of Iraq is illegal, and that everything the Interim Governing Council does is illegitimate. Sistani issued a religious edict on Monday saying the document will gain legitimacy only when adopted by an elected assembly. Tensions between Iraqi ethnic communities is at an all time high following recent bombings attacks and the failure to sign the temporary constitution last Friday. It’s certain that the US is going to begin pulling out of Iraq in June. I can’t help but believe that Iraq is simply going to dissolve once US troops depart.

Spalding Gray's body was pulled out of the East River last weekend. A pretty sad end for a brilliant guy. But it seems like we see that all the time, a sad end for a brilliant individual. Watch Straight No Chaser some time and you will see the obvious signs of the mental illness that would eventually force Thelonious Monk to retire from music in 1972. I wonder what kind of life Monk, and Gray, would have had if their mental ailments could have been effectively treated? But would their creativity suffer with this treatment? Would they even accept treatment if it affected their ability to produce their art? Maybe true brilliance has to come from true suffering...that really is pretty sad.

An interesting poll today from USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup showed that: - Bush's approval rating fell back to an all-time low of 49%. It has floated in a narrow range, just above or below 50%, since mid-January. - 50% of those polled felt Kerry would better handle the economy, as opposed to 42% for Bush. On the federal budget deficit, 53% felt Kerry would better handle the issue, as opposed to 37% for Bush. Kerry got a 51-36 nod over Bush on which candidate would better handle Social Security. And 55% felt Kerry would better handle health care issues, as opposed to 36% for Bush. - Bush polled better than Kerry on handling terrorism issues (60%-33%), the situation in Iraq (54%-39%), gay marriage (46%-41%) and foreign affairs (50%-42%). - 65% said economic conditions were more important to their votes than terrorism. That is a substantial increase from the 53% who felt that way in mid-January. - If the election were today, Kerry would beat Bush, by eight percentage points — 52% to 44% — among likely voters. Yet a majority of Americans are skeptical that Kerry will actually win the election. When asked who they felt would win, regardless of whom they supported, 52% of those polled said Bush would win and 42% said Kerry would be the victor. Is it skepticism or cynicism? I think we can expect the Presidential campaign this year to be pretty ugly. I certainly expect a lot more of this type of thing to be coming soon.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Tim Russert and Mary Matalin had this conversation: MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, you're a conservative Republican. Your deficits are $500 billion. That's being left to your two daughters. And you take the number of people on Social Security and double them, in 15 years we'll be drowning in debt, far more than anyone could ever imagine. How can a conservative Republican defend that? MS. MATALIN: Because it's not going to happen in 15 years. The deficit, as a raw number, is irrelevant. The deficit number as a percentage of GDP is what is relevant. And at 5.5 percent, this is a deficit that, relative to previous recessionary deficits, is totally manageable and below, in fact, the deficits of previous recessionary periods. We have to grow the economy. The economy is growing. Okay, deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, I'll buy that. Let's look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP from 1962 to 2004 as presented by the Congressional Budget Office:

Well, she is right that, at 5.5%, the deficit is not as bad as one previous recession. That was in 1983, in the midst of Reagan's deficit ballooning budgets. Using Matalin's logic, the current Federal Deficit as a percentage of GDP is the second worst since 1962. Other than stating that "The economy is growing", I have not heard or seen a plan from the Bush Administration to reign in these deficits. As opposed to the Clinton Administration, Bush does not have a team in place that takes the Federal Deficit seriously. Keep in mind that the current deficit numbers do not even include the military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deficit spending is bad and getting worse. If this situation is not dealt with before the bulk of the baby boomers begin to retire we will be looking at an economic disaster.

BOOK REVIEW - American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Steven Emerson The events of September 11 2001, while shocking, should have been of no surprise. Islamic fundamentalists have been attempting acts of terrorism against the United States for over 10 years now. - January 1993, a Pakistani shot five CIA employees outside the agency’s headquarters, killing two. - February 1993, the first attack on the World Trade Center killed six and caused over 1000 others to suffer smoke inhalation. Four were found guilty and 118 others were listed as coconspirators. - June 1993, nine were arrested for plotting a Day of Terror in New York City. Plans included the bombing of the United Nations building, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge and a federal office building. - March 1994, a Lebanese man opened fire on a bus filled with 15 Hasidic Jews on the Brooklyn Bridge, killing one and injuring three more. - February 1997, a Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building killing one tourist and injuring six others. - July 1997, New York City Police foiled a plan by a Palestinian to bomb the subway system. These attacks, in addition to September 11, were all perpetrated by individuals and groups based within the United States. In his book, Emerson brings to light Islamic organizations, operating within the US, using the freedoms of this country to plot, organize and execute terrorist acts in the US and worldwide. The Muslim Arab Youth Association, the American Islamic Group, the Islamic Cultural Workshop, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Muslin Council, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American Muslim Alliance and the Islamic Society of North America are all organizations operating within the United States helping to support global terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizballah and al Qaeda. It is tempting, when the United States is attacked, to look for the traditional enemy state in which to launch a counter attack against. However, this book further proves that the major battle with terrorism against the United States is not with nation-states but instead with small terrorist bands throughout the world in addition to right here at home.

Reuters has the February job growth story mentioned earlier (see below!) right here.

The press battle between World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) President Dick Pound and Lance Armstrong continues today with Armstrong's interview today with CyclingNews.com. On January 28th, Pound was quoted in the French newspaper Le Monde stating "The public knows that the riders of the Tour de France and the others take forbidden substances." Armstrong, who states that he has always supported the efforts of WADA, replied on March 5th in an open letter to Pound "...for Mr. Pound to assert that I take drugs, or that my fellow riders in the Tour do, is simply careless and unacceptable" Armstrong acknowledged that cycling has had doping problems but said the sport has cleaned up. He noted that the Tour de France tested him regularly and that tests are controlled by the French Ministry of Sports. "The Tour de France is one of the most controlled sports events in the world," he said, adding that the majority of cycling tests by the WADA come back clean. "I have said this before and I will say it again: I believe that I am the most tested athlete on this planet, I have never had a single positive doping test, and I do not take performance-enhancing drugs. I ask you focus your efforts on the fight against doping rather than spending your time accusing innocent athletes without any evidence other than your own speculation," Armstrong said. In response today, Pound issued his own letter on the WADA website. He states that he is "happy to see that you acknowledge that cycling 'had its problems.' While it’s tempting to believe that cycling has cleaned up its act, as you so claim, recent incidents suggest otherwise." Pounds then writes about the recent situation with the French team Cofidis in which members of the team and support staff were found to allegedly be trafficking in doping substances. Pound then states that his comments were not intended to be a personal attack on Armstrong. "At no time have I spoken out personally against you or your accomplishments, which makes your strongly-worded personal attack somewhat of a surprise. If, indeed, we share the same desire to see all sports free of drugs, I should have thought that we should both be supporting a harmonization of the anti-doping rules and that you should not be making a claim, about your sport generally, that suggests the problem is all but solved." In follow up with CyclingNews.com today after stage 3 of the Vuelta a Murcia (Spain), Armstrong stated that the intention of his letter was to support his peers in professional cycling, the other teams, race organizers and fans of professional cycling. "I don't know how many guys came up to me today and said 'thank you'. And that's what this open letter was for. It was not a defense of me, but it was a defense of our sport." Armstrong said that, while Pound did not mention him by name, "he did something a lot worse than that; he did something two hundred times worse than that. Because he mentioned all of the [Tour de France] riders. WADA is an organization of action, it's not a PR organization. I am a huge advocate of WADA. If they went away, I would be one really upset guy. But I think WADA needs to instill confidence in the athletes. Athletes need to be confident that WADA's programs are run by equal and fair and straightforward people."

Kevin Drum was kind enough to mention me in one of his posts today. If you have not had a chance to read Kevin's work I highly recommend it. You can find his blog here. It is also one of the permanent links on the left side of my page. I welcome all who are reading my blog for the first time. Please check back again, thanks!

ABC radio news just reported that, of the 21,000 jobs created in February, all of them were government jobs. Private sector job growth was flat. I guess we can't knock Bush for growing the government, it appears to be his job creation program.

Air Force General Charles Wald seems to be reaching for something. Maybe Janet (Ms. Jackson if you're nasty), is just out of camera view.

The US economy is growing! A new report from the Federal Reserve states that "economic activity continued to expand in January and February." Factory activity rose in 11 of the 12 regional Fed districts. Consumer spending on general merchandise rose in most of the Fed’s regions. The US Stock Market is again up over 10,000 from the low point of 7591 in September 2002. The Bush Administration’s 2004 Economic report states that “Americans have responded to each challenge and now we have the results: renewed confidence, strong growth, new jobs and a mounting prosperity that will reach every corner of America.” With the exception of job growth, which is anemic at best, things are really looking up for the US Economy! Or is it? There is an issue lurking out there that no one is talking about. The issue is Outstanding Consumer Credit. Outstanding Consumer Credit (includes credit cards and car loans but not mortgages) hit $1.98 trillion in October 2003. Look at the numbers taken from the Federal Reserves own website.

It’s understood that the world economy is leveraged to the US economy. Upturns and downturns in the US economy affect the global economy. US Consumer spending accounts for nearly 70% percent of the US Gross Domestic Product. The world economy is leveraged to the US consumer, and the US consumer is leveraged to the hilt. The current consumer debt bubble dwarfs the US Stock Market asset bubble that burst in the year 2000. Consider these points: - Household debt as a percentage of assets reached the historic high of 22.6% in the first quarter of 2003. - The Federal Reserve revealed that personal savings dropped to a mere 2% of after-tax income in the first half of 2003. - Americans currently spend a near-record 18.1% of their after-tax income to cover all debts, with debt service taking the biggest share of income from the lowest-income families. - The percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure is expected to nearly double from the year 2000 to 2003. - Credit card delinquencies, or missed payments, reached a all time record of 4.09% in November 2003, and the delinquency rate for all of 2003 will rise to 4.34% from 4.08% in 2000. - The number of car repossessions in 2003 rose to a record 1.3 per month—per 1,000 loans—from 0.84 in 2000. - The fastest-growing group of indebted consumers are those 65 and older, as more and more people retire, or attempt to retire, relying on inadequate Social Security payments as their only source of retirement income. - Nearly one third of bankruptcy filers owed an entire year’s salary on their credit cards. When asked if they have plans to rein in their spending, 39% of Americans stated that did not, down from 43% in February 2002, a Cambridge Consumer Credit Index survey said. "The haves either don't use their credit cards at all or feel secure about paying off their credit card bills when they arrive," Jordan Goodman, a spokesman for the Cambridge group, said in a statement. "The growing number of have-nots, however, are being forced to borrow to pay for their daily necessities, and are getting deeper into debt." The survey also reveled that 49 percent of those who are taking on more debt said they are borrowing more because they do not have the money to pay in full when the credit card bills arrive. That figure is up from 44 percent for the same period in 2003. Outstanding Consumer Credit is a problem that is getting worse every year. If this bubble bursts, the effect would be felt on a global economic scale.

The bus strike in the Twin Cities rolls into day two. The biggest sticking point in the negotiation between the Metropolitan Council and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005 is the cost of health benefits for active employees and health benefits for retired employees. Health care costs have exploded over the last ten years. More employers are cutting back on the health care they provide to their employees. This means that these employees have to pick up the financial slack. We hear lots of reasons why but I wanted to try and find out what has caused the real significant rise in costs. I have a good friend that works in the health care industry so I sent him a list of potential causes for rising costs to see if he thought they were to blame. Q: People are living longer and running into old age health problems that previously were not as common? A: No, longer-lived people tend to pass suddenly and quietly. Q: People are less healthy and running into issues due to obesity and other lack of fitness problems? A: Yes, but this is not a huge factor, yet - the obesity bubble is still emerging in the elderly. The truly old are from the WWII generation and more moderate in their eating habits. Q: Advances in medicine have created the ability to test for and treat illnesses that were previously untreatable? A: This is one of the biggest factors. Two decades ago, it was still somewhat normal for someone to have a 'bad heart' that would someday kill them suddenly with a massive coronary, probably caused by a horrible occlusion or something else now treated by the new field of interventional cardiology. Don't get me started on heart/lung transplants and devices, we'd be here all day. People with bad asthma were practical shut-ins during certain seasons. Now, people EXPECT to be 'fixed' (people don't expect healthcare to help them feel GREAT, people expect healthcare to get them back to NORMAL). Who do you know who will amiably accept that nature dealt them a bad hand, or that their smoking results in negative health outcomes? Fighting emphysema caused by smoking? We do it, people expect it. Q: Malpractice insurance is so high and these insurance premiums are passed on to the consumer? A: This is a contributing factor, not a huge one, and is one of several factors responsible for structural shifts in how care is delivered (like large self-insured practices, as opposed to small, friendly, local practices), but is generally trotted out by tort-reform-minded Republicans. There are various agendas here, I think mostly centered on helping INSURANCE COMPANIES (yes, it seems backwards, but we live in a non-speak age) and sticking it to trial lawyers, who tend to be rich but Democrats (probably due to having a good idea how large corporations really work). Q: Health care service providers test for everything so they won't be sued for misdiagnosis? A: No. We're a healthcare delivery system (we treat people). We have contracted relationships with HMOs, insurance companies and large business entities to provide healthcare at discounted costs (also known as. 'market capitation') along STANDARDIZED lines. We trade volume for price, and everything is carefully controlled by the payor. In other words, if you have X diagnosis, we do A,B, and C. The HMO will not pay for anything else. We tend not to deliver capitated care (as opposed to indigent or self-pay) that will go unreimbursed. And since the capitated (and employee) care is the huge bulk of our work, it is the de facto standard of care. So, we only have latitude of care during our negotiations (where we fight for what care is right for a given diagnosis) or in special cases, which are rare, and in which we have to communicate constantly with the insurer to figure out what they'll cover and keep their insured informed of that. They tend to blame us anyway. There are other factors driving standardization of care, which is generally established by 'best practice' medical provider teams, such as PATIENT SAFETY. The notion is that we can eliminate human error in care delivery by telling physicians and nurses what to do, and force them to satisfy this care standard through interaction with our electronic medical records systems. The EMRs actually walk providers through care delivery, insisting on certain results for certain procedures, or insisting on certain med levels for certain product/diagnosis/pt combos. Q: Health care companies just want to make more money? A: My company is a non-profit, but wants to (and is allowed to) make some money which needs to be re-invested in new equipment, remodeling, new clinics for the growing suburbs, etc. We have a target of making 6% return on total revenue. The best we've done in the past 5 yrs is 2%, which is considered stellar for a delivery system in a capitated market (most markets don't have HMOs, California, Texas, Minnesota and New Jersey are the most thoroughly capitated). In other words, delivery systems are doing very poorly. But people tend to push cost cuts to the delivery system for a couple of structural but mostly political reasons. Because the Blue Crosses, the Medicas, the United Healths make windfall profits, and very few people seriously talk about taking the knife to them. Even though EVERY healthcare dollar spent is a HEALTHCARE DOLLAR spent, whether it's in our hospital, in an outsourced behavioral health benefit with shaky oversight (hard to use benefit) like United Health sells. Q: Did I miss anything? A: The factor you didn't mention, but that's packed into the factor of advancing tech, is the spiraling cost of pharmaceuticals and to a less extent medical devices. Remember Claritin? Quite effective, quite expensive. Why should allergy sufferers suffer? Who should pay? Well, compound it this way: When the manufacturer's patent runs out, they come out with something only incrementally more effective, but in the case of Clarinex is many times more expensive than the already expensive (but going down) price of Claritin. And in order to overcome this hurdle, the pharmaceutical markets the hell out of the new product, promising grand but nebulous benefits (have to pay lawyers to craft the message so as not to run afoul of regulators) so patients will ask their doctors for Clarinex. Now replay this for blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, etc. Pharmaceuticals are built into our costs - we certainly can't raise costs as quickly as pharmaceuticals costs go up, we'd be broke in a year. So, we try to offload every script we can to a consumer pharmacy, so it's not reflected in our costs, but rather your health plan cost. Your employer and health plan can't eat these costs, so you health coverage costs have been increasing double digits every year for care most of us don't use. Last factor - we're all using healthcare more, mostly for lifestyle maintenance. I don't want to wait until my body fights off this infection because (take your pick) I can't miss work, I'm going on vacation in three weeks, etc, etc. There are a myriad of issues. It's hard to get off the dime because, like gun control, it gets at who we are as a people, our national culture, and lots of it isn't pretty, and more of it has unintended ramifications, like squelching innovation and human potential. The costs of better medical technology and the rising costs of pharmaceuticals seem to be the major factors in the increased costs of health care. So how do we keep health care affordable for Americans? More on that next week.

Members of the House of Representatives seem to be suffering from diarrhea of the mouth the last couple of weeks. Last Thursday we had Representative Corrine Brown telling a Mexican-American Assistant Secretary of State that "You all look alike to me." Yesterday we had Representative Tom Cole saying that voting against President Bush in November would be like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War II. "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election." Cole was quoted as asking what Hitler might have thought had Franklin Roosevelt not been re-elected in 1944. I don't recall Republican candidates forgoing a run against Franklin Roosevelt during World War II in the name of national unity. The beauty of our democracy is that we can continue to defend our interests and protect our security while still participating in the democratic process. Representative Cole must have the United States confused with Nazi Germany.

Now for something a bit lighter. There have been five cyclists that have won the Tour de France five times. Jacques Anquetil (1957, 1961-64), Eddy Merckx (1969-1972, 1974), Bernard Hinault (1978-79, 1981-82, 1985), Miguel Indurain (1991-95) and Lance Armstrong (1999-2003). Only Indurain and Armstrong have won the Tour five times in succession. This year Armstrong is going for a record sixth win. He is not only facing some formidable opponents this year, he is also trying to buck the history of the race. Each of the previous five time winners have attempted to win a sixth Tour. None have been able to do it. Of course, Lance is the wonderboy. The professional bike racer who got terminal cancer, beat it and then went on to win the Tour de France. He made his first four wins almost look easy but in 2003 his victory was not a forgone conclusion. He was attacked in the mountains by Alexandre Vinokourov (3rd), Haimar Zubeldia (5th) and Iban Mayo (6th). He was also pushed the entire race up until the final time trial, on stage 19, by Jan Ullrich (2nd). This time trial was 2 kilometers longer than the stage 12 time trial where Ullrich beat Armstrong by 1:36. Armstrong only had a 1:05 lead over Ullrich before the start of the time trial. Weather conspired to eliminate any advantage sought by Ullrich as he crashed in the final 10 kilometers losing 11 seconds to Armstrong. The final margin of victory that Armstrong held over Ullrich was 1:01 when they arrived at the finish of the Tour. Ullrich proved that Armstrong can be beaten. For 2004 Ullrich has rejoined the T-Mobile team and will be riding alongside Vinokourov in the Tour. If Ullrich and Vinokourov, last year 2nd and 3rd, can effectively work together they can certainly put enough pressure on Armstrong to cause him to crack. Will Armstrong make a break with history? We shall see in July.

Dick Morris, in an article posted on The Hill today, writes about some of Kerry’s weaknesses in his campaign against President Bush. He writes “…while his anti-Kerry ads are running, the president himself needs to make Americans understand that the war on terror is still atop our national agenda. He needs to elevate the sense of threat so that his advantage as a war president begins to count.” By the November elections, should there be no additional terrorists attacks within the United States, it will have been just over three years since September 11 2001. Based on this, there are two distinctly different messages that President Bush can deliver. The first would be to say, “We learned our lesson. The U.S. is not immune to terrorism. We have finally dedicated the resources necessary to fight terrorism and it appears that we have been successful, so far, at preventing further attacks on the U.S.” The second, and according to Morris the more strategically advantageous tactic, would be to say, “We have been lucky so far. But our luck could run out any day now. Those terrorists are out there and they are waiting for a chance to strike at us. We are just barely holding on by our fingernails and if you vote to change administrations you are just asking for trouble.” The fight against terrorism does not appear to me to be a winning campaign issue for any President. The Bush Administration is either effectively fighting terrorism against the United States or it is not. If the Administration is effective then it is simply doing the job that should have been done before September 11 2001 ever took place. Should the Bush Administration be given credit for now doing what it should have been doing all along? If the Administration is not being effective at fighting terrorism then it should be replaced. Morris continues with ”Kerry has also made a big mistake in backing the criminal-justice approach to terrorism, seeking to transform the war on terror into a series of DEA-style busts. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains.” This statement shows a cynical campaign tactic, or a fundamental lack of understanding regarding terrorism against the United States. Either way, the public needs further education regarding the war on terrorism. Voters are certainly more comfortable associating terrorism with a nation state. This nation state can be attacked and the problem can then appear to be solved. However, the true fight against terrorism is indeed a hunt for small criminal bands. Not just in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in the desert of Sudan, the cities of western Europe and even in towns across the United States. The United States has gone to war with two different nations since September 11 2001. In the first, troops were sent to Afghanistan to attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. However, Afghanistan was hardly a nation-state sponsoring terrorism. Once the Soviet Union pulled out of the country in 1989, Afghanistan had dissolved into a ‘nation’ controlled by various tribal groups. One of these groups, the Taliban was protecting bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives. The U.S., along with other Afghanis (the Northern Alliance), fought the Taliban in the attempt to capture bin Laden and dismantle the al-Qaeda and Taliban operation. The Taliban was in no way the governing power of Afghanistan as they controlled only a small part of the country. Since defeating the Taliban, the U.S. has been trying to assemble a nation-wide government for Afghanistan to prevent it from once again deteriorating into tribal rule. The United States next went to war in Iraq. While the regime of Saddam Hussein had been a menace to its neighbor countries Iran and Kuwait, and the Iraqi people had suffered greatly under the oppression of Hussein since he came to power in 1979, Iraq obviously did not pose a serious enough threat to the United States until the Bush Administration began calling Iraq “the central front in the war on terrorism” in the fall of 2002. Making the connection between Iraq as nation-state that sponsored terrorism against the United States, the Bush Administration stated: - There was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. - Saddam was connected to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab Zarqawi. - Saddam's regime was accused of helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. - September 11 2001 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer. - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) as well as the means to deliver these weapons and Saddam was prepared to share both with al-Qaeda. Since the ground war in Iraq began on March 21 2003, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, or equipment to prepare such weapons, have been found. This Knight Ridder article dispels the rest of the arguments listed above. While disposing of Saddam Hussein is certainly in the long term best interest of the Iraqi people, it appears to have been nothing more than a distraction in the real fight against terrorism toward the United States. Morris realizes that the real fight against terrorism is a fight that the American public will not see. It’s a fight that the American public will not even be aware of unless stories of thwarted attacks are made public. The fight will indeed be in the hunt for, the investigation of, and the elimination of criminal bands that set up shop anywhere in the world. However, this real fight against terrorism will not be one that can be detailed during a President campaign. A war against nation-states, where the enemy of the United States can be made clear, is a campaign issue that can capture the public attention. The questions that need to be asked about such a war include: - Is the fight against terrorism actually against nation-states or small groups of individuals scattered throughout the world? - Can we justify the attack on a nation when our intelligence about this nation and its involvement in terrorism may be suspect? - Do we have the military resources to continue to invade, fight and occupy each country we believe is involved in terrorism against the United States? - Do the American people really support a country after country, invasion after invasion, war after war, occupation after occupation battle against terrorism? - Will the fight against nation-states prevent future terrorist acts against the United States? The fight against terrorism is not simply a nation versus nation issue. The real fight against terrorism involves investigations, tactics and battles that are much more difficult to explain. Stating that nation-states are the principal threat against the United States may make for an easy campaign issue. Deceiving the public, however, regarding the true fight against terrorists is inaccurate, distracting and dangerous. It will be interesting to see if the debate regarding the war on terrorism discusses these issues.

Kevin Drum had a posting yesterday regarding the Bush Administration’s missed opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi. Obviously fighting terrorism is not an easy task. There are those that lay the attacks of September 11 2001 squarely at the feet of the Clinton Administration. They state that President Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism. Those that make these statements ignore these facts: - In 1993, in the aftermath of the first World Trade Center bombing, Clinton proposed broad antiterrorism measures, few of which were enacted by Congress until 1995 following the Oklahoma City bombing. Still, the Republican controlled Congress refused to agree to roving wiretaps and identifying markers on explosives. - In 1996, in the aftermath of the crash of TWA Flight #800, Clinton set up a Presidential Commission, chaired by Vice President Al Gore, to review and make recommendations in regards to improving airport security in the United States. Strict airport security measures were proposed by this commission but these recommendations were blocked by the airline industry and by the Republican controlled Congress. - In 1996 Clinton signed a bill that levied sanctions against firms that did business in the energy sector with terrorist states. Previously unknown Federal programs, protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure and to curb weapons of mass destruction, received $3.6 billion over the next four years and traditional counter terrorism funding was increased by 43%. Clinton insisted on spending whatever intelligence agencies believed was necessary to fight terrorism. - In 1998, after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa, Clinton authorized a lethal campaign against Osama bin Laden. The purpose of this authorization was the killing, instead of capturing, of bin Laden as well as several other al-Qaeda senior operatives. - In 1998 missile strikes were authorized against bin Laden and an al-Qaeda factory of weapons of mass destruction. These missiles missed killing bin Laden by less than one hour. - In 1998 the Clinton administration entered into negotiations with the Taliban to get them to hand over bin Laden. Clinton personally demanded that Pakistani President Nawaz Sharif do more to help capture bin Laden. Sharif was overthrown by Pervev Musharraf in October of 1999 and Musharraf promptly halted all efforts to capture bin Laden. - Between 1998 and 2000, Clinton kept Los Angeles class attack submarines stationed off the cost of Pakistan. On three separate occasions, missiles were prepared for launch against bin Laden but each time bin Laden moved before action could be taken. - In 1999 Clinton demanded that military plans be prepared for U.S. soldiers to be inserted into Afghanistan to kill bin Laden. The Pentagon made it clear that this scenario was impractical by developing overwhelming plans that had no chance of being executed. Clinton then asked for a Special Forces operation plan. The Pentagon replied that a small operation plan was too risky. Any option involving ground troops to kill bin Laden was ruled out by the Pentagon until after the events of September 11 2001. - In 2000 Clinton proposed new laws to ban American residents and firms from doing business with banks in countries that were havens for al-Qaeda money laundering. While the bill passed the House of Representatives, the Senate killed the bill at the behest of Republican Phil Gramm, who argued that the bill was “totalitarian.” Clinton then tried to choke al-Qaeda’s tax havens by reaching an agreement with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development but this agreement was killed by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration argued that closing these tax havens would also prevent Americans from being able to tax advantage of tax free investment opportunities. - Clinton directed every dollar that he could generate from Congress towards the FBI Counter terrorism team. He was told by the FBI that this money was being put to productive use. Clinton, using information provided to him by the FBI and the Office of Management and Budget, declared on numerous occasions that the number of agents working on counter terrorism has more than doubled. However, after September 11 2001 the FBI acknowledged that, despite hundreds of millions of dollars of budget increases over several years, the agency had no more agents working on counter terrorism cases than it had in 1996. The FBI had, on its on accord, directed these new personnel to their cyber security unit fighting computer hackers and internet fraud. FBI Director Louis Freeh and Assistant Director Robert Bryant were antagonistic against President Clinton and, instead of directing energies towards counter terrorism, helped provide Congressional Republicans with ammunition in their battle to impeach Clinton. - Despite these setbacks, during the Millenium Celebration of December 31st 1999, Osama bin Laden plots against Los Angeles International Airport, the Amman Radisson Hotel in Jordan, holy sites in Israel and the USS The Sullivans were all thwarted. Maybe those that have criticized the Clinton Administration’s inability to prevent the attacks of September 11 2001 will realize that fighting terrorism is harder than it looks. Especially when you also have to fight those inside your own government.

Josh Marshall pointed out this Dick Cheney quote today: "If the Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two or three years, the kind of tax increases that both Kerry and Edwards have talked about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had.” Here is a snapshot of the kind of job growth, as reflected by the U.S. Unemployment Rate, that we have seen under the Bush Administration.

Maybe Cheney is only talking about the unemployment rate drop of 948,000 since June of 2003 instead of the unemployment rate rise of 2,757,000 since October of 2000. I guess we are only supposed to look at the success that this administration has had since June of 2003...

BOOK REVIEW - The Price of Loyalty, Ron Suskind I'll have more from this book in the next couple of weeks, but I found this inside look at the Bush Administration fascinating. Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary between January 2001 and December 2002, found himself in a no-win situation as a member of the Bush Cabinet. O'Neill, along with other cabinet staff like Colin Powell and Christine Todd Whitman, found himself outside the inner circle of advisers to President Bush. As an "honest broker" of information to the President, O'Neill attempted to find rational solutions to the real problems in the US economy. However, as O'Neill attempted to make his policy recommendations, he would find himself bumping against the preordained policies that had been agreed upon by the President and his political advisors (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes). It became clear to O'Neill that, as opposed to trying to determine what might be the best policy for the United States, the Bush Administration was only interested in perusing their particular ideology and what best served their political base. O'Neill is not simply a dismissed member of the Bush Administration with an ax to grind. His work experience is impressive. O'Neill served as chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999 retiring in 2000. From 1985 to 1987 he was president of International Paper and between 1977 to 1985 he was vice president of International Paper. Between 1974 and 1977 he was deputy director at the US Office of Management and Budget under the Nixon and Ford Administrations. I recommend this book.

Stuck in Chicago right now waiting for a flight back home. One of the (few) things I that enjoy about traveling is people watching. It always amazes me to sit in a place where people converge, coming from all different places around the world and traveling to the same, and just observe the average human moving through their life. The variety of airport travelers is a constant source of entertainment for me. I hope to be home later today.