For those not taking an exam at 12:30 tomorrow

Forum on Iraq: War and the Draft

When: Wednesday, October 20th, 12:30 - 1:45pm

Where: Science Hall, Science 200-A
With: Mike Hoffmann and Sue Niederer

As Americans turn against the Iraq War, and with Iraq looming as a major foreign policy issue in the upcoming presidential election, a Forum on Iraq will address the issues and policies of concern to the William Paterson community as these relate to the Iraq War. In particular, the issues concerning the Bush Administration's rationale for going to War in Iraq, the prosecution of the War, and the possible return of the military draft [with direct relevance for the students/faculty of the William Paterson community] will be addressed by our invited speakers. Recent on-campus military recruiters attest to the immediacy of the draft issue at WPU. A question and answer period will follow the presentations.

Returned ex-Marine Mike Hoffmann, president of Iraq Veterans Against the War [IVAW], will give a firsthand account of the situation in Iraq. Mike was part of a combat unit near Tikrit. Following his military service, Mike helped organize the national organization IVAW;

Our second speaker is Sue Niederer of New Jersey, whose 24-year old son Lt. Seth Dvorin died earlier this year in Iraq. Niederer was recently arrested by the Secret Service while attending a rally with First Lady Laura Bush in Hamilton, N.J. While wearing a T-shirt that read Bush killed my son, Niederer asked the First Lady why, if Iraq was so important, her two daughters were not enlisting in the Army.

All are Invited. Classes Welcome.

Refreshments will be provided.

Sponsoring Organizations: Anthropology Dept.; Anthropology Club; Political Science Dept.; Public Policy and Intl. Affairs Graduate Program; Women's Studies Dept.; Organization of Latin American Students (OLAS); Communication Dept.; English Dept.; Feminist Collective; Race and Gender Project; Sociology Dept.; Sociology Club; Political Science Club; Community Health Dept.; United Asian Americans.

For more information: Arlene Scala (201) 894-9391 or scalaa@wpunj.edu

The Flu

From now on I will no longer accept "the flu" as an excuse to miss class. Remember: the free market solves all problems and God has chosen the leader of the free world. If you are so weak as to defy both of them and catch this virus which kills 36,000 Americans a year, then you deserve your fate.

And don't bother to rely on those scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, from the "reality-based community" who hate America. Ron Suskind finally figures out the secrets of the universe:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

So quit your whining, coughing, sneezing, and studying. Got it?

If you are going to read one book ...

on the war on terror, the War in Iraq, Bush Administration foreign policy, etc., it should be Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. I just finished it and it is as complete an account as we are likely to get in one book for quite some time. Hersh is an impecable reporter. He made his reputation as the free-lance writer who exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Since September 11, 2001, he has been the single most important investigative reporter in the world with his continuing coverage in the New Yorker. This book brings it all together in a seamless narrative. He opens with Abu Ghraib (which he, more than any other single reporter, is responsible for exposing), but then takes us back to September 11th and moves forward. Great insights not only on Afghanistan and Iraq, but Pakistan (remember those nukes?), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so on.

Speaking of reporters, I am currently reading A Grand Delusion: America's Descent Into Vietnam by Robert Mann, a very lucid and detailed narrative of the decision making by U.S. government officials regarding Vietnam from World War II onward. While there is much to comment on regarding the book, I just want to mention here one thing that struck me: as early as 1959, when the first series of articles by Knight-Ridder reporters came out debunking the rosy scenario in Vietnam that officials were feeding our citizens, the reporters were branded as unpatriotic and treasonous, aiding and abetting our enemies in Moscow and Peking. While reporters like David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, Malcolm Browne and Peter Arnett started to provide very detailed (and accurate) reports of how things were really going in the war ca. 1961 (by accompanying and interviewing the U.S. troops who fought alongside the Vietnamese), U.S. embassy and military officials for the most part kept feeding the White House misleading statistics and upbeat assessments. Importantly, none of these reporters was at the time against U.S. involvement; they simply reported how incompetent, corrupt, and unpopular our South Vietnamese allies were and how untenable the military situation was. Kennedy, for one, knew these reporters were providing more accurate information, but what he (and later Johnson) chose to do with that information is a story for another day.

Catching up on the weekend's reading

This weekend's must-read comes from Ron Suskind, in the New York Times Magazine, Without a Doubt, on how George Bush's faith has influenced his managerial style. Read the whole thing.

From the Week in Review comes this article on "the inevitable legal challenges" to the upcoming vote, Imagining the Danger of 2000 Redux. There have been numerous reports of attempts at voter suppression across the country and the dangers of manipulation of electronic voting. I can't link to them all here, but you can find them. This month's (November) issue of Harper's Magazine has several important articles about the issue (not available on their website, nor through the library's databases yet).

See also today's Times front page story As Election Nears, Parties Begin Another Round of Legal Battles

There was also this unbelievable article from Knight-Ridder New Services, Post-war planning non-existent, which begins:

WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

To Be Provided, indeed. I am still waiting.

Finally, Phil Carter at Intel-Dump, a very knowledgeable and non-partisan military analysis site, links to an article in the L.A. Times called Army Trainers to Become Fighters in Iraq: The elite Black Horse Regiment, a California fixture for 10 years, will hand over its duties at Ft. Irwin to National Guard troops and adds this observation:

The article misses the most important point: deploying the OPFOR is like eating your seed corn. This unit is responsible for training other units and raising their level of expertise and combat readiness. The 11th ACR is being replaced by a National Guard unit. That's like replacing the Dodgers with a high school baseball team. Sure, they can both play baseball and wear the uniform — but one is a whole lot more proficient and experienced at its job. The OPFOR has a reputation as a tough enemy, and that's a good thing because it forces units training at the NTC to become better themselves. By replacing this unit with National Guard troops, the Army has hurt its ability to produce good units for Iraq in the future. Suffice to say, National Guard and active units that go through Fort Irwin aren't going to get the same tough experience they would have with the Blackhorse regiment as OPFOR — and that means they'll be less ready for combat when they get to Iraq. This is a desperation measure, and I think the Army will come to regret it.

Fahrenheit 911 TONIGHT on campus

There will be viewing and panel discussion of Fahrenheit 911 in the Library Auditorium at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 18th. There is also a reception afterwards in the Paterson room.

Agenda

Welcome
Wartyna Davis, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science

Viewing of the movie

Panel discussion

Rafael Santiago (moderator), Political science undergraduate

Nadine Cawley, Political science undergraduate

Arnold C. Lewis, Jr., Assistant Professor of Political Science

Dewar MacLeod, Assistant Professor of History

Jennifer Riggins, Political science undergraduate

Co-sponsored by the History department, Department of Political Science, The Political Science Club, The History Club, Phi Alpha Theta, History honor society, Pi Sigma Alpha, Political Science Honor Society and Da Team.

Don't Count Bush Out Yet

For those of you who are hopeful for Four More Years, remember: you have Karl Rove leading the team. In the Atlantic Monthly, Joshua Green spells out what to look for in the coming weeks with Karl Rove in a Corner.

forecasting the Electoral College

Reader ABT writes in:

According to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Kerry is way behind in the electoral college. I know from the chart that several states are on the fence, but even so, why do you think Bush is so far ahead at this point? Could it be tainted polls?

Now, this is not the sort of thing I know much about or spend alot of time on. But the first rule for historians is to check out your source and then check out other sources. I looked at the above site and the host represents him/herself as a Kerry supporter, so we can maybe assume a lack of bias (though we don't have to accept the claim as necessarily true).

But I also looked for other sites. I tried Daily Kos, but since my office computer can't handle java, I couldn't read the "Electoral Calculator" listed on the Menu on the right side of the page (maybe someone out there can?).

Then I found PROFESSOR POLLKATZ's POOL OF POLLS. He has Kerry ahead 282-252. He also explains his methodology.

I don't have any opinion on any of this. In cases like this I usually look for experts whom I already trust, people who are smarter than I am and know more about the issue.

[Update: here is this analysis from Ryan Lizza's blog Campaign Journal at the New Republic: Bush 208, Kerry 207, too close to call 43. fwiw.]

This week's New Yorker

has a couple of very worthwhile articles:

REMEMBER THE ALAMO
by NICHOLAS LEMANN -- about Bush

REALITY CHECK
by PHILIP GOUREVITCH -- about Kerry

Operation Truth

Via Digby @ Hullabaloo, I came across this organization called Operation Truth which describes itself as "a non-profit, non-partisan organization that seeks to educate the American public about the truth of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the perspective of the troops who have experienced them first-hand." Check out their site and their extremely powerful commercial.

The latest from Michelle

My current favorite writer, Michelle Chen, checks in: "Hey people. Unless you're a robot or a Chinese peasant, you might have noticed lately that the job market has been less than stellar. Find out why..."

Exporting Blame: With All the Anxiety Over Outsourcing, Where Should the Fingers Be Pointing?

btw, Michelle now works for the Brennan Center Free Expression Policy Project, which describes itself thus:

The Free Expression Policy Project (FEPP), founded in 2000, provides research and analysis on difficult censorship issues, and seeks free speech-friendly solutions to the concerns that drive censorship campaigns. In May, 2004, FEPP became part of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

I can't personally vouch for their work, though it looks interesting and important; but I do know that they just got a whole lot better with Michelle on board.

Military websites

Stephen from Historical Methods sends along this posting:

Here is a list of some very useful military websites. I figured it could help some students. ! WARNING ! Several of these websites are monitored by the government and their use is tracked and recorded. Some people claim additional surveillance of those who access the sites may also occur. Most of the sites are official government sites and parts of them are only accessible to government officials. Despite being open to the public they are monitored for hacking and electronic warfare by other parties. So if you’re a tin foil hat type of guy you might not want to have a look at them. While you can’t get in trouble for looking at them there are restrictions on their reproductions. Also on a side note many of the phone numbers are for official government use only and they’re not happy when you call them (I know).

I think it is important to maintain a close relationship between the armed forces and the country. I have several family members who have or are serving in the armed forces and the way they're portrayed in the media, culture, and politics is often far from the truth. The current armed forces have become a sub-culture in the United States over the past few years. Closing this divide between the armed forces and the people of this country is of the utmost importance to both parties. A common comparison some military offices use is that of the Roman Empire. When the Rome was a republic with a small population it had no problem raising armies of thousands. When Rome was at its peak and controlled almost a quarter the population of the world it struggled to raise armies in years which it could once raise in months. A huge divide had opened in Rome between its people and the legions. This bond once united the Romans and held together their republic. Once that divide opened the legions no longer saw themselves as Romans. In my opinion it’s a civic duty to always bridge any gap which arises between a people and those who would defend them. These sites offer information’s from current military equipment to thesis papers by graduating officers of the war college, ranging from the war on terror to nuclear proliferation. These sites are important because people shouldn’t look at world events as "movies" or "snap shots" of far off places. The majority of American's taking part in these "movies" and "snap shots" are our soldiers.

Branches of U.S.A. Armed Forces
http://www.army.mil Army
http://www.navy.mil Navy
http://www.usmc.mil Marine Corp
http://www.uscg.mil/USCG.shtm Cost Guard

Department of Defense (Most monitored sites)
http://www.defenselink.mil DOD Homepage
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac DOD Almanac
http://www.defenselink.mil/sites/f.html#facts DOD Fact File

Other Military Sites
http://stinet.dtic.mil Scientific and Technical Information Network (Heavily Monitored)
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict Military Dictionary
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/index.asp Combined Arms Research Library
http://www-cgsc.army.mil Command and General Staff College
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi United States Army Military History Institute
http://call.army.mil Center for Army Lessons Learned
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg United States Army Center for Military History
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usacsl/index.asp Center for Strategic Leadership
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi Strategic Studies Institute
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/csi/pubs Combat Studies Institute
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra Air Force Historical Research Agency
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil Air Force History Support Office
http://www.history.navy.mil Naval Historical Center
http://www.usmc.mil/history.nsf/table+of+contents Marine Corp History

Private Sites
http://www.amcsus.org Association of Military Colleges and Schools of the United States
http://www.usni.org U.S. Naval Institute
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp Federation of American Scientist
(Very good source for people who are unfamiliar with Military equipment)
http://www.pownetwork.org Network for POWS
http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies.htm List of Sub Human shit that claims to have served or have been POWS
http://www.defensenews.com Defense News
http://www.janes.com Janes Defense
(The always amazing Janes Company from the UK)

Fahrenheit 9/11 screening update

The date has been changed to October 18th; no other details yet.

But tomorrow (weds), the Political Science Department will be hosting viewing of the Presidential Debate in the Library Auditorium.

Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy

From Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Scholars Give Bush Foreign Policy a Failing Grade

October 12, 2004

[...]

Newark, Delaware - Over 650 foreign affairs specialists in the United States and allied countries have signed an open letter opposing the Bush administration's foreign policy and calling urgently for a change of course.

The letter was released today by "Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy," a nonpartisan group of experts in the field of national security and international politics.

Here is the letter:

October, 2004

An Open Letter to the American People:

We, a nonpartisan group of foreign affairs specialists, have joined together to call urgently for a change of course in American foreign and national security policy. We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists. One result has been a great distortion in the terms of public debate on foreign and national security policy—an emphasis on speculation instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest. [1] We write to challenge some of these distortions.

Although we applaud the Bush Administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, its failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the later stages of that war was a great blunder. It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists. [2]

Many of the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by U.S. government agencies. There is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaida, and its prewar involvement in international terrorism was negligible. [3] Iraq’s arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear weapons program virtually nonexistent. [4] In comparative terms, Iran is and was much the greater sponsor of terrorism, and North Korea and Pakistan pose much the greater risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists. Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein. The Administration knew most of these facts and risks before the war, and could have discovered the others, but instead it played down, concealed or misrepresented them.

Policy errors during the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have created a situation in Iraq worse than it needed to be. Spurning the advice of Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, the Administration committed an inadequate number of troops to the occupation, leading to the continuing failure to establish security in Iraq. Ignoring prewar planning by the State Department and other US government agencies, it created a needless security vacuum by disbanding the Iraqi Army, and embarked on a poorly planned and ineffective reconstruction effort which to date has managed to spend only a fraction of the money earmarked for it. [5] As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.

The results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for U.S. interests. [6] While the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime was desirable, the benefit to the U.S. was small as prewar inspections had already proven the extreme weakness of his WMD programs, and therefore the small size of the threat he posed. On the negative side, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East. Worse, American actions in Iraq, including but not limited to the scandal of Abu Ghraib, have harmed the reputation of the U.S. in most parts of the Middle East and, according to polls, made Osama Bin Laden more popular in some countries than is President Bush. This increased popularity makes it easier for al-Qaida to raise money, attract recruits, and carry out its terrorist operations than would otherwise be the case.

Recognizing these negative consequences of the Iraq war, in addition to the cost in lives and money, we believe that a fundamental reassessment is in order. Significant improvements are needed in our strategy in Iraq and the implementation of that strategy. We call urgently for an open debate on how to achieve these ends, one informed by attention to the facts on the ground in Iraq, the facts of al-Qaida’s methods and strategies, and sober attention to American interests and values.

Signed (All titles and affiliations listed for purposes of identification only),

See list of signatures


[1] On the mythology, see Jack Snyder, “Imperial Temptations,” The National Interest, Spring 2003.

[2] See, e.g., James Fallows, “Bush’s Lost Year,” The Atlantic, October 2004.

[3] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” (W.W. Norton & Co., 2004).

[4] The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications,” January 2004; Chaim Kaufmann, “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War,” International Security vol. 29, no. 1 (Summer 2004). Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer concluded Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in an interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” October 6, 2004.

[5] See, e.g., James Fallows, “Blind Into Baghdad,” The Atlantic, January/February 2004; Peter W. Galbraith, "Iraq: The Bungled Transition," New York Review of Books, September 23, 2004; David M. Edelstein, "Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail," International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer 2004), Robin Wright and Thomas E. Rick, “Bremmer Criticizes Troop Levels” Washington Post, October 5, 2004.

[6] On negative impacts on the war on terrorism, see Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, forthcoming); Ivan Arreguin-Toft, “Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-Terrorist Grand Strategy,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 15, no. 3 (2002); Robert A. Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review 97, no. 3 (August 2003), and “Dying to Kill Us,” New York Times, September 22, 2003, p. A17; Anonymous, Imperial Hubris (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 2004). Regarding problems in Iraq itself, see Anthony H. Cordesman, “The Critical Role of Iraqi Military, Security, and Police Forces: Necessity, Problems, and Progress,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, Third Revised Draft: September 27, 2004 (3.1); David Rapoport, “The Fourth Wave: September 11 in the History of Terrorism,” Current History (December 2001); and Douglas Jehl, "US Intelligence Shows Pessimism On Iraq's Future," The New York Times, September 16, 2004, page A1.

The list of 698 scholars is here.

For the undecided out there

This Frontline show on the candidates has gotten excellent reviews, The Choice 2004.

Tonight at 9 on PBS.

American Legitimacy

Dreyfuss, at his blog The Dreyfuss Report at Tompaine.com, discusses Bush's Illegal War.

He cites this new article from Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) by Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson called The Sources of American Legitimacy:

Summary: Throughout its history, the United States has made gaining international legitimacy a top priority of its foreign policy. The 18 months since the launch of the Iraq war, however, have left the country's hard-earned respect and credibility in tatters. In going to war without a legal basis or the backing of traditional U.S. allies, the Bush administration brazenly undermined Washington's long-held commitment to international law, its acceptance of consensual decision-making, its reputation for moderation, and its identification with the preservation of peace. The road back will be a long and hard one.

Robert W. Tucker is Professor Emeritus of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University. David C. Hendrickson is Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Professor at Colorado College.

Why do we need legitimacy?

See also this article by Gautam Adhikari, a visting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute -- a VERY RIGHT WING thinktank: The End of the Unipolar Myth

Journalism Under Fire

Brilliant speech from a few weeks ago by Bill Moyers, Journalism Under Fire, posted at Tompaine.com

Reminder -- Upcoming events on Campus

Fahrenheit 9/11
October 13, 2004, 7:30pm in the Library Auditoriaum
Sponsored by History Club, and I will be there to facilitate discussion

A Tale of Two Civilizations: Islamic Values and Euro-American Norms
a talk by Ali A. Mazrui
Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities and Director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
2:00 - 3:15
Askew Library Auditorium

Roundtable on American Power and Security
October 14, 2004: 12:30-2:00 PM.
Science Hall, Room 200A, William Paterson University
Chair: Prof. Sheila Collins
Professors Aaron Tesfaye and Michael J. Thompson
Graduate student Cyril Mychalejko
Undergraduate student Gary Rich
Sponsored by The Political science department and The Graduate Program in Public Policy and International Affairs

Also October 14, 2004 from 12:30-2
Social Studies Praxis Workshop in Raubinger 210.

weekend reading grabbag

Catching up on some items worth reading that came out over the weekend:

From the Washington Post, For Marines, a Frustrating Fight: Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged

I have been trying to get the History Club to include "Dr. Strangelove" in their film series; this article from the the NY Times by Fred Kaplan might pique your interest, Truth Stranger Than 'Strangelove'

We have been discussing objectivity and post-modernism in Historical Methods lately. This article from the Washington Monthly last year by Joshua Micah Marshall brings some comtemporary relevance: The Post-Modern President: Deception, Denial, and Relativism: what the Bush administration learned from the French. Marshall hosts the blog Talking Points Memo, and here are his latest comments on the issue of epistemological relativism. Marshall also takes note of a possible October Surprise:

Hmmm. Karl Rove tells Sean Hannity about 'October Surprise' he's working on. "We've got a couple of surprises that we intend to spring," says Rove.

Several bloggers have taken note of this important article in the Los Angeles Times, Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote: Attacks on Iraq's rebel-held cities will be delayed, officials say. But that could make it harder to allow wider, and more legitimate, Iraqi voting in January. Both Atrios and DeLong note how the decision making (as has happened several times before in this war) emanates from a White House concerned with reelection rather than military leaders concerned with victory. An excerpt:

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration plans to delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallouja and Ramadi — where the insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the highest — until after Americans vote in what is likely to be an extremely close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election — the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With less than four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders to halt operations in the weeks before the November 2 U.S. election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Finally -- and I haven't read it yet -- there is a major article in the NY Times Magazine about John Kerry. Maybe I will post more after reading it.

Bush and Dred Scott

Some of you may have been befuddled -- as I was -- when Bush started talking about Dred Scott in last night's debate. I had no idea why he brought it up, and he certainly didn't even understand what he was talking about.

Well, here is an explanation, from a blog called Paperwight's Fair Shot, that makes sense:

Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade

Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually said:

If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Bush couldn't say that in plain language, because it would freak out every moderate swing voter in the country, but he can say it in code, to make sure that his base will turn out for him. Anti-choice advocates have been comparing Roe v. Wade with Dred Scott v. Sandford for some time now. There is a constant drumbeat on the religious right to compare the contemporary culture war over abortion with the 19th century fight over slavery, with the anti-choicers cast in the role of the abolitionists.

Third Party Candidates on NOW with Bill Moyers

This comes in from regular reader (the only one, I think) Anders:

I'd like to call your attention to tomorrow's Sunday Night edition of NOW with Bill Moyers. It will include a discussion with some of the third party candidates for president including David Cobb of the Green Party, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian, and Ralph Nader of the Reform. The show starts at 11 PM on channel 13.

Check out the show's website which has some interesting historical info on campaigns and debates past, and a whole lot of different stuff on understanding the media. Actually a cool site once you start digging through it. If I can find it, I will post a recent speech Moyers gave on the pathetic state of journalism today when the stakes are so high.