On my bus ride into the downtown area of Washington D.C. this morning, I was shocked to see a giant unmarked blimp hovering above the city.  Turns out the Army is using its new A-170 Airship to conduct tests of a surveillance system known only as RAID until October 2.

According to our friends the Defense Department, the RAID system is a “persistent surveillance system consisting of electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras mounted on towers and tethered aerostats and controlled from an operations center.”  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I am not happy with the idea of a “persistent surveillance system” anywhere near me. 

Have any questions? I'm sure  Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, 703-614-2487, Gerard.healy@hqda.army.mil or Ms. Pamela Rogers, 256-842-0561 or 256-509-4966, pamela.rogers@us.army.mil, would be glad to answer them for you.  Let them know exactly how you feel. 

It was reported yesterday on the American Prospect website that Bush opposes extension of TRICARE military insurance to inanctive Guard and Reserve personnel.  Much of the resulting handwringing centered on the fact that the nation is asking them to risk all in Iraq and elsewhere, but can't seem to get them health insurance when they are not activated. 

But even more importantly, the failure to provide full-time insurance to Guard and Reserve personnel is yet another stupendous military error by the Bush administration.  As the country comes to rely more and more on Guard and Reserve strength to fight our battles overseas, it only makes sense to make sure our military personnel are healthy and available to do their duty if they are called to service. 

The Gallup Poll is rigged.  As detailed here, at the Leftcoaster,  Gallup has increased its weighting of Republican party ID by 3% and decreased its weighting of Democratic party ID by 2% in the last two weeks.  That means that they think that 5% of the population decided to turn Republican in the last two weeks.  Gallup would have us belive that 43% of the populace are Republicans, 31% are Democrats and 25% are Independents.  These numbers account for 99% of the electorate.  Thus only 1% of the population are members of other parties, failed to respond or indicated that they did not know their affiliation.  The figures lead to only one conclusion--Gallup is throwing all of the other categories to the President.

This makes no sense, even before you take into account the fact that during the last Presidential election, voters identified more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.   Indeed, recent LA Times polling of the Party ID numbers suggests something completely different (scroll down page for info):

These numbers were sent by LA Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus to ABC News' The Note to counter allegations that a June LA Times poll weighted Democratic ID too heavily.  No complaints now Mr. Dowd?

The Iron Mouth only reports the facts folks.  We must fight every second of this race through Election Day, through the inevitable court battles, through it all.  Do not stop until we are the winners.

Update/Correction (9/29/04):  The problem with Gallup is not weighting per se, as Gallup does not throw out voters to meet party ID percentages, but that Gallup's likely voter formula is skewed in such a way that it overrepresents Republican Voters.

“When you have the angel and the devil on each shoulder, which do you choose?”

You first have to look very carefully, because as we know, from at least Luther on, a devil may appear as an angel as well as itself. Don't forget the only woodcut Luther had in the translation: the Antichrist, wearing a papal crown.

When a Christian says the people should kill in war or as punishment for a crime, that's the devil trying to impersonate an angel. Even when that spirit on your shoulder is a beaming Baptist.

The devil also makes the angels look bad. Remember that he is an angel, though fallen. The devil will try to convince you that the purest spirit on your other shoulder is the weak, wrong, wicked one.

You have to look very carefully. And then, always go with the angel. 

--E.K. (Comments? ekblog@yahoo.com)

Note the interesting mini-drama going on in the photo.  These soldiers were on a plane in Bangor, Maine headed to Iraq.  Although the soldier on the left seems glad to shake the President's hand, the mustachioed one on the right wants no part of this dog-and-pony show.  He won't even look Bush in the face.

 (Reuters)

Maybe this is why:

All week, the Kerry campaign hammered Bush on the Iraq issue.  They attacked Bush's straight shooter reputation by contrasting Iraq's daily hit parade of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings with Bush's “stay the course” nonsense.

Bush struck back yesterday and brought out Iyad Allawi, who thanked the U.S. from the podium in the House of Representatives and then robotically spouted Republican talking points supplied by Karl Rove in a Rose Garden press conference. 

Past Democratic practice against a Rovian assault of this magnitude would have involved a quick switch to traditional “issues“ talking points, effectively giving the set to Bush.  This time it was different. 

Amazingly, the Kerry Campaign came back with the same smash-mouth assault the next day.  Overnight the campaign had taken a terrible Bush joke about wrong track/right track polling in Iraq and turned it into a 15 second spot.  Instead of a morass of confusing statements to the press, the ad laid out Kerry's Iraq plan in nine terse words: “Allies share the burden. Train Iraqis to protect themselves.”  Vintage Clinton.  These are the moves that get people elected.

And the Kerry team did not stop there.  Edwards kept up the pressure and released a statement that started with the fateful sentence  “The administration’s credibility on Iraq collapsed today.”   

The effect was heightened by off-script babble from Administration officials.  Sec Def Rumsfeld later on Thursday qualified the January election pledge by indicating that partial elections might be held. 

All of this action signals one thing.  Kerry is staying on message and Rove is not knocking him off of it.  Unlike Gore four years ago, he isn't getting kicked off message by the counter-punch. 

We be just gettin' started folks.

Bush is highlighting the endorsement of 9-year old “Presidential Expert” Noah McCullough on the front page of his website today. 

So this is the guy running Iraq policy.  Let's hope he doesn't lock up the under-10 crowd for the President.

Yesterday, we saw the President of the United States, supported by the leader of another nation appointed only by him, tell the country that progress is being made in Iraq and that everything will be all right.  Like you, we wish that were true. 

But unlike you, we cannot sit by idly and stake the future of two countries on that hope when all facts and all logic show otherwise.  The Iron Mouth asks that all those considering voting for George W. Bush heed to the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln before casting your ballot in this, the most important election in seventy years.

Are you quite sure the demon which you have roused will not turn and rend you?  What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence?  It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army.  These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land.  All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.  Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms.  Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere.  Destroy the spirit, and you have planted the seed of despotism around your own doors. . . 

Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises. 

For Real.

Juan Cole, yesterday from Informed Comment:  If America Were Iraq, What Would It Be Like?

Hey Sickos,

Some photos below of the candidates, surreptitiously obtained. But if Eddie Izzard is any indication, this may be our reality soon enough. (Question, class: Why do the incumbents look so much hotter?) Cheers, EK  (COMMENTS?: Write me at ekblog@yahoo.com)

Yesterday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett was featured on “Ask the White House,” where regular citizens send in questions to be answered by the President's minions.  As first reported by Oliver Wills, yesterday's questions were dandies, we can tell you.  Makes you wonder what questions they didn't choose to answer.

The Iron Mouth has edited Dan's answers for clarity. Each answer actually corresponds to its proper question.  Although Dan would certainly deny it, we are sure the edited version reflects the truth of the matter.  We are certain the questions do.

Dan Bartlett:
Great to be here today. I know there are a lot of questions so let's go right to the questions.

From the Department of I Really Think I Can Get Away With Not Answering, But I Inadvertently Revealed The Truth of The Matter:

Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO writes:
Dan, Why is it that the president or you will not declare that the documents (CYA Memos) are false and untrue? Certainly if the documents are fakes, then the information in them is false as well.

Let's hear you and Mr. Bush say they are false and untrue accusations and we can settle all this mess.

Dan Bartlett:
We don't have the technical expertise to determine if they were fake or not. Remember, these supposedly came from the personal files of man who died more than 20 years ago. Thankfully, a lot of expert bloggers and other news organizations did get to the bottom this growing scandal.

Unintended Truth:

Nathalie, from Washington, DC writes:
Will the President come clean about his missing years in the Texas, Alabama, New England Air National Guard?

Why can't he just release the missing records so we can all get on with our lives?

Dan Bartlett:
I wish it were that easy.

Straight Shooter:

John, from Royal Oak, MI writes:
Why have there only been two white house press briefings in the last two months?

Dan Bartlett:
He's been traveling a lot lately.

Can't argue with this one:

George, from Kettering, Ohio writes:
1. I would like to understand why President Bush is unwilling to acknowledge the mounting problems we facing in Iraq?

2. Does the White House realize that the rosy picture it presents to American people is unrealistically over-optimistic?

Dan Bartlett:
Insurgents are trying to literally blow up the progress we are making.

Yes, He REALLY Did Say That: 

Michael, from Miami Beach writes:
How has the administration's overall approach toward securing Iraq changed, given what appears to be a progressive increase in insurgent activity against American troops and the Iraqi government, as well as violence against American and other foreign civilians?

Dan Bartlett:
It's also important that Iraqis fight the enemy, not just Americans.

They Made Sense to Us, Too:

Danny, from Chicago writes:
Mr. Bartlett, Why did you not question the authenticity of those CBS memos when you met with John Roberts? Why did the White House subsequently release them?  

Dan Bartlett:
We released them because we believe everyone should have the opportunity to see any record related to the President's military service.

Half Truth:

Dan Bartlett:
Sorry I need to run. I enjoyed taking your questions.

One measure of how far down we have sunk in these last four years is the content of the editorial pages of our erstwhile allies in Europe.  This morning's op-ed headline in Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel said it all.  “Wahrheit nützt nichts”  insisted Berlin's top daily when analyzing Bush's speech to the UN yesterday.  Truth is Useless.  No matter how many cities fall under insurgent control, no matter how many American soldiers and Marines fall in an attempt to prop up a policy doomed to fail from the start, no matter how many Iraqis die in the useless attempt to transform the Middle East at gunpoint--the President is sticking to his story. 

According to President Bush, “Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and “the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom.”  For Bush, fantasy, apparently, truly is reality.

When Fahrenheit 911 came out, I took it as a piece of important propaganda which overstated the problems in Iraq in order to counter Fox's relentless lie parade.  Now I find myself sorely disappointed.  Michael Moore understated the dire situation in Iraq.  The troops over there know it.  Right-wing columnists and bloggers know it.  Republican Senators know it.  Even the CIA knows it.  But stubborn Bush either refuses to face it or is determined to convince the American people that the spiraling conflict in Iraq is on the right track, despite knowing the opposite to be true. 

For Bush, truth really is useless.  He does not have to live with it.  We do. 

I woke up this morning and started to feel it--the election was shifting into new ground--ground where Bush was going to be on the defensive about Iraq.  Ground where John Kerry was going to hit hard and where Bush would really not have an answer. 

Then it hit me.  Bush under fire?  It must be about time for another terror alert.  Lo and behold, when I arrived at work today, there it was: 

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded recently that al Qaeda . . . is moving ahead with plans for a major, "spectacular" attack

Apparently, the terrorists, much like our President, feel the need to engage in macho posturing--

They [al Qaeda] think their credibility is on the line because there hasn't been a major attack since 9/11," said one official familiar with intelligence reports on the group.

Of course,

details of the possible attack remain murky, but analysts say it is planned to be bigger and deadlier than the September 11 attacks, which killed 3,000 people.

I'll tell you something about this administration.  They really are consistent.  They run the same damn play over and over again.  No wonder our enemies can see it coming from a mile away.