Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread

From today's NYTimes:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 28 - Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.

The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks, from Nineveh and Salahuddin Provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the center and Basra in the south, suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets described by Iraqi government officials.

National security professionals agree that Iraq is a disaster, start to finish

James Fallows has an article out in the October Atlantic. Unfortunately, the Atlantic is now for subscribers only, but here is an alluring excerpt:

Bush's Lost Year, by James Fallows, The Atlantic, October 2004:

As a political matter, whether the United States is now safer or more vulnerable is of course ferociously controversial. That the war was necessary—and beneficial—is the Bush Administration's central claim. That it was not is the central claim of its critics. But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error inAmerican history—or only the worst since Vietnam. Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight, given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say that things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.

"Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America'smilitary-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan andIraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of shit. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."

More on Admin's refusal to heed warnings on Iraq

Yet more evidence from today's papers that the Administration was adequately forewarned about the consequences of war in Iraq, but chose to ignore our own intelligence, including the view that the war would not make the U.S. safer from Islamic terrorists:

Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER
September 28, 2004 The New York Times:

The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.

The contents of the two assessments had not been previously disclosed. They were described by the officials after two weeks in which the White House had tried to minimize the council's latest report, which was prepared this summer and read by senior officials early this month.

Last week, Mr. Bush dismissed the latest intelligence reports, saying its authors were "just guessing'' about the future, though he corrected himself later, calling it an "estimate.''

The group's National Intelligence Estimate about Iraqi weapons has now been widely discredited for wildly overestimating the country's capabilities. Members of the intelligence council have complained that they were pressured to write the document too quickly and that important qualifiers were buried.

Why Bush will win the first debate

I hope I’m wrong, but Bush is likely to win the first debate, because:

As the candidates prepare for the first debate, Bush is undoubtedly being told simply to “be himself,” while Kerry is probably being told “not” to be himself, which is to say a boring windbag.
[Harry Shearer is probably not too far off the mark in speculating that during his debate prep Kerry is receiving electric shocks every time he uses a complex sentence. (Click here for Harry Shearer's Le Show archive, but last night's show isn't there as of this posting.)]

It’s hard for a candidate to come off as something he’s not under the glare of live television. Remember the strange and different versions of Al Gore we saw in 2000’s debates?

But let’s say Bush doesn’t fare so well in the debate itself. Many more voters learn about what happened in a debate from subsequent media coverage. Unless Bush does something truly bizarre, you can bet that the right-wing media spin machine will be totally “on message” that Bush won the debate. First you have the President’s own spinners, who are sure to be more cohesively on message than Kerry’s spinners. Second, you have the conservative commentators and pundits who have a knack for closing ranks when it comes to beating up on liberals, who will farm out onto the networks and write their newspaper columns in what seems certain to be a chorus of rave reviews. And finally, you will have the Fox News and conservative radio outlets directly feeding the Bush spin to the masses.

ARG Polls released in all fifty states

Kerry shows amazing resilience in the polls.

Here is the ARG “executive summary”:
>George W. Bush is at 47% and John Kerry is at 46% in the weighted national popular vote.

>Bush leads outside the margin of error in 17 states with 133 electoral votes.
>Kerry leads outside the margin of error in 10 states with 132 electoral votes.

>Bush has any lead in 29 states with 253 electoral votes.
>Kerry has any lead in 20 states with 270 electoral votes.

>Bush and Kerry are tied in Wisconsin and West Virginia.

>Bush needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
>Kerry needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

The Polls This Week

The simplest formula for Kerry to win the White House is to take the Gore-2000 states plus ten additional electoral votes.

Executive Summary:
1. Kerry is currently trailing in two Gore states -- Wisconsin (10 EV) and Iowa (7) -- both of which he needs to win unless he wins Florida.

2. Kerry’s best shot to win this election is Florida (27), because he could afford to drop Wisconsin and Iowa and still win.

3. Alternatively, Kerry needs to hold all the Gore states, then pick off some combination of New Hampshire, Colorado, and Arkansas to win.

4. Kerry should still fight in Ohio, though, because he’s within striking distance there and a win would give him considerably more flexibility.

5. There seems to be ample reason to downplay Missouri and Nevada, and to emphasize Arkansas and Colorado, while also tending to New Hampshire, where Kerry's lead is narrower than it has been all year.


Gore States where Kerry is vulnerable:
1. Wisconsin (10 EV): Bush leads in four of six polls released between 9/13 and 9/21, including the earliest (Strategic Vision) and the latest (Badger State). In the latter, Bush leads by an implausible 52%-38%. Kerry leads in one poll (Zobgy) and the candidates were tied in the other (American Research Group). All polls, except the Badger State are within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 47.8% Kerry 44.2% undecided/other 8%

Bottom Line: Bush holds a narrow lead here (3.6 points even with the Badger State poll included), but remains below 50%, which is usually a sign of trouble for an incumbent this late in the game, and there are 8% still apparently undecided or voting for some other candidate.


2. Iowa (7 EV): Bush leads in six of seven polls released between 9/14 and 9/23, including the earliest (Rasmussen) and the latest (Survey USA). There are no real outliers among the seven polls, and all are within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 47.9% Kerry 45.7 undecided/other 6.4%

Bottom Line: Bush holds a narrow lead (averaging 2.2 points), but the same analysis holds here as in Wisconsin. Kerry is a bit closer, but there are fewer undecideds.


3. Pennsylvania (21 EV): In four polls released between 9/15 and 9/22, Kerry leads them all.

On average: Kerry 48.5% Bush 46% undecided/other 5.5%

Bottom Line: After an increase in Bush support here, Kerry seems to have stabilized and remains in the lead.


4. Oregon (7 EV): Kerry leads in two of three polls released between 9/13 and 9/22, although Bush leads in the most recent (Survey USA). Zogby has Kerry leading by 12 points, outside the margin of error.

On average: Kerry 49.3% Bush 45% undecided/other 5.7%

Bottom Line: Oregon has gotten closer, but Kerry is in good shape at this point.


5. Maine (4 EV): In three polls released between 9/9 and 9/23, the candidates each lead in one and they are tied in the third. Bush, however, holds a one-point lead in the latest (Survey USA) poll.

On average: Kerry 45.7% Bush 44.7 undecided/other 9.6%

Bottom Line: Maine appears to have gotten very close, but there isn’t a lot of polling here, and with nearly 10 percent still undecided, I would expect Kerry to pull this one out.


6. Maryland (10 EV): In two polls released between 9/17 and 9/20, Bush led in one (Survey USA) and the candidates were tied in the other (Mason-Dixon).

On average: Bush 47.5% Kerry 45.5% undecided/other 7%

Bottom Line: Not a lot of polling here, but it’s hard to argue with two recent polls. That said, the same general analysis applies here – Bush under 50%, undecideds should break for Kerry. But, frankly, if Kerry can’t win in Maryland, there are going to be several other Blue States that he loses, too.


7. New Jersey (15 EV): Each candidate leads in one of the two polls released between 9/15 and 9/17.

On average: Bush 46% Kerry 46% undecided/other 8%

Bottom Line: The state’s gubernatorial scandal involving a Democrat and the proximity to the GOP convention in New York are said to be two factors that may be making New Jersey close. Kerry should be able to win back enough to take this state. Like Maryland, if he loses New Jersey he’s going to be losing a lot of Blue States.


OK? So, let’s say Kerry holds the Gore states, where does he get the additional ten electoral votes to get him to 270?

Bush-2000 States where Bush is vulnerable:
1. Florida (27 EV): This is the big kahuna, and it couldn’t be closer. In four polls released between 9/20 and 9/22, the candidates are within two points of each other.

On average: Bush 47.3% Kerry 46.8% undecided/other 5.9%

Bottom Line: If Kerry wins Florida, he wins. Even if Bush were to take Wisconsin and Iowa, a Kerry win in Florida would equal exactly 270 electoral votes! For Bush, Florida is necessary but not sufficient. He must also hold all but 10 EV-worth of the Red States.


2. New Hampshire (4 EV): In two polls released 9/17, Bush leads in one (ARG) and Kerry in the other (Zogby). Prior to that, Kerry has led in New Hampshire fairly consistently, and remember, Bush won the state in 2000 by less than the Nader vote.

On average: Kerry 46.5% Bush 46% undecided/other 7.5%

Bottom Line: The state looks very close once again, but next-door neighbor Kerry has an excellent shot at winning it.


3. Colorado (9 EV): This is a state that has traditionally gone Republican but which is undergoing some major demographic changes and is consistently polling as a dead heat this year. In addition, a popular Hispanic Attorney General is running for the U.S. Senate, which could help bring Democrats to the polls. There is a question on the ballot that, if it passes, would allocate the state’s electoral votes in proportion to the electoral vote. It is unclear whether that measure would actually result in the state’s electoral votes being cast that way, however, so the picture here is pretty convoluted. The two most recent polls, released 9/13, both have Bush with a one-point lead.

On average: Bush 46% Kerry 45% other/undecided 9%

Bottom Line: If Kerry holds the Gore states, plus wins New Hampshire, a win here would put him over the top. The campaigns appear to just now be waking up to the fact that Colorado is really close and apparently is going to stay close.


4. Arkansas (6 EV): This state has been close for months, and Bush received very little convention bounce. In two polls released 9/17, Bush leads one (ARG) and the candidates are tied in the other (Zobgy).

On average: Bush 47.5% Kerry 46% other/undecided 6.5%

Bottom Line: Could Bill Clinton and other state Democrats help Kerry get over the hump here? It would be ironic if Kerry squeezed into the White House by taking New Hampshire and Arkansas, rather than any of the huge Battleground states that have been getting all the attention and money thus far.


5. Ohio (20 EV): One of the Big Three Bush states targeted by Kerry, along with Florida and Missouri. Bush has led consistently here since mid-August, but in four polls released between 9/15 and 9/22, he leads by an average of only three points.

On average: Bush 48.5% Kerry 45.5% other/undecided 6%

Bottom Line: Bush is ahead but Kerry could still win here. He has shown some resiliency, and appears to not be giving up on the state.


6. Nevada (5 EV): Not really considered a swing state coming into the campaign, but has been close, and Democrats are benefiting from demographic changes. In three polls released between 9/13 and 9/21, Bush leads all three but by well within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 49.3% Kerry 46.7% other/undecided 4%

Bottom Line: I would expect Bush to pull this one out. There aren’t as many undecideds, and Bush is close to 50%.


7. Missouri (11 EV): One of the Big Three Bush states targeted by Kerry, along with Florida and Ohio, Missouri appears to be heading Bush’s way since he opened up a lead in mid-August. Two polls released between 9/17 and 9/19 show Bush leading, albeit within the margin of error.

On average: Bush 51% Kerry 45% other/undecided 4%

Bottom Line: Bush is probably headed for victory here. He is polling above 50% and there aren’t that many undecideds.

How Bush interprets intelligence

I’ve argued all along that “the intelligence” on whether Saddam had WMD was nowhere near a “slam dunk,” which was one reason why we couldn’t convince our allies and the U.N. to go to war. This administration has consistently belittled information that doesn’t support its pre-defined worldview.

So, has the administration learned anything from its earlier failures, or is it “staying the course” by continuing to belittle and ignore information that could cause it cognitive dissonance?

You decide. Here’s what Bush said on Tuesday about a recent National Intelligence Estimate, which reportedly painted a bleak picture of Iraq's near future, including the possibility of civil war:

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

Kerry’s response:

"Just guessing, America? The CIA? They're not just guessing. They're giving the president of the United States their best judgment. It's called an analysis."

Bush at a subsequent news conference: "I used an unfortunate word: 'guess.' I should have used 'estimate.'"

Choice Tidbits from Kitty Kelley’s book on the Bushes

Page 253: At Andover, George W. Bush writes a morose essay about his sister's death. Searching for a synonym for "tears," he consults a thesaurus and writes, "And the lacerates ran down my cheeks." A teacher labels the paper "disgraceful."

Read the Slate article for more – including the tidbit that Laura Bush smokes constantly, which, come to think of it, helps explain that frozen look she has on her face in public. You can almost hear her saying through gritted teeth, “Ah need a goddamn smoke.”

No tea for YOU, Mr. Tillerman

A plane from London to the United States was diverted to Maine when it was discovered that the cloying 1970s folksinger Cat Stevens was aboard. Stevens was given the opportunity to wander off into the wild world of central Maine, but remembered there’s a lot of bad out there, so he opted instead to return to London, saying he wanted to “just relax and take it easy.”

Stevens is on a Homeland Security list of aging folksingers who aren’t allowed in the country because of a Patriot Act ban on “overly syrupy, stupor inducing artists whose work can deaden public alertness toward suspicious actions or persons.” Others on the list include Gordon Lightfoot, David Gates, Seals and Crofts, Jim Croce (who has actually been dead since 1975), and (ironically) the lite-rock group America.

Goss agrees that Cheney and Rice mischaracterized intelligence reports before war

Rep. Porter Goss, whose nomination as CIA Director was approved today by the Senate Intelligence Committee, had some interesting things to say about the Bush administration’s interpretation of available intelligence before the war in Iraq. From the NYTimes article:

In hearings on Monday, Mr. Goss said that some prewar statements by senior Bush administration officials might well have overstated available intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq.

Under sharp questioning from a Senate Democrat, Mr. Goss said he agreed that statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice that linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks; to Al Qaeda; and to an active nuclear weapons program appeared to have gone beyond what was spelled out in intelligence reports at the time.

Mr. Goss's concession could fuel further Democratic criticisms that Mr. Bush and his advisers overstated the threat posed by Iraq before the war. Democrats failed this year to persuade Republicans to include conclusions related to the administration's use of intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was completed in July.

Each example on which Mr. Goss commented was raised by Senator Levin. They included a December 2001 statement in which Mr. Cheney said that a meeting in Prague between a Sept. 11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi official had been "pretty well-confirmed" and a separate statement by Ms. Rice in September 2002 saying, first, that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" and, second, that "we know" that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.

All three of those assertions have since been discredited, and recent reports by the independent Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee suggested that all three exceeded the intelligence available at the time.

In each case, Mr. Goss cautioned that he did not know what information Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice had used as the basis for their statements. He said he still believed that Iraq had provided some unspecified training to Al Qaeda, though he declined to elaborate.

But he said of Mr. Cheney's public assertion on Dec. 9, 2001, about Mr. Atta and the meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague, for example: "I don't think it was as well confirmed perhaps as the vice president thought. But I don't know what was in the vice president's mind, and I've certainly never talked with him about this. So I don't know how he came to that conclusion." Mr. Goss said that Ms. Rice's Sept. 8, 2002, statement about the aluminum tubes appeared to have been "an exaggeration," compared with the findings spelled out in a national intelligence estimate at the same time. He said Ms. Rice's Sept. 25, 2002, statement linking Iraq to training for Al Qaeda, if it were based solely on the evidence that has been made public to date, would have been in a category in which "I would feel obliged to ask the national security adviser what in fact was the basis for that statement."

Dissention in the ranks of GOP Senators:

The Sunday talk shows were rife with criticisms of the way things are going in Iraq. Leading the way were three prominent Republican Senators: John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Richard Lugar.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said Bush was not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people about Iraq.

McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday" that it was "a serious mistake" not to have had enough troops in place "after the initial successes" and that the mistake had led to "very, very significant" difficulties.

"I think every day that goes by that we don't remove these sanctuaries in Falluja and other places in the Sunni Triangle, the more expensive it's going to be at the time we take this out," McCain said.

He said he "would never have allowed the sanctuaries to start with."

"In the Falluja issue, our general in Baghdad said we were going to go in and capture or kill those who were responsible for the deaths of Americans," McCain said.

"And we went in, and then we pulled out. As Napoleon said, if you say you're going to take Vienna, you take Vienna.”

Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," Jon Kyl, Arizona's junior senator -- also a Republican -- said "hand-wringing" about the situation in Iraq would not win the war.

"War is tough, and there are casualties. And just before victory, sometimes, it gets most violent," said Kyl, chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security of the Judiciary Committee.

Appearing on the same program, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a fellow Republican, disagreed with Kyl that the United States was anywhere near victory.

"I don't think we're winning. In all due respect to my friend Jon Kyl, the term 'hand-wringing' is a little misplaced here," Hagel said.

"The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies are required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost.

"The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq," said Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

On ABC's "This Week," Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware both had critical words for the administration's handling of Iraq.

Lugar, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said "the incompetence in the administration" led to only $1 billion spent out of $18 billion appropriated last year for reconstruction efforts.

And finally, this:

Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said Monday he plans to support his party in November but may write in a candidate instead of voting for President Bush.

The Rhode Island lawmaker, known for moderate views that often run counter to the Bush administration, said he was going to vote for a member of his party even though he disagrees with the president on many issues.

The Republican said the party's direction in the future will determine his political career as well. He said he's ``not OK'' with the conservative platform from the Republican convention, but would not say if he'd consider switching parties in his next election in 2006.

``It wasn't that long ago that moderates had more of a voice,'' Chafee said. ``It's a cycle that I hope will come back.''

Bush getting ready to cut and run in Iraq?

Right-wing insider commentator Robert Novak thinks so, according to his column today:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

The Polls This Week: How Kerry gets to 270 – not easily, but doable.

Bush has forged a modest lead, but the basic shape of the electoral map hasn’t changed. Kerry must win all the Gore-2000 states, plus a Bush-2000 state or two totaling a mere 10 electoral votes. The first part of the equation is imminently doable, despite the fact that several Gore states are currently toss-ups, including apparently narrow Bush leads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Where does Kerry go to find the 10 Bush votes from 2000? (He is likely to take New Hampshire’s four electoral votes, as he has led consistently there and Bush won in 2000 by less than the number of Nader votes. But that still leaves Kerry six electoral votes shy of the magic number.)

For most of the campaign, the answer has been Ohio, Missouri, and Florida.

Unfortunately for Kerry, Ohio and Missouri have been trending toward Bush, especially Missouri – which makes me wonder how things would look about now with Gephardt on the ticket. While there are signs that Kerry is lowering his emphasis on Missouri, Ohio is still in play, and if you look at the geography, it’s relatively easy to hit Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania almost simultaneously. West Virginia, a Bush-2000 state, would be a “nice-to-have” for Kerry, but would only deliver five more electoral votes.

The conventional wisdom is that Kerry must win Pennsylvania, which was a Gore state in 2000. I agree, more or less, although he could lose Pennsylvania, yet win Florida and New Hampshire to reach 270.

And so we come back to Florida and its 27 electoral votes as the key to this election. The two candidates have been neck and neck in the polls there, but the hurricane season has all but denied Bush his post-convention bounce in the state and the race has become frozen as Floridians recover from the storms. Despite the fact that Bush has made three post-hurricane visits to the state to “survey the damage,” neither candidate has been able to really campaign there lately. One wild card could be how well FEMA relief efforts go. There are a lot of people who need help and it’s always easy to blame FEMA for the glitches that almost inevitably occur.

Another, less likely, scenario for Kerry would be to hold all the Gore-2000 states, plus win New Hampshire, leaving him six electoral votes shy of 270, then swipe Colorado or Arkansas from Bush. Both are doable, but there are few signs thus far that Kerry is trying to bring this scenario to fruition.

As for those Gore-2000 states, if Bush cuts into any of them, it obviously hurts Kerry’s chances, but if Bush wins two Gore-2000 states, Kerry is done for. And right now, Bush has narrow leads in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

There is a wildcard in Colorado, where a ballot measure, if it passes, would require the state to cast its electoral votes in proportion to the overall vote. The way the race there is shaping up, the winning candidate, who would normally get all nine electoral votes, would likely get only five, with the loser getting the other four. Hmm…

If Kerry holds the Gore-2000 states, plus wins New Hampshire, that puts him at 264. Four more Colorado votes – or, for that matter – five, would still leave him shy of 270. Doh! He would still need to swipe another state, size wouldn’t matter, from Bush to win.

Check out www.electoral-vote.com for a pretty good compilation of state by state polls with commentary daily.

If you can’t say anything nice …

In truth, I can’t recall my mother ever saying that, but it applies to my blog lately. Once we have a Democratic nominee, my partisan juices start flowing and it becomes dispositionally impossible for me to say anything bad about him (or her, as the case may someday be).

So I’ve been largely silent for the past couple of weeks. (For a measure of my true feelings toward John Kerry, qua candidate, simply click on some of my entries from last winter and spring.)

Kerry wakes up, realizes he's in a fight

Thankfully, it looks like Kerry has woken up to the fact that he was this close to being Dukakis-ized. The only way to defeat a Bush is to anticipate the slurs, which typically come in from shadowy surrogates, respond forcefully then COUNTER-PUNCH aggressively. Dukakis got sucker-punched in 1988 and never got back off the mat. Kerry got the same treatment over the last week with the SBVT ads. He's in much better position than Dukakis to recover, not only given current economic and wartime conditions, but given the precedent set by Bill Clinton in 1992.

And if heads need to roll in his campaign to unleash Kerry, let the heads roll! Bring back Carville and Begala! Or someone who can act like them.