I'm a long-time fan of White's music. When my lovely wife Crystal and I were married, we walked back up the aisle to White's instrumental hit "Love's Theme."
We'll be out of town visiting Louisville over the Fourth of July weekend. We'll attend a birthday/pool party for my good friend Joe, and we'll take The Girls to Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom, their first-ever amusement park.
Tonight, we're making dinner for our friend Onye and her fiancee Anthony. It should be a pleasant occasion; I particularly look forward to a few rounds of DOA2 Hardcore with Anthony. He introduced me to the game several months ago, and I liked it so much, I bought it. It'll be interesting to see if I've developed enough skillz to make me a contender.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has used colorful language before to great effect, but he is taking some heat for his "Bring them on" challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, who he said were tough enough to take it.
Even some aides winced at Bush's words, which Democrats pounced on as an invitation to Iraqi militants to fire on U.S. troops already the subject of hit-and-run attacks by Saddam Hussein loyalists and others.
"These men and women are risking their lives every day, and the president who sent them on this mission showed tremendous insensitivity to the dangers they face," said Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.
Another Democratic presidential candidate, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, said condemned the comment, saying, "The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship."
...University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan, a longtime Bush watcher, said Bush uses such language when under strain, and that he is likely feeling the heat of criticism about the lagging post-war effort in Iraq.
He called the remark an unfortunate choice of words because it sounded belligerent.
"I think that when he feels up against it, as he did at the time of the 9/11 attacks, or when he does when coming under criticism now, he has a tendency to strike back verbally, and I think that's what you're seeing there. He's not choosing his words diplomatically at those moments because he's not feeling particularly diplomatic," Buchanan said.
...Brookings Institution presidential scholar Stephen Hess said many Americans like what they hear from the president, calling his words reminiscent of his defiant stance against the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks when he stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center towers and vowed to fight back.
The obvious difference being, of course, that in the aftermath of the terror attacks that occurred on his watch, Bush promised we'd prevail, but didn't dare the terrorists to strike again. Hess may feel it's "more than a stretch" to say that Bush was inviting another attack, but he's mistaken; that's what Bush said, and it's "more than a stretch" to parse some other kind of meaning into it.
Here's an interesting analysis suggesting that Iraq, which Bush no doubt expected would be the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, may well become his Achilles heel instead: Iraq Attacks Pose Political Challenge for Bush
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With each U.S. death in Iraq, President Bush faces the potential of a growing political threat at home as Americans become more unsettled by continued violence, analysts say.
Bush, whose 2004 re-election strategy relies heavily on casting himself as a strong leader in a time of grave threats, could see that image damaged by the steady death toll or prolonged attacks on U.S. troops.
"There is public recognition that things aren't going well in Iraq," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup poll. He added that public opinion is "moving in a direction that, if it continues, would begin to be very significant for the Bush administration and their re-election strategy."
A Gallup poll this week showed the number of Americans who thought things were going badly in Iraq jumped to 42 percent from 29 percent a month ago. Fifty-six percent said the war was worth it, down from 73 percent when major military action ended in mid-April.
A University of Maryland poll this week found a majority now believes Bush "stretched the truth" on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, although two-thirds still say Bush was right to go to war.
The public will accept U.S. casualties if they believe the cause is just, "but eventually there is a tip-over point where the perception changes, and no one knows when that comes," Newport said.
Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, who has strongly criticized the president's Iraq policy, has jumped to the head of the pack of Bush's 2004 challengers. Democrats say growing doubts about Bush's judgment on Iraq open up new avenues to question his leadership and ability to handle foreign policy.
"It raises doubts about Bush's core message -- that I make you safer and I won the war," said Democratic consultant Jenny Backus.
Administration officials say U.S. troops in Iraq are not facing a Vietnam-like quagmire. The military has launched numerous raids in recent days to halt Iraqi attacks.
Bush has ruled out an early exit from Iraq of 150,000 U.S. troops and challenged Iraqi militants on Wednesday with a defiant call of "Bring them on." At least 23 American servicemen have been killed by hostile fire since Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1.
Bush said there were people in Iraq who wanted to drive out U.S. troops and "create the conditions where we get nervous and decide to leave. We're not going to get nervous."
Republicans say there is plenty of good news for Bush in recent polls. His public approval ratings still linger above 60 percent, and the Gallup poll found three-quarters of Americans believe U.S. deaths in Iraq are expected. Seven in 10 believe keeping troops there is worth it.
"As much as America would like the war to end quickly, there is a general understanding that this is a long process -- it's a big, complicated job and everybody gets that," said Republican pollster David Winston. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he said, "There is a greater understanding of the long view."
Democrats say the issue is Bush's failure to secure a stable post-war environment in Iraq and broad international support.
"I don't think there was ever a question we would win the war," said Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, one of nine Democrats vying to challenge Bush. "The question was always could the administration win the peace."
As I mentioned in one of the comment threads I was following yesterday, Bush's bellicosity is red meat for his hardcore supporters, but no amount of malfeasance or incompetence on Bush's part will pry their votes loose from him. As always, the election will be decided by the moderate, uncommitted swing voters. For them, the message is simple:
Democrats -- and I'd say the media, but the thought of the so-called "liberal media" holding Bush accountable is laughable -- should be constantly in Bush's face demanding that he defend his execrable record. They should demand Bush justify why he deserves four more years with evidence, not assertions, and the latter should be challenged at every turn. And as a sweet bonus, it'll demonstrate how lousy Bush truly is under pressure, after four years of being shielded from anything resembling dissent.
It's really quite simple: Under the circumstances, why on Earth would anyone want to support Bush?
The nation's unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June, the highest level in more than nine years, in an economic slump that has cost nearly a million jobs in the last three months [Emphasis added].
Businesses slashed 30,000 jobs just last month, with cuts heavily concentrated on factory assembly lines, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
The 0.3 percentage point increase from May's 6.1 percent rate was the largest month-to-month rise since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. That surprised analysts who predicted a smaller rise, to 6.2 percent. The last time the overall rate was higher was in March 1994.
While recent economic indicators point to an economy struggling toward recovery, the latest report demonstrated that America's job market was still very much in a state of recession last month.
Since March, unemployment has increased by 913,000. Two million people were unemployed for 27 weeks or more last month, an increase of 410,000 since the start of the year.
Another factor behind the increase in the overall civilian unemployment rate was the increase in the number of people seeking work in June. Optimism about an economy rebound led over 600,000 people to resume their search for work.
Because the government calculates the overall unemployment rate based on a survey of American households, and because the lackluster economy wasn't producing enough jobs to accommodate an increasing number of job-seekers, that rate increased significantly.
Manufacturing led in payroll cuts last month, with 56,000 jobs lost. Since July 2000, the nation's factories have cut 2.6 million jobs.
That sector has been the weakest link in the economy's ability to get back to full speed. Slack demand at home and abroad and competition from a flood of imports have throttled back production.
Construction jobs helped offset manufacturing losses somewhat last month, with the fourth straight gain in hiring. Construction has added 101,000 jobs since February, reflecting strength in residential building.
The mortgage boom, stoked by record low rates, has been the bright spot in the dismal economy. People are buying new homes and refinancing their old mortgages. The extra cash from refinancing combined with solid home-value appreciation have kept consumer spending afloat.
Other hiring gains last month were in health care, leisure and hospitality and temporary employment services.
In a separate report, new claims for jobless benefits rose last week to 430,000, an increase of a seasonally adjusted 21,000 from the previous week's revised 409,000 claims.
The more stable, four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, dropped to 425,000. That was the lowest level since April 5.
The new-claims figure had been trending downward over the last few weeks, so I halfway expected it to dip a bit below the 400,000 mark that traditionally indicates a weak job market. No such luck.
Let's also not forget that, even if the increase is due in part to more active job seekers, that isn't necessarilty good news. Increased competition for jobs can allow potential employers to be less generous with pay, benefits, and even raises for current employees. Job seekers may settle for a lower-paying job than they previously held. These are pocketbook issues that directly affect the vast majority of Americans not expected to benefit from Bush's policy of redistributing income to the rich.
Of course, with an upward trend in productivity (Definition: Working longer hours for the same pay), corporate profits seem to be stabalizing, and the stock market seems to be finding its feet. While an optimistic market is certainly better than the alternative, it's vital to remember that the Dow Jones and NASDAQ do not equal the US economy. Indeed, it's vital for Democrats to remind the public in the coming year that while Wall Street seems to be doing okay, average Americans are not. When Bush's handlers try to make him appear "concerned" over the economy in the next year, Democrats should retort that he darn well ought to be concerned, but that he isn't nearly as concerned as the American families struggling to pay their bills or find a job. And they need to emphasize the jobs lost under Bush's watch, and -- even if the unemployment rate levels off -- hold Bush accountable for any jobless recovery. In a demand-side recession, there's no incentive at all to increase output when supply capacity exceeds demand, and no amount of supply-side windfalls will change that.
And why not? Bush's economic policies were never intended to benefit anything other than his wealthy corporate cronies. He has no choice but to use deceptive rhetoric to gain support; Democrats need to call Bush out when the rhetoric fails to meet the reality. (Shouldn't the boost from the President's first round of tax cuts have kicked in by now?) Even Reagan promised "trickle down" economics: Sure, our policies favor the rich, but eventually you'll get yours.
Bush, by contrast, implies that average Americans benefit directly from his policies; that's the only way he can sell them. But they don't, and were never intended to. Shine a light on that, my friends, shine a light.
Almost a million jobs gone in three months. Amazing.
For further reading, Wampum has been keeping excellent watch on the economic numbers. Brad De Long is also a must-read.
Update: I may not be among the unemployed any more, but blogger Ted Barlow has taken my place. Sincere best wishes for good luck in the job hunt, Ted!
Bush's macho moment yesterday sparked much commentary in the blogosphere. That occurrence was to be expected; Bush's taunts, though, provoked more than the usual level of outrage. And why not? Bush's daring Iraqi irregulars to attack -- which is what he did, despite Ari Fleischer's denials -- were more than usually outrageous.
Here are the responses from some of my favorite bloggers:
New Jersey Senator Frank R. Lautenberg had this reaction:
"I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander – let alone the Commander in Chief – invite enemies to attack U.S. troops," said Lautenberg.
I left comments at a few of them, and in those comments I voiced ideas I hadn't mentioned in my own rant. In the Daily Kos thread, I opined that Bush has handed the Iraqi insurgency a powerful weapon: From now on, attacks on US forces won't be portrayed as isolated incidents in a general unrest, but as direct repudiation of Bush and his conquest of Iraq. And sure enough, today's headlines bear that out: Iraqis Defy Bush, Wound Seven U.S. Soldiers in Attacks
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Seven American soldiers were wounded in two separate attacks on occupation forces in Iraq on Thursday, a day after President Bush said there were enough U.S. troops in Iraq to deal with the militants.
In a sign the guerrilla-style attacks were growing increasingly bold, assailants fired a rocket-propelled grenade on a U.S. Humvee vehicle on a major street in central Baghdad shortly after 10 a.m. (0600 GMT), witnesses said.
In case you're curious about what Bush might have said if he weren't so blindly belligerent, check out yesterday's comments from British foreign secretary Jack Straw:
"This action against the coalition won't succeed and will be dealt with," Straw said Wednesday after talks with US overseer Paul Bremer, during a surprise visit to Baghdad.
Memo to Bush: It's perfectly possible to express optimism -- however unfounded it may seem -- without inviting attacks on one's own troops.
And by the way -- Straw said that while in Baghdad, not 6,000 miles away and surrounded by a security apparatus that's among the best in the world. Bush talked big, but he doesn't have any skin in this game -- it's American forces whose skins are at risk. Bush's mouth is writing a check he knows someone else's butt will have to cash. That makes Bush's bellicosity the mark of a coward, not a combatant.
Seriously, I am sick to death of these people. Attacking civilians is terrorism. Attacking soldiers -- ones occupying your country, no less -- is guerilla warfare. This outcome was predictable -- indeed, was predicted -- way before 9/11 made terrorism Dubya's favorite hot-button (because goodness knows it wasn't prior to then).
And calling it terrorism doesn't make our soldiers any less dead, nor does it magically provide BushCo with a clue about how to deal with it.
"Saddam Hussein had a weapons program," Bush said. "Remember he used them — he used chemical weapons on his own people."
No one disputes either of those points. Prior to the war, though, it was Bush who went much further, insisting that Saddam's existing, massive stocks of chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons presented such a grave threat to the US that no option other than invasion right now was possible.
Even the media seems to have noticed:
Bush made no mention of the failure of U.S. teams to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but said, "We're bringing some order to the country and we're beginning to learn the truth."
Bush did not explicitly promise, as he has in the past, that weapons or evidence of a weapons program will be found. But, he said, "It's just a matter of time, a matter of time."
Let's face it -- part of Bush's appeal is his so-called "decisiveness," the notion that he's combative, or that he's somehow uniquely willing to fight. Whether this carefully presented image jibes with Bush's record is a matter of debate.
But Bush's recent challenge to the forces that have been attacking and killing our fighting forces in Iraq is a disgusting display dwarfed in the dimension of despicableness only by its degree of deludedness.
"There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring'em on!," he said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
"There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case," he said in firm, almost angry tones.
"We've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure," he said, brushing aside critics who say the Pentagon underestimated the number of troops needed to rebuild Iraq and set it on track for a prosperous and democratic future.
Bush's belligerence has all the earmarks of a drunken bully who, upon picking a fight in a bar and getting smacked down, dazedly double-dares his opponent to do it again. And the next stage in this sorry screenplay is the bully looking around for backup, only to find that his friends have long since slunk away in embarrassment at the miscreant's appalling antics.
Bush would have a right to gloat if any rational observer could conclude that the present US force is, indeed, sufficient to stabilize Iraq, but current events suggest otherwise. There are indeed "some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there," feel perfectly willing to "bring it on,", and our soldiers and Marines continue to pay the price. And the Administration's response is to deny that the Pentagon's own official definition of "guerilla war" applies -- a ludicrous display enchoed today by Bush's own reality-challenged bluster.
If Bush wants to play the strutting tough guy with macho rhetoric on a personal level, fine. But how dare he explicitly invite attacks on our military -- many of whom have already paid the ultimate price for Bush's grand adventure, and many more of whom are at risk and demoralized due to his Administration's abject incompetence in planning for a postwar Iraq.
As the Washington Post noted, since the situation in Iraq appears to be getting worse, not better, it behhoves the US to adopt a more humble stance and seek the outside help that many observers feel is necessary to bolster the present coalition force, currently stretched thin and growing weary. Yet the President offers not humilty, but hubris; not reconciliation, but recklessness -- all the while knowing he's personally safe, should the Iraqi resistance answer his challenge to "bring it on."
Ironically, I happen to agree -- indeed, I've felt all along -- that the occupation of Iraq will be a long and costly process that the US simply can't afford to abandon. That likelihood -- predicted by many in the first Gulf War -- was one of my reasons to oppose the war. But now that we're stuck there and our people are getting blown up in the Iraqi summer heat, we should demand more from our leaders than chest-pounding rabble-rousing. Regardless of one's stance on the war, Americans should all demand reason to believe that this Administration is following a coherent plan to safeguard the security of all Americans, and not just making it up as they go along.
As a candidate, Bush sought the vote of moderates by professing support for a humble foreign policy. Now, presiding over a crisis situation that did as much damage to the United States's international credibility and support as it did to Saddam's regime, Bush waves the red cape of bluter that's sure to prove red meat to his aggression-addled base but is equally likely to prove counterporductive to the US's prestige, once again.
Perhaps Bush wishes to encourage the perception -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that the US is in control of events in Iraq. Yet it beggars belief that Bush would put American fighting men and women at risk with his reprehensible taunting. In the runup to the war, it was often suggested that not supporting Bush's political motives or dishonest rhetoric was tantamount to not supporting the troops.
I submit that the concept of "supporting the troops" in no way embraces offering them up as live bait to well-armed, well-prepared resistance forces that have proved adept at striking hard and fading away. Bush's chest-thumping bellicosity will be little comfort to the families of the service members who fall victim to those who will be only too happy to accept Bush's feeble, yet outrageous, challenge.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - For the first time since the beginning of the war in Iraq, a solid majority of Americans believe the Bush administration either "stretched the truth" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or told outright lies, according to a new opinion survey.
The poll by the University of Maryland found that 52 percent of respondents said they believed President George W. Bush and his aides were "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" about Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
Another 10 percent said US officials were presenting Congress, the American public and the international community "evidence they knew was false," indicated the survey which was made public Tuesday.
...Similarly, 56 percent of those polled believed the US government stretched the truth or made outright false statements about Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda.
Well, duh.
Only 32 percent still cling to the notion that the government was
