The Debate Chat is Open!

Grab a drink and a bowl of popcorn then click on the link below to join the Command Post Live Debate Chat.

This will be the place to be seen tonight. We’re expecting some special guests and Alan and I will be there, acting as hosts and encouraging as much chat debate as possible. We’re talking brawls! Fisticuffs! Strip debate poker!

Well, not so much that. But it will be fun, entertaining and informative and, let’s face it, not everyone in your household is going to want to listen to you scream at the tv while you’re watching the debate. But here at TCP chat, we don’t mind your lunatic ravings at all. Birds of a feather…

Enter the chat

Please Note The chat program does not work well with Firefox. I suggest an alterate browser tonight for Firefox users, either IE or Opera.

Debate Night

I will be living blogging the debate at PoliBlog—just click and scroll. The “pre-game coverage” is here.

Also, the Boston Herald has a list of some blogs which are going to be covering the event.

Meanwhile, some pre-debate lists: here and here.

Stephen Green will also be live blogging, which is always fun.

Live Blogging the Debate

We at TCP will not be live blogging the debate, as we’ll be busy in the chat room. However, Blogs for Bush has a long list of bloggers who will be doing so.

Add to that list Stephen Green, who will do his usual Martini Blogging, and Begging to Differ, which boasts a cabal of bloggers from all political stripes who will be going at it.

Chat room opens in fifteen minutes!

TCP Chat Opens At 8:45 p.m. EDT

In case you missed it on the main TCP page, we’ll be opening our chat room tonight at 8:45 p.m. so readers can interact during the debate. We’ll post a link to the chat room and instructions for logging in at that time. Read you there!

First presidential debate to focus on foreign policy

HAARETZ/AP: First presidential debate to focus on foreign policy

The first presidential debate and its focus on foreign policy and security gives both President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry opportunities to dig into each other’s record and patch their own weaknesses on Iraq.

On the campaign trail, Bush and Kerry describe Iraq in terms that could make voters wonder if they’re talking about different countries. Bush sees progress toward stability, democratic elections and civic life. Kerry sees increasing instability, little reconstruction and terrorist havens.

Bush has been portraying the Massachusetts Democrat as too indecisive to take the bold action needed to go after terrorists and evildoers. He can trumpet the successful capture of Saddam Hussein and steps he’s taken to improve security at home.

“There’s an opportunity for him to talk about his vision for the war on terror, describe the way forward in Iraq and, more broadly, in expanding freedom and liberty throughout the greater Mideast,” said Bush strategist Karl Rove.

Nevertheless, Wayne Fields, director of American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis, said “Bush has got to be more detailed” about his policies and goals in Iraq.

“Where are we going to get the troops to go there, and what’s the cost?” he said.

Bush Ahead In Ohio, Fla. And Pa.

USA Today reports that a New USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll finds President Bush widened his advantage with likely voters in Florida, taken the lead in Pennsylvania, and maintains a small margin over Kerry in Ohio.

From California Yankee.

LA Times Poll: Bush by 5

The latest Los Angeles Times Poll finds President Bush has a 5-percentage-point lead over Sen. John F. Kerry among likely voters.

Likely Voters
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Registered Voters
Bush 49%
Kerry 45%

From California Yankee.

The Debate Take From Oz

Gotta’ love Aussies.

It’s being promoted as a prize fight, with both sides exaggerating their opponents’ abilities. In the blue corner, hoping for a knockout, is Democrat John “Rock Jaw” Kerry, who Republicans insist is the greatest debater since the Roman orator Cicero. In the red, dodging and ready to counterstrike, is Republican George “The Fox” Bush, who Democrats claim has never been bested in a debate.

“Rock Jaw” vs. “The Fox.” Our own A. E. Brain? No, but close: The Australian.

al Qaeda To Target Miami?

This from the NY Daily News:

U.S. law enforcement agencies warned authorities in Miami that the al Qaeda terrorist organization might try to attack during the first presidential debate tomorrow, a government spokeswoman said.

One can only hope this is more “Code Orange” caution …

CBS Caught Falsifying Transcript

Correcting a flawed transcript of a TV program is something to be commended. Often small segments can be inadvertantly omitted, and inserting them so the transcript accurately reflects what was actually broadcast is only good journalism.

Inserting lines that were not broadcast is another matter entirely, especially after being criticised for not including relevant facts.

Updating a previous post, CBS has retroactively “corrected” the transcript of a broadcast aired recently.

What used to say

What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18.

The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.

Now says

What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18. Beverly Cocco is so concerned she is involved with the organization “People Against the Draft.”

The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.

CBS weren’t able to edit the captured screen video though, nor the snapshotted article quoted at TCP. Competently falsifying history to deflect criticism is difficult now.

Hat Tip : LGF and RatherBiased.

Will the Flip-Flop Boomerang?

The SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER is reporting that Cheney has changed his position on Iraq:

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn’t be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting “bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.
. . . .
Last week, Cheney attacked Kerry for his alleged inconsistencies. “Senator Kerry … said that under his leadership, more of America’s friends would speak with one voice on Iraq. That seems a little odd coming from a guy who doesn’t speak with one voice himself. By his repeated efforts to recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Kerry has given every indication that he lacks the resolve, the determination and the conviction to prevail in the conflict we face.”
Cheney’s office did not respond to requests for comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond.

The trascript was discovered by Seatle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joe Connelly, who wrote in his “In the Northwest” column today entitled Bush-Cheney flip-flops cost America in blood:

The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They’re getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in blood.
Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
The words of our future vice president — defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq — eerily foretell today’s morass. Here is what Cheney said in ‘92:
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
“And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don’t think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war.
“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

John Edwards imediately picked up on this in a speach today in West Virginia. From the New York Times:

Edwards Says Bush Administration of Botching Iraq Plans
Seizing on a published report that Vice President Dick Cheney had warned of getting “bogged down” in Iraq 12 years ago, Senator John Edwards today accused the Bush administration of botching plans for occupying Iraq and made clear it would be a topic during presidential debates.
“He knew — that’s the worse part about this — he knew how dangerous this was,” Mr. Edwards told a crowd here. “They knew that there were enormous predictors of what would be happening there and they still didn’t have a plan even though they knew what might be coming.”

San Francisco Chronical reporter Marc Sandalow takes an indepth look at Bush’s evolving rhetoric regading the Iraq war.

Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war
President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry’s stance as ambiguous and vacillating.
“Mixed signals are the wrong signals,” Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. “I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I’ll mean what I say.”
Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush’s words on Iraq have evolved — or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.
An examination of more than 150 of Bush’s speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters’ questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.
. . . .
Yet a close look at the record makes it difficult to support Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman’s description of the upcoming debate as a “square-off between resolve and optimism versus vacillation and defeatism.”
A careful reading of Bush’s statements on Iraq reveals many instances of consistency, just as The Chronicle’s examination of Kerry’s words found consistency in the Democratic challenger’s statements. Over and over, Bush stated that the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way Americans — including the commander in chief — viewed the threat of terrorism and lowered the threshold of risk Americans were willing to accept.
. . . .
Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.
“Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,” Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.
“And our mission won’t change,” Bush continued. “Our mission is precisely what I just stated.”
Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.
“Our mission — besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction — our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self- government.”

Read the rest of the news analysis here.

Kerry Acknowledges "Inarticulate Moment"

The Associated Press reports that Kerry acknowledges an inarticulate moment when he tried to explain his vote against the $87 billion for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq by saying:

“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

From California Yankee.

Kerrry Says We Should Not Have Gone To War In Iraq

ABCNEWS.com has posted a transcript of an excerpt from Diane Sawyer’s interview with Kerry, which is being broadcast on ABC’s “Good Morning America:”

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

SEN. JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information we know today.

From California Yankee.

CBS Falls for Democrats Draft Hoax E-Mails

CLARIFICATION: The headline is not meant to imply that there is any evidence that the Democrats were responsible for the hoax. Democrats are only responsible for the attempt to introduce a Draft.

From CBS :

In this report, CBS News Correspondent Richard Schlesinger looks at what President Bush and Sen. John Kerry say about the possibilities of reinstituting the military draft.

Beverly Cocco has spent most of her life protecting children in Philadelphia.

She spends most of her time worrying about other people’s kids. But as Election Day approaches, it’s her own two grown sons who Beverly is most worried about.

“I go to bed every night and I pray and I actually get sick to my stomach,” she says. “I’m very worried; I’m scared. I’m absolutely scared; I’m petrified.”

Beverly is petrified about a military draft : and she’s not alone. There’s an undercurrent of anxiety; mass e-mails are circulating among parents worried their kids could be called up.

“I think there’s a good possibility,” Beverly says.

But neither President Bush, nor Sen. John Kerry has said he will re-institute the draft. In fact they both say they won’t.

Kerry says, “I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft for this country.”

Kerry says he’ll try to get allies of the U.S. to send troops that could relieve American soldiers.

The Bush campaign says expecting great numbers of foreign troops to help out is pure fantasy. The president wants to train more Iraqi troops to take over for the Americans. And, he says, despite the war on terror, there will be no draft.

“The war on terror will continue,” says the president. “It’s going to take a while and no, we don’t need a draft.”

But Beverly’s not buying it. She’s a Republican, but also a single-issue voter.

Would she vote for a Democrat? “Absolutely,” she says. “I would vote for Howdy Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe.”

In fact, there are at least three votes in this house riding on the draft: Beverly’s and her sons’ Carmen and Nick.

Are her sons worried about being drafted? “Yeah,” says Nick. “It’s the talk; the talk’s there. Though people aren’t actually coming out and saying it, it’s there.”

What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18.

The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.

“I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call,” says Selective Service Director Jack Martin.

This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up.

There hasn’t been a draft since 1973, but that’s not much comfort to Beverly Cocco.

So she is keeping a sharp eye on the political traffic. She’s a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn’t like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over.

The e-mails (whose text is not available on the CBS site) referred to read as follows:

From:    [omitted]@usdoj.gov
Subject: Military  Draft expected to start July 15, 2005
Date:    Tue, 15 Jun 2004

Draft expected to start July 15, 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program’s initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 — just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public’s attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

Even those voters who currently support us. Actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004 selective service system (sss) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004. The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld’s prediction of a “long, hard slog” in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on “terrorism”] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, “to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18—26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.” These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp

S. 89—Universal National Service Act of 2003

Action Requested:
None at this time. HSLDA’s National Center is tracking this legislation.

Background:
Official purpose: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

The language of this bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. It authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service, and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years.

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

——————————-

From RatherBiased.com :

CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails
[…]
Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal conscriptions, seeks to establish a “peaceful, rational foreign policy” by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq.
[…]
Also left out of the CBS story was the fact that while there are two bills in Congress that are seeking to reestablish the draft, both of them (S-89 and HR-163) are sponsored exclusively by Democrats and have been pronounced DOA by the Republican leadership.

UPDATE: It has been suggested that CBS may not have fallen for any ‘hoax’, but may have deliberately intended to mislead viewers by omitting extremely relevant facts. Given recent events, the fact that even the most simple and easy search on the Internet would have revealed the e-mails to be bogus should not be viewed as evidence that CBS intended to mislead, merely that they don’t bother checking any of their evidence.

Kerry Campaign Retracts Assault Rifle Claim

From Outdoor Life (October) :

An exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates on gun rights, conservation and other issues that affect your hunting and fishing.

September 2004
[…]
OL: Are you a gun owner? If so, what is your favorite gun?

Bush: Yes. My favorite gun is a Weatherby, Athena 20-gauge (over/under).

Kerry: My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.

From the New York Times September 26 :

Senator John Kerry, a hunter who supported the recently expired assault weapons ban, frequently tells audiences he has never met anyone who wanted to use an AK-47 to shoot a deer. But it is not clear what Mr. Kerry does with the Chinese assault rifle he told Outdoor Life magazine he kept in his personal collection.
[…]
Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association - which has given Mr. Kerry “F” ratings throughout his career and backs Mr. Bush’s re-election - said the Outdoor Life comment made Mr. Kerry’s support of the assault weapons ban disingenuous.

”It’s O.K. for John Kerry to own these kinds of firearms, but it’s not O.K. for John Q. Public?” Mr. Arulanandam said, noting that if Mr. Kerry brought the gun home from the war as a souvenir he could be subject to court-martial. “He certainly owes people an explanation as to why there’s a double standard.”

Stephen P. Halbrook, a gun rights lawyer who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said the most common Chinese assault rifles, known as SKS clones, were not among the 19 models banned under the 1994 law. But some SKS’s have magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which violates a Massachusetts law against large-capacity weapons, Mr. Halbrook said. If the gun is fully automatic, Mr. Halbrook said, it is illegal in Massachusetts and would require a federal permit if Mr. Kerry kept it at one of his homes in Pennsylvania and Idaho.

Such permits are not public records.

Bob Ricker, a former N.R.A. lawyer who is now a consultant for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he was not worried by Mr. Kerry’s answer because “he knows a lot about firearms and he’s also one of the most credible individuals when it comes to talking about gun-violence prevention and what it takes to keep weapons of war off the street.”

From the New York Times of September 27 :

Senator John Kerry’s campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine’s questionnaire on his behalf for the error.

Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, owns two guns, a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun and the rifle, which Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry “keeps as a relic” and had never fired. Mr. Meehan said the gun had no make or model markings on it and that Mr. Kerry “got it from a friend years ago,” adding that such rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago and were used by the North Koreans and the Vietcong.

The “Rifling” or grooves in a rifle barrel are there to impart spin. The latest, corrected version from the Kerry Campiagn makes it quite clear that it may have been from Vietnam (or even Korea or Cambodia), but was given to the Senator by a friend, so no crime was committed (by Kerry, anyway). And it wasn’t his fault, it was some staffer. And there are no markings on the weapon so it can’t be traced.
Given the “100 year old design” claim, it may be a Mosin-Nagant M1891 or one of its many variants, such as the Chinese type 55. Though most “M91”s have all sorts of serial numbers on various parts in unlikely places, e.g. at the magazine base….

Greens, Libertarians holding own debate on Thursday

Bush / Cheney Offers Real-Time Debate Response ... To Bloggers

This came via email today from Bush / Cheney:

Today, Bush-Cheney ‘04 announced the launch of www.DebateFacts.com, which will set the record straight on John Kerry’s shifting positions and baseless assertions during the presidential debates, providing real-time responses to Kerry’s vacillation, defeatism and personal attacks.

On Thursday night, you can be a part of setting the record straight.

DebateFacts.com features a live newsfeed for bloggers. This feed will update throughout the debates. Each time John Kerry says something false or inaccurate, you’ll get the facts delivered to you and your readers instantly.

To get your Live Debate Facts feed, go to:

http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/DebateFeed.aspx

The debate feed is available in two sizes: a horizontal feed to insert directly into your posts live-blogging the debates, or a vertical feed you can put in your site’s navigation. Either way, all you need to do is cut and paste a single line of code into your site, and you’re done.

Don’t wait… put the feed on your site today, and be ready for Thursday night’s debate!

http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/DebateFeed.aspx

Speaking of which, we’ll be opening the chat room during each debate, and will post instructions as we near the 30th.

Flood of New Voters Register

From The Australian :

New US voters are flooding local election offices with paperwork, registering in significantly higher numbers than four years ago as interest in the presidential election runs high and an array of activist groups recruit would-be voters who could prove critical come November 2.

Cleveland has seen nearly twice as many new voters register so far as compared with 2000; Philadelphia is having its biggest boom in new voters in 20 years; and counties are bringing in temporary workers and employees from other agencies to help process all the new registration forms.

Nationwide figures aren’t yet available, but anecdotal evidence shows an upswing in many places, often urban but some rural.
[…]
Some examples, from interviews with state and county officials across the country:

- New registered voters in Miami-Dade County, a crucial Florida county in 2000, grew by 65 per cent through mid-September, compared with 2000.

- New registered voters jumped nearly 150 per cent in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) in Ohio, one of the most hard-fought states this year.

And that’s with weeks left until registration deadlines fall, beginning in October.

Curtis Gans at the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate said a clear national picture won’t emerge until more applications are processed next month.
[…]
Oklahoma officials said they had 16,000 new Republican registrations, 15,000 new Democrats and 3500 new independents. In Oregon, where new registrations grew by 4 per cent from January through September 1, Democrats outregistered Republicans two-to-one.

No European Help For Kerry

The Financial Times reports that French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if Kerry wins the election.

From California Yankee.

Debate Prep Began With Yale Professor

The New York Times reports that President Bush and Kerry shared a common oratory teacher and debate coach at Yale.

From California Yankee.

Washington Post-ABC News Poll - Bush By 6

The Washington Post reports that a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll finds that President Bush maintains maintains a solid 6% lead over Kerry:

Likely Voters
Bush 51
Kerry 45
Nader 1

Registered Voters
Bush 51
Kerry 44
Nader 2

The poll was conducted September 23-26, 2004 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent for registered voters.

From California Yankee.

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll - Bush By 8

USA Today reports that the latest the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds President Bush leads Kerry by 8 points among likely voters:

Likely Voters
Bush 52
Kerry 44
Nader 3

Registered Voters
Bush 53
Kerry 42
Nader 3

The poll was conducted September 24-26, 2004 and has a margin of error of ±3 percent.

From California Yankee.

Transcript of the President's Interview with Bill O'Reilly

Courtesy Fox News. This is part I of the interview. Part II will air tomorrow evening, part III on Wednesday.

——-
This is a partial transcript from the September 27, 2004 edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” that has been edited for clarity.

Watch Part II and III of the interview on Tuesday, September 28 and Wednesday, September 29 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET! Catch “The O’Reilly Factor” weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the “Radio Factor” weekdays on Westwood One.

BILL O‘REILLY, HOST: Okay. First of all, I want to thank you for talking with me.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH : [chuckles]

O’REILLY: So few people will.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there’s, uh, it’s a big gamble on my part.

O’REILLY: No, it isn’t, not really though. You, we talked four and a half years ago,

PRESIDENT BUSH: I’m teasing.

O’REILLY: Uh, yeah, when you,

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, I enjoy, I enjoy how you interview people, and I uh, appreciate you giving me the chance to come on and have what we say in Texas, just a visit.

O’REILLY: Yeah. We’re going to have a visit here. I’ve got fifteen questions for you. If they’re dumb, tell me they’re dumb. Because the audience will like that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: [Chuckles]

O’REILLY: If they’re dumb questions, look that’s just dumb. Um, the first one is, according to a poll taken by the Coalition Authority (search) last spring, only five percent of the Iraqi people see the United States as liberators. Are you surprised they don’t appreciate the American sacrifice more?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, I think they’re beginning to, appreciate the sacrifice, because the country is getting better. It’s tougher than heck right now, because Zarqawi (search) and some of these former Baathists are killing innocent Iraqis and killing our soldiers in order to try to get us to leave. Um, I also saw a poll where it said by far the vast majority of the Iraqis believe the world is getting better. And that’s positive. In other words, people are beginning to see progress. Electricity is better, schools are opening, hospitals are running. Um, I think when it’s all said and done, the Iraqis are going to look back and say thank God for America.

O’REILLY: How long is it going to take before that happens, do you think?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, it’s uh, as soon as possible. Now, I think the elections are going to have uh, uh you know, a very positive effect, and they take place in January, and, but the people want to vote.

O’REILLY: But can they vote when people are being blown up,

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

O’REILLY: And these guys are threatening them, then they vote,

PRESIDENT BUSH: That’s when you’re supposed to vote. You’ve got to stand tough with these terrorists. You cannot allow the terrorists to dictate whether or not a society can be free or not. Do you remember what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban pulled the four women off the bus and killed them because they had voter registration cards? I think there had been about three million Afghan citizens who had registered at this point in time. A lot of people said, well, the elections look like they’ve got to be over in Afghanistan, because the Taliban is, too violent to allow the elections to go forward. Today ten million citizens, [OVERLAPPING VOICES] in that country have registered to vote, forty percent of whom are women, which is a powerful statistic.

O’REILLY: The South Vietnamese didn’t fight for their freedom, which is why they don’t have it today.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

O’REILLY: Do you think the Iraqis are going to fight for their freedom?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: You do.

PRESIDENT BUSH: No question in my mind, they will, you bet. I was with Prime Minister Allawi (search) yesterday, he is a tough guy. He is a strong leader. He believes the future of Iraq is the future of freedom, and he tells me that, you know that these places where they go bomb the recruits, the people trying to sign up to serve in the army or the police, the next day, more recruits come.

O’REILLY: Okay.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Because people want to defend their country. I believe that. You know why I believe that, and this is really important, uh, uh, it’s because, I believe everybody yearns to be free. I believe Muslims yearn to be free. And I, and this is tough, look, no question it’s tough times. But if we send mixed signals, if we waver, the times will be tougher. That’s what the terrorists are watching, they’re watching us like hawks.

O’REILLY: What happened to Saddam’s chemical arsenal, do you know?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No. I don’t. We thought we’d have stockpiles, uh, we do know he had the capability of making weapons. And that capability could have been passed on to terrorists, and that was a risk, after 9/11, we could not afford to take.

O’REILLY: No I understand that. But you, to this day, don’t know what happened to his chemical weapons. He didn’t tell us, and, and,

PRESIDENT BUSH: No. Not yet.

O’REILLY: He hasn’t given us much, has he?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, he, well he doesn’t have anything, you know, doesn’t have anything to, to gain by giving us much, I mean, he’s, he’s going to go on trial, and the Iraqis will lay out a case, and, you know, I mean, why would he, why would he tell the truth?

O’REILLY: “The Wall Street Journal” says, and that’s a conservative paper, that uh, the Defense Department and the Pentagon wasn’t aggressive enough in getting al-Sadr and then crushing Fallujah.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

O’REILLY: Is the “Journal” wrong?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, I think this uh, I think that the, government of Iraq, Allawi, did a good job in Najaf with Sadr. In other words, they now control the shrines, and they did so in a way that he, Allawi, thought would be best for the political process. In other words, there’s a dual track here. There’s a political process going forward, and a security operation going forward. And the two must be parallel, and uh, Allawi made the decision that the best operation in Najaf uh would be to, the way we handled it, and uh, if they’re saying that maybe last fall we should have moved on Sadr, it’s a judgment call that you know, history will have to look back on.

O’REILLY: Fallujah? Should we have crushed it when we could have?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there again, there was a dual track with uh, a political process going forward, a lot of people on the ground there thought that if we’d have gone into Fallujah at the time, the uh, interim government would not have been established, and if the government would not have been established, we wouldn’t have been able to transfer sovereignty. I happen to think the transfer of sovereignty is a key moment in this, history of a free Iraq. The reason I believe that is that the Iraq people are going to follow uh Iraqi leadership, not U.S. leadership. And uh, Prime Minister Allawi’s been there for about two and a half months, nearly three months, he’s getting his feet on the ground, he’s establishing a government, they’re training police, they’re training army, they’re beginning to move out in, in places like Sumaria and Najaf in order to make the place a more peaceful, peaceful country.

O’REILLY: The mission accomplished statement in May 2003, if you had to do it all over again, would you not have done it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Uh, well first of all, the statement said, Thank you for be, serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, thank you for being on one of the largest, longest cruises in our nation’s history. Thank you for serving our country, and we’ve still got tough work in Iraq. Now I’m, I’m going to go and thank our troops every chance I get.

O’REILLY: But the press spinned it, you know how they spinned it.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, they spin everything.

O’REILLY: Me too.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, [chuckles] I understand, you know, maybe you deserve it more than me, but nevertheless, [chuckles] look I, I,

O’REILLY: [OVERLAPPING VOICES] You’ve taken some heat for that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I take heat for a lot of things, and uh,

O’REILLY: Would you do it again?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You mean have the sign up there?

O’REILLY: No, no, but go in there with the flight jacket,

PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: You would.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Of course. I’m saying to the troops, on this carrier and elsewhere, thanks for serving America. Absolutely.

O’REILLY: Okay.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And by the way, those sol, those uh sailors and airmen, loved seeing the Commander in Chief.

O’REILLY: Oh, that’s [INAUDIBLE]

PRESIDENT BUSH: These kids had been on a very long cruise. They’d been on a cruise to both, in two theaters of war now, Afghanistan and Iraq. I flew out there, and said, thanks. Thanks on behalf of a grateful nation. You bet I’d do it again.

O’REILLY: This is really a tough one.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay. [chuckles]

O’REILLY: Iran. Uh, said yesterday, hey, we’re going to develop this nuclear stuff, we don’t care what you think. You ready to use military force against Iran if they continue to defy the world on nuclear?

PRESIDENT BUSH: My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically.

O’REILLY: But if you can’t.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, let me try to solve it diplomatically first. All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option.

O’REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We, we are working our hearts out so that they don’t develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

O’REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Uh, no, we’ve made it clear, our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon.

O’REILLY: Period.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

O’REILLY: A “Time” magazine investigation says, three million illegal aliens crossed the Mexican border, and we talked about this four and a half years,

PRESIDENT BUSH: We have, I know, it’s a issue that you’re concerned about.

O’REILLY: Every year, three and a half million illegals come over. Why can’t the federal government control that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, as you know, as the governor of Texas, I was very aware of this issue, there is a long border, that makes it hard to control. We have beefed up places along the border to try to stop the process of, of, of uh, of uh,

O’REILLY: With all due respect though, it’s not working.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well,

O’REILLY: Three million people.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It’s working a little better, they’re doing a pretty good job down in Arizona, which is the main border crossing, but I was trying to get my words here for a minute. Trying to give you some facts that would, I think there’s a thousand more border patrol agents along the border, we’re modernizing border techniques, we’re using better surveillance methods to stop this, crossing at the border. Now look, people are coming up because they want to work. You know, that, family values don’t stop at the border.

O’REILLY: Absolutely,

PRESIDENT BUSH: If you can make fifty cents in the interior of Mexico, and five bucks in uh, the interior of the United States, you’re coming for the five bucks, and they’re poor.

O’REILLY: Ninety percent of them are, but ten percent are bad guys.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, look, look,

O’REILLY: A lot of bad guys coming here.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don’t know how you got the ten percent number, maybe,

O’REILLY: The border patrol you know, incarceration, violent crime, that,

PRESIDENT BUSH: No question about it. It is a ter, serious issue. I happen to believe the best way to enhance the border is to have temporary worker cards available for people. And uh, I think it’s best for the employers who are employing these people, I think it’s best for the employees that are trying to find work. I think the long-term solution for this issue on our border is for Mexico to grow a middle class, that’s why I believe in NAFTA (search),

O’REILLY: We’ll be in the grave.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don’t think so, it’s happening. Look, you, I wish I could have taken you down there and shown you the, the northern tier of states in Mexico, uh, ten years ago compared to today. I mean, it, it’s happening.

O’REILLY: You,

PRESIDENT BUSH: Free trade helps lift, lives, free trade develops commerce, free trade gives people a chance to realize their dreams. And so long as the wage differential is as big as it is, and so long as moms and dads feel the, necessity to feed their children, they’re going to come and try to make a living.

O’REILLY: So you’re not going to military militarize the border to stop,

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, we’re going to use the border patrol and beef it up, and make it, give it better technologies and better equipment to do its job.

O’REILLY: Okay. You know a lot of people are not going to like that answer, you know that.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well it’s a, a truthful answer.

O’REILLY: Okay. Um,

PRESIDENT BUSH: I mean, as opposed as to what, putting a military on the border,
O’REILLY: Yeah, military to back up the border patrol, to just stop the, the, rampant,

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I think the best way to do it is to give the border patrol the assets it needs to do its job.

——

For an alternative take on the interview, try here.

Carter Decries Florida Election Conditions

Former President Jimmy Carter says that despite changes designed to eliminate voting problems in Florida — where the disputed 2000 presidential election was decided by only a few hundred votes — conditions for a fair election in that state still don’t exist.

“The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely,” Carter wrote in an opinion piece published Monday in the Washington Post.

[…]

Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring international elections, said “some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.” Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens.

Read more…

Miami, We Have A Problem

On Saturday ABC’s “Noted Now” reported that the first presidential debate, scheduled for Thursday in Miami, could be canceled. The Commission on Presidential Debates is reluctant to sign the 32-page legal document negotiated by the Bush and Kerry campaigns regarding the rules that will govern the 2004 debates.

From California Yankee.

Six out of Eight Klingons Prefer Kerry

..and the other two want Satan as a write-in.

With the various partisan brawls going on, tempers rising and people getting steamed up about important issues, an article like this comes along at just the right time.

From the Willamette Week :

Even as John Kerry struggles to establish national-security credentials nationally, an exclusive WW straw poll shows his campaign dominating one skeptical, warlike demographic: Klingons.

The poll, conducted when the DVD release of the Star Trek fan documentary Trekkies 2 attracted Portland’s Klingon community to Tower Records on Southeast 102nd Avenue, may spell trouble for President George W. Bush.

The incumbent has staked his campaign on the war on terror. But those who speak the language of the Trek warrior race—known to disdain dishonor, or quvHa’ghach—seem alienated by Iraq and other issues.

According to the poll of eight local Klingons, a whopping 75 percent support the Democratic nominee.

Two Klingons polled—or 25 percent—said they planned to write in Satan.

Bush scored an abysmal zero percent in the poll.

“A good war is based on honor, not deception,” says K’tok (Earth name: Clyde Lewis), a 40-year-old Klingon from Lair Hill. “The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war.”

Portland Klingon speakers are increasingly influential. Last year, Multnomah County’s mental-health services opened a search for a Klingon interpreter to work with speakers of the language.* Though the Klingons polled all appeared to be registered voters, they emulate an unfamiliar political system.

“On the home world, if there had been a contested election between Gore and Bush, the honorable thing would be for Gore to kill Bush,” explained Khraanik (Earth name: Jason Lewis), a 38-year-old from Southeast Portland. “Or the other way around. And then ascend to the head of the High Council.”

It’s too early for Kerry to chill the ceremonial bloodwine, but Portland Klingons are clearly warming to the cerebral Massachusetts Democrat.

“Kerry has shown his prowess,” says 33-year-old Neqha (Earth name: Eric King) of Tigard. “He saved his fellow warrior under the gun, and has been commended and awarded medals.”

Neither the Bush nor Kerry campaigns were immediately available for comment on the poll results.

[* No, we’re not making this up.]

Bush Volunteered For Vietnam

Knoxville’s WVLT Volunteer TV reports that when he was the National Guard President Bush volunteered for Vietnam:

One of the criticisms leveled at the President is that he sought guard service to keep him from serving in Vietnam.

Morrisey says, “not so.”

“The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102’s and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn’t eligible to go,” Morrisey recalls.

Despite that, Lieutenant Bush stayed busy.

“He flew in active air defense missions, training missions. Day, night, regardless of inclement weather,” Morrisey says.

Colonel Morrisey assured us that to the best of his knowledge Lieutenant Bush was treated like any other officer in the Texas Air National Guard.

From California Yankee via Betsy’s Page.

An Open Apology To Our Readers

After reading … and taking part in … the comments on the “presenile dementia” post, it’s clear to me that I need to apologize to our readers in general, and to a few specific readers in particular.

The first apology is to the readers in general not for posting that article and letter from The Atlantic, but for how I did so. I did a poor job of providing context, and that lack of context created a vacuum of attribution that was quickly filled by some of our readers … much of whom inferred that I was furthering an anti-Bush bias (in the best) or whom questioned my patriotism (in the worst).

Having had a night to think about it (and I have to tell you, when you’re laying in bed at 4 a.m. thinking about something like this that’s supposed to be a hobby, it might be time to question your level of investment), I should have set up the post differently, perhaps with something along the lines of this:

In reading the past two month’s Atlantics I was quite surprised to see that some people are invoking hypotheses about a biological cause for the president’s occasional malapropisms, and was even more surprised to see the Atlantic print a letter to the editor that attempts to legitimize such a claim, even though the physician writing the letter has made no examination of the president.

I want to post both because I think both … that one would make the claim and that the Atlantic would post the letter … are newsworthy—not because I agree with either, but because they demonstrate the state of the campaign, and because I think the Atlantic is out on a limb with the letter. I do so in keeping with our “we post, you decide (and discuss)” policy, but know that I’m distancing myself from the content itself. I’m looking forward to the fact-checking and the debate on this, as I expect our readers to clarify the matter (as they typically do).

I didn’t lead with that context because I posted this from work, in the middle of a busy day, and had about 3 minutes to dash something off.

In retrospect, I wish I had.

So I apologize for the poor context, and I apologize for tarnishing this space, if in fact, in your mind, I did.

Now for the second apology, which I extend to TexasGal and CERDIP, two loyal, if strident, readers. They reacted to a lack of context I created, and I became defensive as a result of their commentary. It was I who pushed the bounds of civil and respectful behavior, and for that I’m sorry to both of them. It’s a lot of work, managing this place … a labor of love (one in which, as I suggest above, I might be too personally vested). We try quite hard to get it “just right,” and while I know we’ll never satisfy everyone … nor do we want to … some days sharp feedback is more difficult to take than others. That’s my problem, not theirs, and again, I apologize for the stridency I exhibited in return.

So. I hope they, and you, will accept. I learned early on in life that all of us are a hell of a lot smarter than one of us, and the feedback here tells me the greater wisdom lies with the group. As with so many things from Command Post over the past year and a half, another chance for me to learn, and hopefully, be better as a result.

As I’ve said from day one, “thanks for reading the Post.”

Bush's Lead Narrows in Latest Time Poll

Reuters reports that President Bush leads Kerry by 6 percentage points in a new Time Magazine poll:

Forty-eight percent of likely voters surveyed said they would vote for Bush, and 42 percent said they would vote for Kerry, according to the magazine’s latest poll. Five percent said they would vote for Ralph Nader.

From California Yankee.

Bush to blame for Hurricanes, Democrats to Ban Bible

From Talon :

Attempting to take political advantage of the devastating hurricanes that have hit Florida and the southeastern section of the United States in the past few weeks, liberal political action group MoveOn.org is saying that President George W. Bush is to blame for “making extreme weather stronger.”

In an e-mail to supporters, MoveOn.org rhetorically asks “why such extreme weather” has taken place with Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan causing billions of dollars in property damage and loss of life.

Coincidentally, Space Daily criticised a recent conference of environmental experts for discussing a truly stupid idea.:

The group included noted skeptics Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the George Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., along with three state climatologists and several university professors, and focused on the recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

With the occurrence of such severe weather events - and regardless of the type of event, flood, heat wave, blizzard, cold spell or tropical storm - news stories seem to mention global warming as a possible cause, the group said in a news release.
[…]
Contrary to this assertion, neither the media nor other climate scientists are attributing the force or frequency of hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan or Jeanne to global warming.

So, having set up this straw man, the skeptics had little trouble knocking it down.

In contrast, CBS is in a Rlather over a single over-the-top graphic :

Campaign literature mailed by the Republican National Committee warns voters in two states that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if “liberals” win in November.

The New York Times reported that the mass mailing was sent to voters in Arkansas and West Virginia, and was part of a GOP effort to mobilize religious voters.

The literature shows a Bible with the word “BANNED” across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word “ALLOWED.” The mailing tells West Virginians to “vote Republican to protect our families” and defeat the “liberal agenda.”

The Times said RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson had confirmed that the GOP had sent out the mailings.
[…]
Jim Jordan, a spokesman for America Coming Together, an anti-Bush group, described the mailing as “standard-issue Republican hate-mongering.”

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement saying that President Bush “should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again,” the Times reported.

Bush blasts Kerry for remarks on the Allawi

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

President Bush hit back hard at Sen. John Kerry on Friday for what he called Kerry’s attacks on Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who stood by the president’s side this week as steadfastly as a member of the Bush campaign.

“This great man came to our country to talk about how he’s risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America, and Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi’s credibility,” Bush said at a speech in the southern Wisconsin town of Janesville. “You can’t lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The message ought to be to the Iraqi people: ‘We support you.’ The message ought to be loud and clear: ‘We’ll stand with you if you do the hard work.’”

Bush was referring to Kerry’s remarks Thursday saying Allawi was contradicting himself by asserting that terrorists in Iraq were on the defensive, after saying foreign fighters were coming into his country from across the border.

Prepare The Lawyers

John Fund on post-election 2004:

The Bush and Kerry campaigns are spending unprecedented millions on TV ads. But the real battle that could decide this election may be fought by the squadrons of lawyers both sides have hired to prepare Florida-style challenges to the results in any close state. Once again, America’s sloppy, fraud-prone voting system could turn Election Day into an Election Month of court challenges.

“If you think of election problems as akin to forest fires, the woods are no drier than they were in 2000, but many more people have matches,” says Doug Chapin, director of the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project.

Bush Prepping In Crawford

KFOR reports that the president is spending the weekend in Crawford, preparing for the upcoming debates.

Debate Invitations Sent

WAVY (yes, WAVY) reports that the Commission on Presidential Debates has issued its formal invitations. How do you get invited: get at least 15 percent of the support in an average of five national polls. Only Bush and Kerry met the test.

You may visit the Commission on Presidential Debates here.

Does George W. Bush Have Presenile Dementia?

In the July/August Atlantic James Fallows has an excellent piece about the upcoming debates … an article worth reading in particular for its review of Bush’s not-well-understood history of performing well in debates, especially in situations when he’s expected to lose (as his defeats of collegiate debate scholar Ann Richards in the Texas Gubernatorial election demonstrates).

Good news for you: this article is among the few the Atlantic pieces online free, and you may read it here.

What caught my eye in the article, however, was this passage:

Yolette Garcia, who as the executive producer at KERA-TV, in Dallas, had supervised negotiations for the Bush-Richards debate, says that in those days Bush was noted for his poise and ease in public appearances—including the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid as President. “You never saw him in an awkward situation as governor,” she told me. “You expected he’d know the right thing to say.”

Obviously, Bush doesn’t sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR-type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff’s view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush’s consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can’t afford to let the mask slip.

I say: Maybe. Clearly Bush has been content to let his opponents, including the press, think him a numbskull. Even his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions may be useful: his friends don’t mind, and his enemies continue to underestimate him. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States.

Then, in the current edition of The Atlantic, to which I subscribe, there is this letter to the editor:

James Fallows’s description of John Kerry’s debating skills (“When George Meets John,” July/August Atlantic) was interesting, but what was most remarkable was Fallows’s documentation of President Bush’s mostly overlooked changes over the past decade—specifically, “the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills.” Fallows points to “speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President’s peculiar mode of speech—a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder,” but correctly concludes, “The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate.”

I, too, felt that something organic was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush’s problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, “artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects,” who “did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones.” Consider, in contrast, the present: “the informal Q&As he has tried to avoid,” “Bush’s recent faltering performances,” “his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions,” “his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot,” “speaking more slowly and less gracefully.”

Not being a professional medical researcher and clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush’s problem cannot be “a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia,” because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is “presenile dementia”! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer’s situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age. It runs about the same course as typical senile dementias, such as classical Alzheimer’s—to incapacitation and, eventually, death, as with President Ronald Reagan, but at a relatively earlier age. President Bush’s “mangled” words are a demonstration of what physicians call “confabulation,” and are almost specific to the diagnosis of a true dementia. Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.

Joseph M. Price, M.D.
Carsonville, Mich.

This letter is NOT available online, but I’ve decided to post it here nonetheless … if you want to register with The Atlantic and see it online, you may do so here.

An interesting, if ultimately sorrowful, hypothesis. About presenile dementia: Dorlands Medical Dictionary offers this definition of the affliction:

presenile dementia, that occurring in younger persons, usually in persons age 65 or younger; since most cases are due to Alzheimer’s disease, the term is sometimes used as a synonym of d. of the Alzheimer type, early onset, and has also been used to denote Alzheimer’s disease.

It was difficult to locate anything online about symptoms … any links or information from readers is welcome.

Update: First of all, I’m not saying I BELIEVE this any more than I’ve said I believe any other post we put on this page. As always, our interpretive stance is “we post, you decide.” So please keep that in mind if you’re about to make a personal attribution about me based on this post. I’ve posted a million items on this page favorable to G. W. Bush, and when folks