MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2007, AND THEREAFTER

Stand Up Against the Surge

The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.

It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.

His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.

Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.

About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own -- impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.

A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country -- we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls. We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.

Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.

Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?

As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

RELEASE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007, AND THEREAFTER

The president of the United States does not have the sense God gave a duck -- so it's up to us. You and me, Bubba.

I don't know why Bush is just standing there like a frozen rabbit, but it's time we found out. The fact is WE have to do something about it. This country is being torn apart by an evil and unnecessary war, and it has to be stopped NOW.

This war is being prosecuted in our names, with our money, with our blood, against our will. Polls consistently show that less than 30 percent of the people want to maintain current troop levels. It is obscene and wrong for the president to go against the people in this fashion. And it's doubly wrong for him to send 20,0000 more soldiers into this hellhole, as he reportedly will announce next week.

What happened to the nation that never tortured? The nation that wasn't supposed to start wars of choice? The nation that respected human rights and life? A nation that from the beginning was against tyranny? Where have we gone? How did we let these people take us there? How did we let them fool us?

It's a monstrous idea to put people in prison and keep them there. Since 1215, civil authorities have been obligated to tell people with what they are charged if they're arrested. This administration has done away with rights first enshrined in the Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago, and we've let them do it.

This will be a regular feature of mine, like an old-fashioned newspaper campaign. Every column, I'll write about this war until we find some way to end it. STOP IT NOW. BAM! Every day, we will review some factor we should have gotten right.

So let's take a step back and note, for example, that before the war one of the architects of the entire policy, Paul Wolfowitz, testified to Congress that Iraq had no history of ethnic strife. Sectarian and ethnic strife is a part of the region. And the region is full of examples of Western colonial powers trying to occupy countries, take their resources and take over the administration of their people -- and failing.

The sectarian bloodbath we see daily completely refutes Wolfowitz. And now Bush has given him the World Bank to run. Wonder what he'll do there.

And let's keep in mind that when the Army arrived in Baghdad, we, the television viewers, watched footage of a bunch of enraged and joyous Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein, their repulsive dictator, in Firdos Square. Only one thing was wrong. The event was staged. Taking down the statue was instigated by a Marine colonel, and a PSYOP (psychological operations) unit made it appear to be a spontaneous show of Iraqi joy.

When we later saw the whole square where the statue was located, only 30 to 40 people were there (U.S. soldiers, press and some Iraqis -- and one of several U.S. tanks present pulled the statue down with a cable). We, the television viewers, saw the square being presented as though the people of Iraq had gone into a frenzy, mobbed the square and spontaneously pulled down the statue. Fake images and claims have been a part of this fiasco from the beginning.

We need to cut through all this smoke and mirrors and come up with an exit strategy, forthwith. The Democrats have yet to offer a cohesive plan to get us out of this mess. Of course, it's not their fault -- but the fact is we need leaders who are grown-ups and who are willing to try to fix it. Bush has ignored the actual grown-ups from the Iraq Study Group and the generals and all other experts who are nearly unanimous in the opinion that more troops will not help.

So, like I said, it's up to you and me, Bubba. We need to make sure that the new Congress curbs executive power, which has been so misused, and asserts its own power to make this situation change. Now.

THANKS—NO, SERIOUSLY

RELEASE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

AUSTIN, Texas—It’s time to give thanks, and I want to start off with a great, big thank you for the top American movement conservatives and all the fun we’ve had since Election Day. I know I promised not to gloat after this election was over, but I’m not talking unseemly gloating—I’m talking about moments so brilliantly hilarious the only option is to put your head down on the desk and howl. First in line is the wit of The National Review’s Kate O’Beirne, who clearly teamed up with Borat to explain the great conservative win. Her explanation is that this is a win for conservatism because a great many of the D’s elected are so conservative themselves. She says half of them are conservatives. She is indeed right. If only twice as many Democrats had been elected, it would have proved that there are twice as many conservatives in the country, and this is clear to any thinking person. We might challenge Ms. O’Beirne to explain how the next Republican win is a victory for liberalism. The reason that O’Beirne and others are able to accept such an absurdity is because they’ve been listening to George W. Bush for six years and are thus able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. Speaking of “thinking,” another great moment for conservatives this year was highlighted on the Nov. 16 edition of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” Host Jon Stewart addressed a recent remark that CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck made to Representative-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. Beck said, “I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’” After airing Beck’s comment, Stewart declared, “Finally, a guy who says what people who aren’t thinking are thinking.” While the Washington press corps worried its pretty little head to a frazzle over Nancy Pelosi’s Armani suits and terrible start as speaker of the House (except she hasn’t started as speaker), they forgot to fret over Trent Lott, who had previously been bounced unceremoniously from the Senate leadership team to which the Republicans just re-elected him. They seem to have forgotten that he had expressed the wish that Strom Thurmond, the segregationist candidate for president, had won in 1948. Thanks for the late Johnny Apple and the now retired Adam Clymer (who predicted a 28-seat sweep and the possibility of taking the Senate) for reminding us that The New York Times used to know how to cover politics. So, for that matter, did The Washington Post, now graced only by E.J. Dionne. Thanks for Cokie Roberts, who was the only alert citizen on television on election night. The others were either stalwart Republicans or John McCain worshipers. Thanks from a grateful nation for an obedient press corps that failed during Bush’s six-hour, carefully orchestrated visit to Indonesia to register the fact that there were massive demonstrations against his administration and its policies toward Muslims. The demonstrators during his short visit forced him to stay behind the presidential palace wall all day and—due to concerns for his safety—not spend the night. So many of our media mavens have been so wrong for so long that we may yet see a mere modicum of becoming self-doubt from our professional pontificators. And think how thankful we’d all be for that. Their sources, led by Karl Rove, have had them eating Pablum out of their hands for years now. Nope. No hope.

RELEASE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006, AND THEREAFTER FAREWELL, RUMMY

AUSTIN, Texas—There’s been so much in print about how Daddy 41’s people are back in the saddle, I was terrified when I saw a photo of Dan Quayle among the pack. If they’ve called back Dan Quayle to lend intellectual heft, we’re all dead ducks. Fortunately, it was just a file picture of Quayle with the old team.

It does seem that we may be going back to the typical modus operandi of Dubya. Poppy Bush has helped Junior out of the Vietnam War, his failures in the oil business and other efforts all of his “adult” life.

Unfortunately for us and for the world, the people from the first Bush administration who initially joined this administration were Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Not exactly the most diplomatic, forward-looking, helpful people to be guiding Dubya.

During the first Gulf War, Bush 41 and his administration knew what it would be like if they tried to take Baghdad—and opted not to go in. Now, the more sober-headed people from that administration are moving in to try to clean up the mess Junior made in his Iraq excursion.

Meanwhile, let us bid farewell and adieu to Brother Donald Rumsfeld, who is so full of wisdom he does not seem to be able to apply it. As a parting gift, here are some of his classic quotes:

1. “If you develop rules, never have more than 10.”

2. “Don’t think of yourself as indispensable or infallible. As Charles De Gaulle said, the cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

3. “Needless to say, the president is correct. Whatever it was he said.”

4. “I don’t do quagmires.”

5. “I don’t do diplomacy.”

6. “I don’t do foreign policy.”

7. “I don’t do predictions.”

8. “I don’t do numbers.”

9. “I don’t do book reviews.”

10. “Don’t divide the world into ‘them’ and ‘us.’ Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs, and you have yours.”

11. “Don’t say, ‘The White House wants.’ Buildings can’t want.”

12. “If I know the answer, I’ll tell you the answer. And if I don’t, I’ll just respond cleverly.”

13. “I believe what I said yesterday. I don’t know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it’s what I said.”

In fact, I’m rather going to miss Rumsfeld’s Zen-like nuggets of wisdom, the most famous of which is probably about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns:

“As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

According to Newsweek, Air Force Secretary Jim Roche went to Rumsfeld early on and said, “Don, you do realize that Iraq could be another Vietnam.”

Replied Rummy: “Vietnam? You think you have to tell me about Vietnam? Of course it won’t be Vietnam. We are going to go in, overthrow Saddam, get out. That’s it.”

I don’t know what happened to that excellent plan, but I would like to know who knew it was unknowable.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

NOW THEY’RE ALL FOR BIPARTISANSHIP

AUSTIN, Texas—Having watched election coverage nonstop all week, I sometimes wake screaming, “Bipartisanship!” and scare myself.

Of all the viral members of the media who have been suggesting that the Dems cooperate with their political opponents, the one who rendered me almost unconscious with surprise was Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich, the Boy Scout. Newt Gingrich, the man who sat there and watched Congress impeach and try Bill Clinton for lying about having an extramarital while he, Newt Gingrich, was lying about having an extramarital affair. (This all took place during his second marriage. The first one ended when he told his wife he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment.)

This is the level of Republican hypocrisy that reminds us all how far the Dems have to go. I tell you what. Let’s all hold hands together and sing, “Oh the Farmers and the Cowboys Should Be Friends!” Just not, please, Newt Gingrich, the man whose contribution to civility was to recommend that all Democrats be referred to with such words as cowards, traitors, commies, godless, liars and other such bipartisan-promoting terms.

Please, anyone but Newt.

Now, from my hours spent battered and half brain dead listening to the fatuous, self-important commentators of our nation, I learn that the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists! Well, gosh all hemlock. I’ll be go to hell. Populist! I AM one. Honest—been a populist so long I’m on my third bottle of Tabasco.

Who knew? I thought all said I was chopped liver. Populist. Like Tom Frank of “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” fame. Jim Hightower. We can even draw our lines of political genealogy—via Ralph Yarborough and Bob Elkhart.

A populist is pretty much for the PEOPLE and generally in this case exactly the same as a liberal—we just put the em-PHA-sis on a different syl-LA-ble. We also tend to be more fun. We do not vote to hurt average Americans, even if the corporate payoff is really big. Even if it’s just a little bit—like the bankruptcy bill.

We tend to focus less on social issues and more on who’s gettin’ screwed and who’s doin’ the screwin’. In my opinion, Americans are not getting screwed by the Republican Party. They are getting screwed by Large Corporations that bought and own the Republican Party.

The word populist was misused, abused and co-opted by right-wingers for years, ever since we were all forced to read Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” Bad history can do a powerful amount of damage. Most of us stopped at the painful news that Tom Watson, leader of the late-19th century populism, went on to become a raging racist bigot. Populism itself took on the connotation of bile and nastiness, a la Father Coughlin.

If you read back to the beginning of the populist movement, however, you will find Andy Jackson and the West set against all those dreary snobs of the East. When Andy opened up the White House and let in the people, all the snobs had the fantods.

OK, it’s not the 19th century anymore, but it is always the right time to point out the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. Honest. There stands George W. Bush, buck nekkid. We want to help him out of this fix because he’s dragging the whole Army, the country and the world down with him. But don’t ask us to call those clothes.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

POST-ELECTION ETIQUETTE

AUSTIN, Texas—The sheer pleasure of getting lessons in etiquette from Karl Rove and the right-wing media passeth all understanding. Ever since 1994, the Republican Party has gone after Democrats with the frenzy of a foaming mad dog. There was the impeachment of Bill Clinton, not to mention the trashing of both Clinton and his wife—accused of everything from selling drugs to murder—all orchestrated by that paragon of manners, Tom DeLay.

Media Matters collected some gems of fairness. For instance, Monica Crowley with MSNBC, in the wake of John Kerry’s botched program, astutely observed “how lucky we are that he was not elected president. ... The Republicans remain the grown-ups, the responsible ones on national security.”

How many dead Americans has this grown-up war resulted in?

And how darling of Fox’s Juan Williams, upon learning polls show the people favor Democrats on taxes, to say, “To me, that’s crazy.”

And how many times did Chris Matthews use the Republican talking points about Nancy Pelosi? Extremist, uncooperative, incapable, unwilling to work with the president.

So after 12 years of tolerating lying, cheating and corruption, the press is prepared to lecture Democrats on how to behave with bipartisan manners.

Given Bush’s record with the truth, this bipartisanship sounds like a bad idea on its face. Go back to the first year of the administration, when Bush double-crossed Ted Kennedy in the No Child Left Behind Act. Think about it: You’ve said at the outset of your administration that you need cooperation to get anything done. Then you double-cross one of the senior senators of the other party when your re-education and labor agenda is dependent on him?

These people are not only dishonest—they’re not even smart. Not that I recommend nailing them at every turn, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to do it to Democrats. If what Republicans have been practicing is bipartisanship, West Texas just flooded.

O.K., here’s what the D’s have going for them. New kids. Easy, popular first moves—for example, increasing the minimum wage. Republicans so inept that it’s painful. You want to look at some really, really basic legislation, try fixing the Medicare prescription drug bill. Or the bankruptcy bill. Or new dollar and trade policies.

Then we get to the real meat of this election. There are all manner of shuffle steps and politically shrewd thing for the D’s to do. But now is not the time to be clever. The Democrats won this election because we are involved in a disastrous war. We know how to do this: Declare victory, and go home.

I noticed when Republicans are forced to talk about how to end this, they tend to announce that it’s all hopeless: They have no ideas at all. Thanks, guys. Of all the options, I would say splitting Iraq into three states is least advisable. First, it puts us in the position of screwing the Kurds once again. Second, Turkey has serious objections to a Kurdistan. Third, Turkey is not a militia. Fourth, then you give Iran and Saudi Arabia a pawn apiece. And there’d be an unimaginable amount of future hassle.

Do I have any good ideas? Yes, but it’s not a solution. We need to start the Middle East peace process again. Because it’s the right thing to do. Because it’s what Bush should have done to begin with. Because we have to start somewhere.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE BALL

AUSTIN, Texas -- I'm still worried sick. The R's have seized the news cycle! Which says more about how dim American politics are than anything I can think of.Apparently, the Michael J. Fox affair didn't have enough meat to it, and even Rep. Mark Foley is out of the game, so now we have the semi-hemi-demi-gaffe from John Kerry, who is not in fact running for anything.

If Kerry had been given as many breaks for misspeaking as George W. Bush has, he'd be a professor of grammar by now. And this all shows what the Bush regime has -- attacks on Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, liberals! -- not any actual policies to help them.

The Great Wall of Republican ads is bearing down on us -- race-baiting, scare tactics and sleaze-mongering. (Who knew so many people had signed up to "promote the homosexual agenda"? I don't even know what it is. But apparently, you don't have to sign up to support -- you could be part of it and not even know!) The R's are throwing distorting ads, funded by endless money, all over the place. Can the people see that, and ignore and punish them for it?

Aside from the Wall of Ads, we are also faced with Disenfranchisement of Democrats again. For some reason, this has come to be regarded as "one of Karl's dirty tricks" -- a clever ploy, a little hard ball, rather to be admired.

I've covered East Texas politics for a long time. All over East Texas -- and elsewhere around the country -- there are elderly black Americans who don't have driver's licenses because they've never had a car, who can't read because they never got to third grade, and who are scared of The Law because for 70 years or better they've been oppressed by it. So if they see a sheriff's car blocking the road to the polling place and officials checking people's papers, they head the other direction.

Voting isn't hard, and believe it or not, these elderly blacks have worked all their lives and paid into Social Security and paid taxes, and they know a lot about how government affects people.

With pundits in Washington, who just a few weeks ago were claiming the Democrats would likely take the house by a razor-thin margin, now victoriously claiming they all along knew it would be a wipeout, I just feel that overconfidence juice starting to kick in. "Maybe 20 seats, maybe 40 seats" ... yeah. People could think: "So that's settled. I don't even really have to vote." Folks, step up and make sure there's some control on this regime.

May I remind you what this election is about? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, unprecedented presidential powers, unmatched incompetence, unparalleled corruption, unwarranted eavesdropping, Katrina, Enron, Halliburton, global warming, Cheney's secret energy task force, record oil company profits, $3 gasoline, FEMA, the Supreme Court, Diebold, Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, Terri Schiavo, stem cell research, golden parachutes, shrunken pensions, unavailable and expensive health care, habeas corpus, no weapons of mass destruction, sacrificed soldiers and Iraqi civilians, wasted billions, Taliban resurgence, expiration of the assault weapons ban, North Korea, Iran, intelligent design, swift boat hit squads, and on and on.

This election is about that, but much more -- it's about honor, dignity and comity in this country. It's about the Constitution, which gives us this great nation. Bush ran on a pledge of "restoring honor and integrity" to the White House. Instead, he brought us Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Katherine Harris, John Doolittle, Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, David Safavian, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Karl Rove and an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. People, it's up to you.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

GOP INEPTITUDE AND SOME ADVICE FOR DEMS

"There's no doubt in my mind, with your help, Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman." -- President George Bush last week, endorsing Jeff Lamberti.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has announced his candidacy for the president of the United States. Until now, he's barely been noticed as a guy who took money from Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, whose bribes to Randy "Duke" Cunningham led to his resignation from Congress and a plea of guilty to bribery charges. Hunter is widely expected to be the next congressman indicted in this scandal.

As for the chair of the House Armed Services Committee's presidential candidacy, we have been thinking of scarcely little else around here. It's about time we had some good news.

There's so much evidence stacking up in the "Can't These People Do Anything Right?" File, you'd suspect their secret strategy is to reward incompetence. It's like the hiring of Michael "Brownie" Brown at FEMA or John Bolton at the United Nations -- it's just hard to imagine why.

So now the latest report from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction says we have lost track of hundreds of thousands of guns we shipped to Iraq, many of which likely are now being used to kill our soldiers. For this administration, "Who's in charge of getting the plastic forks for the potato salad at the company picnic?" has deadly consequences.

A depressing story like this, and the week has barely even begun. I hate to imagine what will be on our plates by Friday.

So with the Bushies continuing their tailspin, it might be time to review the rules in case WE WIN in the upcoming midterm elections:

I realize for many Democrats it has been so long since we won, we have completely forgotten the etiquette. And I realize I'm taking a chance here -- there's nothing more dangerous than overconfidence -- but you have to practice for victory as well as defeat.

First rule: No gloating. Actually, there is gloating aloud, but only in the exclusive presence of other Democrats. Gloating in the face of Republicans is rude and unsportsmanlike, and just gives them one more thing to complain about. Also, remember there is a possibility there may be some Republicans on the civil service staff -- I have seen this when the R's win -- and it is really not good manners to watch them wailing around with their eyes brimming with tears.

Second, I'm sure we will all be full of grand theories if Republicans lose and we win. Dems will be ready to be helpful, offer advice and sort of try to perk the R's up. I do not recommend this. It somehow never feels to me when R's are dumping truckloads of good advice on the D's that they are, actually, sincere about it.

Third, celebratory jigs, reels and renditions of "Danny Boy" are best limited to Irish bars.

Fourth, try to refrain from insulting Republicans en masse. A good start would be, "You know, it was mostly the ones under indictment that hurt you."

RELEASE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

A CAMPAIGN OF SLEAZE

AUSTIN, Texas—It’s a race to the bottom. For misinformation and cruelty, not to mention plain old dreadful manners, it is so hard to beat Rush Limbaugh. We can only measure the Great Blowhard against himself.

Even by Limbaugh standards, his recent attack on Michael J. Fox, the actor, is several levels lower than tacky. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, has done some political ads favoring candidates who in turn support stem cell research.

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told his listeners. “He is moving all around and shaking, and it’s purely an act. This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting. This is the only time I’ve ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has.”

The reaction from Parkinson’s experts was swift and angry. “It’s a shameless statement,” said John Rogers of Parkinson’s Action Network. “It’s insulting. It’s appallingly sad, at best.”

So then Limbaugh, big-hearted guy, says while still on the air in the same broadcast: “Now, people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear in the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial. ... All right, then, I stand corrected. ... So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act ... .”

Then Limbaugh went on to say, “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician.”

Exploiting his disease by pushing for a cure. Gee, I never thought of that. Do you think the late Christopher Reeve was faking it? Is Nancy Reagan exploiting her late husband?

If that isn’t disgusting enough, let’s take a look at a new ad running against Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee in the U.S. Senate race. You can find it on the Internet, and I think you’ll be amazed. The ad strings together a series of ridiculous “positions” (e.g., “Canada can take care of North Korea”) and a stacked blonde claiming she met Ford at a Playboy party. “Harold, call me,” she coos.

The NAACP and other groups popped up immediately to point out that the babelicious blonde raises the old racist scare tactic about black men and white women. I thought the whole ad was racist. Ugh. “Heh, heh, let’s make fun of how dumb the coon is.”

Ford has been a member of Congress for 9 years and is well respected in his party. The ad is attributed to the Republican National Committee, which now disowns it. That denial comes from Ken Mehlman, who used his time at the White house to do favors for clients of Jack Abramoff.

I notice a similar talking point in use again, with the right-wing punditry united as one in their dismissal of Rep. Nancy Pelosi as among “the most disliked” in Congress, although rather obviously she is more than usually popular with her own party.

One way to dismiss her is to call her “a San Francisco Democrat,” which I suppose means she’s not prejudiced against gays. But with Reps. Foley and Kolbe in the news, it’s not a good year for Republicans to take that line of attack.

And elsewhere, former Food and Drug Administration chief Lester Crawford, who resigned two months after his confirmation, has just pleaded guilty to hiding his ownership in food and drug companies “regulated” by his agency.

I realize it is difficult to keep up with the degree of Republican sleaze around these days, but I did like President Bush’s celebration of National Character Counts Week. He went to Pennsylvania to support Rep. Don Sherwood, who is being sued for repeatedly beating his mistress.

RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE GOOD ECONOMY MYTH

AUSTIN, Texas—Oh, goody. According to the White House press office, President Bush will spend much of the next two weeks discussing what a swell economy we have. Did you know that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is at its highest point EVER? And the NASDAQ, ditto. Wow, breathtaking, huh? But the Dow is not a good indicator of how things are really going for the majority of Americans.

I just love listening to the Bushies play with numbers. When Bush took over in 2001, he had predicted a surplus of $516 billion for fiscal year 2006. Last week, the administration announced a 2006 deficit of $248 billion, missing its projection for this year by $764 billion. Bush said the numbers are “proof that pro-growth economic policies work” and are “an example of sound fiscal policies here in Washington.”

This is highly reminiscent of Dick Cheney’s recent observation about the Iraqi government, “If you look at the general, overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.”

Bush’s main talking point on the budget is that he “cut the deficit in half”—that would be from 2004, the year the White House inflated the projected deficit for political reasons. Even conservatives disagree. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation said, “The White House has a track record of projecting budget numbers to be a lot worse than they end up, which therefore helps them defeat the gloomy expectations and declare victory.” If Bush does manage to make the tax cuts permanent, it will add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The federal budget would be virtually in balance if there had been no tax cuts.

Bush’s version of “doing remarkably well” includes a trade gap—now a record $69.9 billion—up 2.7 percent since July. “Short of a big correction in consumer spending, the best we can hope for is that the trade deficit stabilizes,” Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital, told Bloomberg.com.

Meanwhile, what we see in the economy as a whole is an immense shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich. It seems a little painful to have to point this out yet again after six solid years of it, but these are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Just to give you an idea of how dependable the Bush numbers are, the Department of Health and Human Services put out a press release a few weeks ago telling senior citizens they will have “new options with low costs” and that monthly premiums in ‘07 will be the same as in ‘06.

“The Medicare prescription drug benefit ... just keeps getting better,” burbled HHS. They seem to have been taking too much in the way of prescription drugs. Rep. Henry Waxman, one of the most singularly useful members of Congress, found that average premiums will actually increase by over 10 percent next year. And for the lowest-priced plans, average premiums will be up over 44 percent. “It is not merely confusing arithmetic, it is deceptive advertising,” said Waxman.

While lightening the tax burden for the rich, other parts of the Bush economic program continue to undermine the middle class in this country. As you may recall, in 2005 the credit industry successfully rammed a disgraceful bankruptcy reform bill through Congress. It’s working out just the way we expected it to: Middle class families are borrowing more than ever to make ends meet. Most families go under if: (a) they lose a job or (b) they have a health emergency crisis.

One attorney sums up the legislation’s impact: “It’s designed to make life miserable for anybody who owes money. It’s a help-the-banks, squish-the-little-guy law.”

Bush’s remarkably good economy is only good for the richest—for the rest of us, incomes are stagnant and education and health care costs are skyrocketing. The Republican Congress blindly rubber-stamps policies designed to help only a few. Are you better off than you were six years ago?

ELECTION DAY STILL A LONG WAY

Stunning coincidence. The verdict in the long-running trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is now due two days before our congressional elections in November. Astounding. How ineffable.

Sometimes you know the Republicans have just lost the rag completely. This week, Dick Cheney said to Rush Limbaugh regarding the Iraqi government, "If you look at the general, overall situation, they're doing remarkably well." The vice president also acknowledged there's some concern because the war wasn't over "instantaneously." We have now been in Iraq just one month shy of the entire time it took us to fight World War II. Seventy Americans dead so far in October. Electricity in Iraq this year hit its lowest levels since the war started.

What infuriates me about this is the lying. WHY can't they level with us? Just on the general, overall situation.

Put me in the depressive Dems camp. We always look good going into the last two weeks, until we get hit with that wall of Republican money (though I do think Ohio is beyond political recall at this point for the R's). Of course, both sides always complain about unfair advertising, but I must admit that almost all political advertising strikes me as ludicrous and I don't notice the D's looking simon-pure. A little shading, a little emphasis here and there -- I'm hard to shock on political ads, but I do get more than miffed when they take the truth and just stand it on its head.

For example, if ever there has been a friend to Social Security it would be Rep. Chet Edwards from Waco, Texas, a D loyal to the FDR, LBJ and government-exists-to-serve-the-people tradition. So what are the R's attacking him on? Not supporting Social Security. All this kind of thing does is render political debate completely meaningless.

The argument now is that D's have a seven-point structural deficit going into any election. I see the problem, I just have no idea what the actual numbers are.

Let's start with the easy end, the Senate. From the book "Off Center" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, as recently quoted by Eric Alterman in his blog: "The mismatch between popular votes and electoral outcomes is even more striking in the Senate. Combining the last three Senate elections, Democrats have actually won 2.5 million more votes than Republicans. Yet now they hold only 44 seats in that 100-person chamber because Republicans dominate the less populous states that are so heavily overrepresented in the Senate. As journalist Hendrik Hertzberg (of the New Yorker) notes, if you treat each senator as representing half that state's population, then the Senate's 55 Republicans currently represent 131 million people, while the 44 Democrats represent 161 million people."

OK, we all know about the small-state advantage in the Senate. How did the People's House get so far out of fair? Paul Krugman explains: "The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted -- they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the GOP to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts."

I should also point out that Democrats used to pack minority voters into the same districts when they drew the redistricting lines because of simple racism. Minority candidates need more votes to win, as polling consistently shows them several points ahead of where they actually finish because some people still cannot bring themselves to vote for black politicians even if they agree with them.

For instance, race is a factor this year in Harold Ford's Tennessee Senate contest -- even though political people keep pretending it's not.

I'm the one who has been writing for two years that the American people are fed up with the war in Iraq and with the Bush administration's lies and incompetence. I'm the one that keeps beating the Washington press corps about the head over how out of touch it is. I'm the one who has been insisting there's a Democratic tide out here, and that the people are so far ahead of the politicians and the media it's painful to watch.

So how come I'm not thrilled? Because I watched this happen two years ago -- same rejection of the Iraq war, same disgust with Bush and Co., same understanding Republicans are for the rich, period, same polls showing D's with the lead going right into Election Day. And the same geographic gerrymander and same wall of money in the last two weeks. I'm not close to calling this election, and I'm sure not into celebrating anything yet.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

IRAQ WAR DESPAIR IS NOT AN OPTION

AUSTIN, Texas—One reason despair is not an option is because things can always get worse, and then what’ll we do? I was actually trying to figure that out when I came across a remarkable article written for the The Nation magazine (known for its liberalism for 141 years) by Richard J. Whalen—a conservative in good standing, a former Nixon staffer. Whalen has undertaken the singularly valuable task of talking to dissenting generals about the war in Iraq.

I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq “the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.” And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq.

“The only question is whether a war serves the national interest,” one retired three-star told Whalen. “Iraq does not.”

Whalen writes: “The dissenting retired generals are bent on making Iraq this nation’s last strategically failed war—that is, one doggedly waged by civilian officials largely to avoid personal accountability for their bad decisions. A failed war causes mounting human and other costs, damaging or entirely destroying the national interest it was supposed to serve.”

During Vietnam, senior soldiers kept quiet. But after it ended, officers, including Colin Powell, “vowed it would never happen again.” But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge overruled the military minds and ignored the possible consequences.

Some of Whalen’s and the generals’ clearest points come from breaking the silent ban against comparing Iraq to the Vietnam War. Don’t know if you noticed this, but from the beginning anyone who spoke right up and said, “This is just like Vietnam,” had the experience of right-wingers landing on them, screeching: “This is not like Vietnam. This Is Not Like Vietnam. THIS IS NOT LIKE VIETNAM.” Of course it is. We just haven’t wasted 57,000 American lives yet.

Odom tells Whalen that “our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases to defeat. These were (1) 1961-65, ‘containing’ China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with U.S. tactics, leading to ‘Americanization’ of the war and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding ‘Vietnamization.’ Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third.”

In late September, it was reported that the National Intelligence Estimate for April said the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists: “A large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists ... are increasing in both number and in geographic distribution. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.”

The administration has released three pages of the 30-page report. We may see the rest of it, but not until after the election.

It’s difficult to argue this war with people who look straight at you and say: “Stay the course. Don’t cut and run.” We can’t even get reasonable discourse on the report, the work of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and signed by Bush’s man, John Negroponte.

Meanwhile, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health now estimates about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. All the work in the study fell to a knee-jerk response from conservatives, “Oh, that can’t be right.” Yet the methodology employed is the same as is used by the federal government to decide how to spend millions of dollars every year. It is, as they say, the industry standard.

Speaking of money, though ‘tis a pittance compared to lives, we are also wasting billions, as the new “showcase” Iraq police academy demonstrates. It seems we are trying to create a police force in Iraq loyal to the state by housing them in a place with water and feces running down the walls. Further, we’re going to have to spend millions and millions to investigate how we frittered away billions and billions.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

DEAR LEADERS

AUSTIN, Texas—Nobody else seems to be asking the obvious question about Susan B. Ralston, former administrative assistant to Jack Abramoff and, until last week, assistant to Karl Rove. She got hired by Rove at $64,700 after the 2004 election and then received a raise to $122,000. Why? I’ve never gotten a 100 percent raise. Did you? Is this common?

I know next to nothing about North Korea, but I know how to find out. People who do know the weird country have been worrying about it in print for six years now. (See articles in The New York Review of Books.) Eric Alterman picked this bit up in “The Book on Bush”: “The tone of Powell’s tenure was set early in the administration, when he announced that he planned ‘to pick up where the Clinton administration had left off’ in trying to secure the peace between North and South Korea, while negotiating with the North to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weaponry. The president not only repudiated his secretary of state in public, announcing, ‘We’re not certain as to whether or not they’re keeping all terms of all agreements,’ he did so during a joint appearance with South Korean President (and Nobel laureate for peace for his own efforts with the North) Kim Dae-Jung, thereby humiliating his honored guest, as well.

“A day later, Powell backpedaled. ‘The president forcefully made the point that we are undertaking a full review of our relationship with North Korea,’ Powell said. ‘There was some suggestion that imminent negotiations are about to begin—that is not the case.’”

This was pre-9/11, when Bush’s entire foreign policy consisted in not doing whatever Clinton had done, and vice versa. Also from “The Book on Bush”: “As former Ambassadors Morton Abramowitz and James Laney warned at the moment of Bush’s carelessly worded ‘Axis of Evil’ address, ‘Besides putting another knife in the diminishing South Korean president,’ the speech would likely cause ‘dangerous escalatory consequences, (including) … renewed tensions on the peninsula and continued export of missiles to the Mideast.’ ... North Korea called the Bush bluff, and the result, notes (Washington Post) columnist Richard Cohen, was ‘a stumble, a fumble, an error compounded by a blooper ... as appalling a display of diplomacy as anyone has seen since a shooting in Sarajevo turned into World War I.’”

Remember Bush’s diplomatic interview with Bob Woodward, when he said, “I loathe Kim Jong-Il!” Waving his finger, he added, “I’ve got a visceral reaction to this guy because he is starving his people.” Bush also said he wanted to “topple him” and called him a “pygmy.” How old were you when you learned not to antagonize and infuriate the local crazy bully?

Always a top diplomat. But I warn you, when Bush makes reference of this, as in “my gut tells me,” we are in big trouble. By any measure, North Korea continued to be more dangerous than Iraq.

I don’t see how this mess can be blamed on anyone but Bush, but I notice that a few Republicans have dragged out the shade of Bill Clinton because he tried to deal with North Korea. I would have thought there wasn’t much water left in that bogeyman, but I guess he is the straw man for all seasons among Republicans. Why doesn’t someone on Fox News ask him about it?

Meanwhile, our fiendishly clever president has dragged his daddy’s old family consigliore, James Baker, out of retirement to think of something to do about Iraq. A three-part partition is mentioned. Michigan History Professor Juan Cole on his blog explains why that’s a disaster, but I suspect that’s where the poor Iraqis end up anyway, followed by war with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE NOT-SO-GREAT TEXAS GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE

AUSTIN, Texas—I sacrificed an hour Friday evening to watch the Texas gubernatorial debate on your behalf, since I knew none of you would do it. Democrat Chris Bell looked and sounded like the only candidate who won’t embarrass the state—he was intelligent, well informed and even funny. But the question remains: Can Texas afford to lose that hair?

The Coiffure was in his usual form. As one opponent after another attacked his record, Gov. Rick Perry stood there proudly behind that 35 percent voter support he has so richly earned and simply disagreed. The Coiffure seemed to consider blanket denials a fully sufficient and adequate response.

At one point, the debate actually became more interesting, as a panel of reporters with Belo Corp. changed formats. Doing a quick pop quiz, they asked independent candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn who won the election in Mexico. She informed us the winner had won by a narrow margin, and she is ready to work with him. They asked Goodhair the interest rate on a home mortgage. He said 5.9 percent, and it is 6.4 percent (I don’t think I would have known that, either). Independent candidate Kinky Friedman didn’t even try to guess the average cost of a year’s tuition at the University of Texas ($7,630). They asked Bell when the battle of the Alamo was fought. He correctly answered 1836.

One overall impression: It seems to me both Strayhorn and Friedman damaged themselves. Lots of people are voting for Kinky for the fun of it, but the thin-skinned Texas Jew reacted badly to questions about his recent racist remarks. He first became defensive and then petulant—sort of, if you can’t take a joke, to hell with you. The politically incorrect humor didn’t work because it wasn’t funny ... in fact, it was painfully bad. Strayhorn seemed over-prepped and over-amped. As Texas political guru Bob Armstrong said, she talked 40 mph, with gusts up to 70.

So that leaves us with two Protestant white guys again. Just FYI, the percentage of minority citizens working for the state government has gone down steadily since Ann Richards.

Rick Perry and Chris Bell: Compare and contrast.

Rick Perry has really good hair.

Chris Bell has everything else.

Obviously, you think my prejudices are showing here, but others who reported on the debate, while often taking shelter behind the “no major blows landed” dodge, rather clearly thought Bell had done best, even if Perry won on the politics of it by not actually saying anything totally idiotic.

According to the post-debate “fact check” article in the Dallas Morning News, Perry claimed he had pushed a tax bill through the Legislature “lowering property taxes by a record amount.” He didn’t mention that the bill is not a tax cut, it’s a tax-swap—it didn’t lower taxes, it just moved them over to business and smokers.

He also claimed teachers could get a $12,000 raise under his school plan. Actually, the pay raise for teachers is $2,000 across the board, with the stated recommendation to the school districts that they add merit pay raises between $3,000 and $10,000. That’s some mighty fancy slicing and dicing there.

Bell picked up a $1 million pledge that night from John O’Quinn, the Houston trial lawyer. The trial lawyers have almost blown a good shot here—all it takes is one more vote than 36 percent, there is no run-off, this is winner-take-all, sudden death. Polls show two out of three Texas voters ready to vote against Perry. The Democrats have a base vote around 40 percent. I think it would be a real tragedy to throw this one away, and you know what is tripping us up? We think we can’t win.

We’re in a real “why try, why work, why contribute?” spiral, believing our guy doesn’t have a chance. Nonsense. You couldn’t ask for an easier win.

RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

RING THE BELL FOR A TEXAS DEMOCRAT

AUSTIN, Texas—Chris Bell for governor! I know, I know, it’s stop the presses, Ivins favors Democrat! But the Kinky Friedman candidacy is worn thin and no fun. Besides, we actually have a good chance to get Rick Perry out of office. After six years in office, the Coiffure is so little loved he's pulling only 35 percent of likely voters. He gets another four years, I don’t think we’ll have a public school system left—he really does intend to destroy it, at far-right GOP donor Jim Leininger’s bidding, you know. We may never again get a chance to do our state such a great service. This could be the Alamo of elections.

For those, like me, who believe in music and laughter in politics, Kinky Friedman appeared to be a natural—and besides, how hard can it be?

It turns out, a little harder than Kinky is willing to make an effort to go. In an excruciating interview with the Dallas Morning News, Friedman not only got about half his facts wrong (this is why we accuse Bush of misleading people), but also demonstrated that he does not understand school finance or taxes, nor does he have any intention of trying to do so.

I know this is coming third, but I also think Chris Bell is a good man—intelligent, knowledgeable and funny. You’d like him, honest. Although he would be a step down for us in the hair department.

One of the great mysteries of this race is why Carole Keeton Strayhorn has imploded almost as fast as Friedman. The only reason Friedman is still in the race is because of free media: Reporters were all so bored by the thought of another snoozer Republican victory, they fought to keep Friedman’s candidacy alive long past the point when it was clear that the Kinkster was in it entirely for ego and publicity. I still like the idea—maybe next time, we should get a funny, smart musician who cares enough to study up a little. Marcia Ball, anyone? Joe Ely?

Strayhorn, normally a bulldog of a campaigner, does not seem to have persuaded many Republicans to her banner: She’s no Kaye Bailey Hutchison. Since Republicans themselves are fed to teeth with Perry, aside from the right-wing Christian base, this looked to be a chance when they could reclaim their party, or at least redefine it some. Nope, no interest.

Bell is looking like a better bet because: (A) He has the Democratic base vote going for him, and (B) Perry is just so lame. As we start down the stretch, Bell is picking up on the outside, Perry is still at 35 percent after a year, Strayhorn is fading and Kinky stopped to poop on the track.

I’m all in favor of anti-political correctness—a great source of humor, it is. After using the N word, Friedman claimed great comedians like him used such language. To belabor the obvious, Richard Pryor and Chris Rock are black—Kinky is not.

Take a line like, “As Jesus once said to the Mexicans, don’t do a thing ‘til I get back.” A Chicano comedian with great timing could do it. It doesn’t work from Kinky Friedman. That’s why all his funniest stuff is about the weird existential dilemma of being a Texas Jew. Dropping the N word into any sentence involving something black is just not funny. Unless it’s funny, you get no points for being anti-p.c.

Right now, Bell’s biggest problem is perception. “Doesn’t have any money.” “Can’t raise money.” “Democrats can’t win.” Once you’ve lost to a clod like Perry, your confidence kind of slips and you think it can’t be done. Those who keep repeating these complaints about Chris Bell forget this is an entirely different race. Perry is running on a 35 percent approval rating and plans for 17 more coal-fired power plants. Not to mention seven special sessions and the Trans-Texas Corridor.

There was a bit of flap recently when Liz Smith claimed the late Ann Richards would have been in favor of Kinky for governor. Maybe Liz knew Ann better than I did. But I’d bet not. Listening to her memorial service, I was reminded how hard we fought and how tough it was. I thought of the slippage since she left office—blacks and browns left out again. All we have to do to win this is get Democrats to vote. Let’s make it a vote for Annie.

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

BEYOND THE PALE

AUSTIN, Texas—Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ 6th Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent Tammy Duckworth of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot, who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. “I just could not believe he would say that to me,” said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill, now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. Warner, McCain and Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place.

The first reported case of death by torture by Americans was in The New York Times in 2003 by Carlotta Gall. The military had announced the prisoner died of a heart attack, but when Gall actually saw the death certificate, written in English and issued by the military, it said the cause of death was homicide. The “heart attack” came after he had been beaten so often on this legs that they had “basically been pulpified,” according to the coroner.

The story of why and how it took the Times so long to print this information is in the current edition of Columbia Journalism Review. The press in general has been late and slow in reporting torture, so very few Americans have any idea how far it has spread. As is often true in hierarchical, top-down institutions, the orders get passed on in what I call the downward communications exaggeration spiral.

For example, on a newspaper, a top editor may remark casually, “Let’s give the new mayor a chance to see what he can do before we start attacking him.”

This gets passed on as, “Don’t touch the mayor unless he really screws up.”

And it ultimately arrives at the reporter level as, “We can’t say anything negative about the mayor.”

The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal. In one change, the original compromise language said a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. The three senators said the clause was necessary to avoid secret trials. The bill has now dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to.”

In another change, a clause said that evidence obtained outside the United States could be admitted in court even if it had been gathered without a search warrant. But the bill now drops the words “outside the United States,” which means prosecutors can ignore American legal standards on warrants.

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.

As Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, wrote, an intelligence service free to torture soon “degenerates into a playground for sadists.” But not unbridled sadism—you will be relieved that the compromise took out the words permitting interrogation involving “severe pain” and substituted “serious pain,” which is defined as “bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.”

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech: “The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

NEW NEWS IS BAD NEWS

AUSTIN, Texas—Noshing on the news ...

The National Intelligence Estimate, agreed upon by 16 Bush-controlled spy services within the U.S. government, says the war in Iraq is making the war on terrorism harder and worse. It gives the phrase “leaking intelligence” a new meaning (a line not original with me).

We’ve been having a debate in this country about whether to continue the war—or “the comma,” as the president calls it—until it has become a semi-colon. Now, the debate is over, and what we need to discuss is the best way out. This war is not a goddamn comma.

According to The Associated Press, the directors of the Legal Services Corp., a program for poor people, have been trying to get rid of their inspector general, who has clocked them for, among other things, expensive meals, using limousine services and wasting money on a ritzy headquarters.

The board members said the inspector general had a “fetish” for independence (how horrible) and that he’s a character assassin backed by a delusional staff, and so forth. While this was going on, one half of the poor clients applying for legal services were rejected.

The AP reports the Education Department has ignored the law and ethical standards to steer money how it wants. The billion-dollar-a-year Reading First program is apparently riddled with problems, including political favoritism, conflicts of interest and mismanagement.

In a hair-raising memo, the director of Reading First, Chris Doherty, wrote members of the staff at the Department of Education regarding one company, “They are trying to crash our party, and we need to beat the (expletive) out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.”

Doherty recently resigned from the department “to return to the private sector,” a spokeswoman said. Isn’t that nice? I kind of wish he was back in government helping to answer the eternal mystery, “Is our children learning?”

For the second time since August, the Army is ordering the combat tours of thousands of soldiers past the promised 12 months. This time, it’s nearly 4,000 soldiers in the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored.

Again in Iraq, the Army chief of staff is refusing to submit a budget because he says he needs billions more dollars before the Army can meet its obligations. He will surely get help from ol’ “anything they ask for” Bush.

The question is: Can these people run anything right? The other question is: Is there anything they can’t screw up?

I don’t know about you, but I think the Education deal has me more upset. I mean, we already knew the Big Comma was producing a backlash, didn’t we, really? Where are we now -- 2,700 dead Americans, nearly 50,000 dead Iraqis ... come on, that’s at least familiar, what Donald Rumsfeld would call a “known-known.” But stealing money from little kids’ reading programs? What is that about?

Iraq—Bush made a horrible mistake because he knows relatively little. But stacking the bidding in favor a reading program that may not be the best available? I suppose the answer is that Republicans (except for Bush) never did think having the feds in education was a good idea.

I’m ready to settle for a bar of common decency. Lead us into an insane war, get the troops killed, lie about whatever you want, eat fancy meals on the government tab ($14 for a chocolate dessert?), but please, oh please, do not rig the bids for reading material for our adorable little children, who will soon be appearing with President Bush in a rainbow of colors in ads dreamed up by Karl Rove. They’re really great for photo ops.

RELEASE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

A TORTURED DEBATE

AUSTIN, Texas—Some country is about to have a Senate debate on a bill to legalize torture. How weird is that?

I’d like to thank Sens. John McCain, Lindsay Graham—a former military lawyer—and John Warner of Virginia. I will always think fondly of John Warner for this one reason: Forty years ago, this country was involved in an unprovoked and unnecessary war. It ended so badly the vets finally had to hold their own homecoming parade, years after they came home. The only member of Congress who attended was John Warner.

A debate on torture. I don’t know—what do you think? I guess we have to define it, first. The White House has already specified “water boarding,” making some guy think he’s drowning for long periods, as a perfectly good interrogation technique. Maybe, but it was also a great favorite of the Gestapo and has been described and condemned in thousands of memoirs and novels in highly unpleasant terms.

I don’t think we can give it a good name again, and I personally kind of don’t like being identified with the Gestapo. How icky. (Somewhere inside me, a small voice is shrieking, “Are you insane?”)

The safe position is, “Torture doesn’t work.”

Well, actually, it works to this extent—anybody can be tortured into telling anything that’s true and anything that’s not true. The more people are tortured, the more they make up to please the torturer. Then the torturer has to figure out when the vic started lying. Since our torturers are, in George Bush’s immortal phrase, “professionals” and this whole legislative fight is over making torture legal so the “professionals” can’t later be charged with breaking the Geneva Conventions, Bush has vowed to end “the program” completely if he doesn’t get what he wants. (The same thin voice is shrieking, “Professional torturers trained with my tax money?”)

Bush’s problem is that despite repeated warnings, he went ahead with “the program” without waiting for Congress to provide a fig leaf of legality. Actually, we have been torturing prisoners at Gitmo, prisons in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan for years.

Since only seven of the several hundred prisoners at Gitmo have ever been charged with anything, we face the unhappy prospect that the rest of them are innocent. And will sue. That’s gong to be quite an expensive settlement. The Canadian upon whom we practiced “rendition,” sending him to Syria for 10 months of torture, will doubtlessly be first on the legal docket. I wonder how high up the chain of command a civil suit can go? Any old war criminals wandering around?

I was interested to find that the Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is so in favor of torture he told McCain that the senator either supports the torture bill or he can forget about the evangelical Christian vote. I’d like to see an evangelical vote on that one. I don’t know how Sheldon defines traditional values, but deliberately inflicting terrible physical pain or stress on someone who is completely helpless strikes me as ... well, torture. And, um, wrong. And I’ve smoked dope! Boy, everything those conservatives tell us about the terrible moral values of us liberals must be true after all.

Now, in addition to the slightly surreal awakening to find we live in a country that’s having a serious debate on a torture bill, can we do anything we about it? The answer is: We better. We better do something about it. Now, right away. What do we do? The answer is: anything ... phone, fax, e-mail, mail, demonstrate—go stand outside their offices or the nearest federal building in the cold and sing hymns or shout rude slogans, chant or make a speech, or start attacking federal property, like a postal box, so they have to arrest you. Gather peacefully and make a lot of noise. Get publicity, too.

How will you feel if you didn’t do something? “Well, honey, when United States decided to adopt torture as an official policy, I was dipping the dog for ticks.”

As Ann Richards used to say, “I don’t want my tombstone to read: ‘She kept a clean house.’”

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

AUSTIN, Texas—Is it just me, or was that the worst presidential press conference in history? So I went back and read it over. Of course, in print you don’t get the testy tone: I heard it on radio and thought the man was about to blow up—not just because he was being questioned, which Bush appears to consider an offensive action in the first place, but because people continue to refuse to see things the way he does. How can they be so stupid or malign, he appears to wonder.

I ask: How can he be so repetitive, repeatedly using the oldest tactic of a verbal bully—saying the same thing louder, as though that would make it true?

Last Friday’s Rose Garden press conference seemed so awful I thought it worth wading through it again to see what set him off. Maybe if you saw it on television, it seemed better. Perhaps his banter with reporters works better on TV. But I left with the impression that this is a spoiled man whose frustration level when someone disagrees with him is that of a 3-year-old and that he’s the last person you want to see operating under a lot of stress because he doesn’t handle it well.

See what you think:

Q: “On both the eavesdropping program and the detainee issues—“

A: “We call it the terrorist surveillance program, Hutch.”

Yo. Sometimes I’m convinced this is a war of words. Should we call it surveillance or eavesdropping? Is the detainee issue about holding terrorists, or is it about torturing them and then trying them without telling then what evidence we have against them? If we stop calling it eavesdropping plus torture and with kangaroo trials, will it stop being eavesdropping, torture and kangaroo trials, and become anti-terrorist activity? Who gets to name things? Would a rose by any other name, like skunkwort, smell as sweet?

Sen. John McCain, who knows more than President Bush about torture in captivity, thinks abandoning the Geneva Convention rules leaves American soldiers in peril of being tortured in turn and us without a court of resort to look to.

It’s a thorny issue, but Bush kept getting more and more annoyed as he reiterated, “And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical (question) you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.” (In other words, we will not hold tribunals for suspected terrorists.) In what court in what world is not allowing the defendant to hear the evidence against him held to be just?

Bush kept insisting the legislation to permit such tribunals is vital and “the program will not go forward without it” because young intelligence officers might be accused of breaking the law(!).

“Let’s see if I can put it (Article III of the Geneva Convention) this way for people to understand. There is a very vague standard that the (U.S. Supreme) Court said must kind of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and detainee policy. It’s so vague that it’s impossible to ask anybody to participate in the program for fear ... of breaking the law. That’s the problem.”

Actually, the problem is the proposed program of tribunals is illegal—and not young intelligence officers but potentially old war criminals are at risk, as well.

Now here’s a Bush classic, clarifying the matter with exquisite precision:

Q: “Well, recently you’ve also described bin Laden as sort of a modern-day Hitler or Mussolini. And I’m wondering why, if you can explain why you think it’s a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is? “

A: “We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody’s report, well, special forces here—Pakistan—if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question—Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

“Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that; then when you find him, you bring him to justice. And there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn’t stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It’s convenient throw-away lines when people say that.”

Now that’s a problem. Because in the summer lead-up to the war in Iraq, both administration officials and Bush himself repeatedly deemphasized the importance of Osama bin Laden. This was, of course, after they had let him slip away at Tora Bora, a mistake increasingly denounced within the military itself.

As resources were transferred out of Afghanistan and toward Iraq, we were repeatedly told that bin Laden was not central to the war on terror, it would continue with or without him, he was no longer our focus. There was a flurry of commentary at the time about this odd decision, but Saddam Hussein was being presented as the great menace and monster, and bin Laden was off he table.

You might think this is a classic fork: either they were lying then or they are lying now. But it would just take Bush longer to explain.

RELEASE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

REMEMBERING ANN RICHARDS

AUSTIN, Texas—She was so generous with her responses to other people. If you told Ann Richards something really funny, she wouldn’t just smile or laugh, she would stop and break up completely. She taught us all so much—she was a great campfire cook. Her wit was a constant delight. One night on the river on a canoe trip, while we all listened to the next rapid, which sounded like certain death, Ann drawled, “It sounds like every whore in El Paso just flushed her john.”

She knew how to deal with teenage egos: Instead of pointing out to a kid who was pouring charcoal lighter on a live fire that he was idiot, Ann said, “Honey, if you keep doing that, the fire is going to climb right back up to that can in your hand and explode and give you horrible injuries, and it will just ruin my entire weekend.”

She knew what it was like to have four young children and to be so tired you cried while folding the laundry. She knew and valued Wise Women like Virginia Whitten and Helen Hadley.

At a long-ago political do at Scholz Garten in Austin, everybody who was anybody was there meetin’ and greetin’ at a furious pace. A group of us got the tired feet and went to lean our butts against a table at the back wall of the bar. Perched like birds in a row were Bob Bullock, then state comptroller, moi, Charles Miles, the head of Bullock’s personnel department, and Ms. Ann Richards. Bullock, 20 years in Texas politics, knew every sorry, no good sumbitch in the entire state. Some old racist judge from East Texas came up to him, ‘Bob, my boy, how are you?”

Bullock said, “Judge, I’d like you to meet my friends: This is Molly Ivins with the Texas Observer.”

The judge peered up at me and said, “How yew, little lady?”

Bullock, “And this is Charles Miles, the head of my personnel department.” Miles, who is black, stuck out his hand, and the judge got an expression on his face as though he had just stepped into a fresh cowpie. He reached out and touched Charlie’s palm with one finger, while turning eagerly to the pretty, blonde, blue-eyed Ann Richards. “And who is this lovely lady?”

Ann beamed and replied, “I am Mrs. Miles.”

One of the most moving memories I have of Ann is her sitting in a circle with a group of prisoners. Ann and Bullock had started a rehab program in prisons, the single most effective thing that can be done to cut recidivism (George W. Bush later destroyed the program). The governor of Texas looked at the cons and said, “My name is Ann, and I am an alcoholic.”

She devoted untold hours to helping other alcoholics, and anyone who ever heard her speak at an AA convention knows how close laughter and tears can be.

I have known two politicians who completely reformed the bureaucracies they were elected to head. Bob Bullock did it by kicking ass at the comptroller’s until hell wouldn’t have it. Fear was his m.o. Ann Richards did it by working hard to gain the trust of the employees and then listening to what they told her. No one knows what’s wrong with a bureaucracy better than the bureaucrats who work in it.

The 1990 race for governor was one of the craziest I ever saw, with Ann representing “New Texas.”

Republican nominee Claytie Williams was a perfect foil, down to his boots, making comments that could be construed as racist and sexist. Ann was the candidate of everybody else, especially for women. She represented all of us who have lived with and learned to handle good ol’ boys, and she did it with laughter. The spirit of the crowd that set off from the Congress Avenue Bridge up to the Capitol the day of Ann’s inauguration was so full of spirit and joy. I remember watching San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros that day with tears running down his cheeks because Chicanos were finally included.

Ann got handed a stinking mess: Damn near every state function was under court order. The prisons were so crowded, dangerous convicts were being let loose. She had a long, grinding four years and wound up fixing all of it. She always said you could get a lot done in politics if you didn’t need to take credit.

But she disappointed many of her fans because she was so busy fixing what was broken, she never got to change much. The ‘94 election was a God, gays and guns deal. Annie had told the legislature that if they passed a right-to-carry law, she would veto it. They did, and she did. At the last minute, the NRA launched a big campaign to convince the governor that we Texas women would feel ever so much safer if we could just carry guns in our purses.

Said Annie, “Well, you know that I am not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag.”

Note: Molly Ivins is on vacation. There will be no columns for the week of Sept 4 & 11.

THE FOLLOWING IS A SUBSTITUTE COLUMN BY SUSAN ESTRICH.

SUSAN ESTRICH

KILLER KATIE

Could there be a lesson in this?

Give a woman a job no woman has ever had, and what happens?

She kills the boys, figuratively speaking of course.

After all the talk about whether she was too perky or too cute, too much a morning person, too liberal in the eyes of viewers, about her hair and her heels, Katie Couric took the anchor chair on Tuesday night, and the numbers went through the glass ceiling.

And a funny thing happened.

She won on Wednesday, too.

The news business is still one of the last plantations. Oh, sure, most local stations have their matching set of anchors, but until Katie, there was no woman who had ever been hired to anchor the evening news alone. When Tom retired, they replaced him with Brian. When Peter got sick, the long and short list was all guys. When Elizabeth got paired with Bob, the knives were out, and when Bob got injured, was there a moment when anyone thought she would get the job on her own? Not a chance.

In the months before she left “Today,” Katie was the target of so much vicious ridicule that her stiletto heels had become a trademark goof. Even with her debut the commentary was vicious, with one columnist (yes, a woman) comparing her face to that of a girl who was just desperate to go to the bathroom. But the viewers, who are the ultimate judges, didn’t see it that way.

On the first night, she received a 9.1 rating and a 17 share, meaning that 17 percent of those watching television were watching her. It was the highest-rated CBS Evening News broadcast since the Feb. 23, 1998, edition during the Olympic Winter Games in Nagano—and more than double the metered-market average of 4.4/9 of the four preceding weeks.

In truth, the news was the news. The set may have been a little flashier, the tone a little more folksy and the list of guests more high-powered, but the real difference was the gender of the anchor. Curiosity may have been one factor pulling in the crowds, but it was curiosity of a particular kind, the kind that signals that people—men and women—want to see a woman at the desk, in the center of the action, in the position of power.

Imagine that. Whodathunkit?

We now know the answer to the question of whether America is ready for a solo woman anchor.

Yes.

Imagine what else we might be ready for.

A woman running a network news division?

A woman with a late night show (it’s been a long time since anyone tried that)?

More than the token number of women on talk radio?

An equal number of women on opinion pages of newspapers, even?

The primary reason women are stuck in this business is that people, men and women, don’t have the guts to challenge the status quo. It’s just easier to keep doing things the way they’ve been done—replace handsome white guys with other handsome white guys, screaming male conservatives with other screaming male conservatives, Type A former jocks with other Type A former jocks. That leaves women competing for the few jobs that women already have: blonde co-anchors, morning show sidekicks, sideline sweethearts and entertainment babes. How predictable can you be? How boring?

If you ask what makes Katie different from Brian and Charlie, it isn’t that she’s smarter or more experienced. I happen to think both of them are terrific. It’s that she IS different. And that has everything to do with her being a woman, although certainly not every woman is Katie Couric. And it’s refreshing, a change, a real addition to the evening choices because she is there, which is one of the strengths of diversity, and of changing the status quo.

Imagine how terrific it might be if we had two women to choose from, and what that could prove. …

MOLLY IVINS

RELEASE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

COW WHISPERERS AGAINST THE WAR

AUSTIN, Texas—I know it’s bad form to brag, but I am now a graduate of Texas A&M University, and you can’t stop Aggie pride. I became a diplomee of the great institution in College Station after successfully completing the three-day short course in beef cattle this summer. I specialized in forage management and graduated “Quel fromage!” meaning “avec distinction.”

It is also true that I was banned from the campus of Texas A&M many years ago after some students invited me to make a political speech. Also Quel Fromage! So you see how far we have all come.

The most amazing part of cow college was meeting the cow whisperer. Think of everything you know about moving cattle from one place to another—for shots, round-up or loading into trucks for market—just physically moving a lot of cattle. GEE, GIT ON, GO DOGIE, whistle, whip crack, move ‘em out, chase ‘em down. Turns out all these years we’ve been doing it wrong.

What happens when you scare a cow by making a lot of noise and chasing it down and forcing it to move where it doesn’t want to go is the cow responds by relieving itself. And since a cow has three stomachs, it can unload up to 20 percent of its total weight at one go, the last thing you want just before you take it to market to sell.

So the latest thing in cattle handling is cow whispering (I’m not making this up—this is straight from A&M). Either on foot or horseback, you just kind of sidle around your herd without upsetting them, talk to them gently and suggest they might like to go THAT way for a while, and then perhaps a tour along the pen line, and then perhaps some consideration of the gate and another little tour of the pen line. But all of this is done without loud noise, sudden movements or eruptions of testosterone. It’s such a revolutionary development of an American macho tradition it’s a little like watching NFL teams come onto the field in tutus. But it also works a lot better on the cows.

I bring this up because I recently attended a women’s peace movement meeting, sponsored by the Code Pink group founded by Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans and Diane Wilson. (Ha, now you think you see where I am going.) The women peacemakers also included Cindy Sheehan, writer Anne Lamott and Col. Ann Wright, who served 29 years in the Army and more than 15 years in the Foreign Service, before resigning in protest over Bush’s drive to war in Iraq.

I must say, they were a lot more emphatic than the cow whisperer. In fact, as I left, they were saddling up to ride down to President Bush at his ranch with a people’s posse peace warrant. Lots of whooping about it.

Women peace activists, as rule, have totally solved the gnarly old dilemma: What do you do about hating the haters? If you’re a woman peace activist, this is Step 101 -- you spill love and calm and reassurance and, well, peace all over them. (Which is why it’s especially funny that George Bush is so afraid of Cindy Sheehan.)

For those of us who have not mastered this advanced technique, a Revolution in Favor of Kindness and Libraries seems like a nice idea. Anne Lamott, one of the funniest people in America, has developed a scenario for a Revolution With Good Manners, in which we are all extremely Nice to one another. Good manners never hurt anything. “Our Revolution decrees that we will fight tooth and nail for these things, politely.”

I am still lamentably stuck in the middle—not that I hold with hating the haters, we can all see where that leads—but I am always tempted to shout them down. “One, Two Three, Four: We Don’t Want Your F-ing War.” Now does that repel more potential supporters or attract more people who really NEED to sound off?

What I learned from Code Pink is that this is not an either-or question. The peace movement is a matter of And and And and And. You just keep adding more people, from those like Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in the stupid debacle, to the Iraqi Veterans Against the War, easily the strongest, most moving group of young people in America. They have learned in the hardest way what politics is.

War is about rounding up people with Shock and Awe and really loud noises, and about thinking you can herd them by hurting and killing them. Politics is what you do if you’re not so stupid you walk into an unnecessary and unprovoked war. I’m founding Cow Whisperers Against the War.

RELEASE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

THE NEW “ACTIVIST” JUDGES

AUSTIN, Texas—Another bee-you-ti-ful example of the right-wing media getting it all wrong. Here they are having the nerve to mutter in public about “activist judges” because Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has pointed out that spying without a warrant is illegal in this country—so warrantless telephone tapping is illegal in this country.

Improbably enough, the first complaint of many of these (SET ITAL) soi-disant (END ITAL) legal scholars is that Taylor’s decision is not well written. No judicial masterpiece, they sneer. Nevertheless, warrantless spying is illegal. Did it ever occur to these literary critics that Taylor has a lay-down hand? The National Security Agency program is flat unconstitutional, and for those who insist this means Osama bin Laden wins, it’s also ridiculously easy to fix so that it is constitutional.

Conservatives in this country have been yipping in chorus for years about “activist judges,” and frankly, like fools, many of you bought into the phony political rhetoric about those terrible jurists.

Somehow, activist judges are held responsible for gay marriage, Roe v. Wade and everything else Americans disagree about, as though Americans would never disagree without their encouragement. Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don’t like.

As any liberal could have told you, the conservatives didn’t want a right-wing shift on the nation’s courts because of “social issues”—that’s just a handy political ploy. Honestly, people, haven’t you figured out what this is all about yet? Money. The conservatives are in a snit about “liberal courts” because of money.

Corporations being prosecuted for breaking the law! Tobacco companies forced to pay huge fines! Oil and chemical companies made to pay for cleanup at Superfund sites! Oh, the horror, the horror. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page couldn’t stop shivering over it for years.

“This is the richest business term in recent memory,” Mark Levy, a Supreme Court litigator, told The Wall Street Journal, which has stopped quivering at last. Moving right along in the long-drawn-out battle to deny ordinary citizens access to their own courts, the justices closed down the right to allow class-action securities cases in state courts. The court also kept out of a lower-court decision preventing taxpayers from suing to stop tax breaks that states and municipalities use to lure big business, a notorious example of raging bad policy.

Meanwhile, what a nice gift from the federal bench to the insurance companies when a federal judge in Mississippi decided that hurricane insurance policies excluding water damage are “valid and enforceable.” As many of our fellow citizens had an opportunity to learn during Katrina, it’s a challenge to sit around in a class IV hurricane, trying to figure out which is wind and which is water damage. “Ooops, there goes the roof, probably wind, followed by a huge run of waves rolling over the house, could be water.”

Insurance company stocks went up across the board after the decision, while the industry kindly advised its clients to “keep you eyes wide open when buying new homeowners’ insurance.”

Congratulations to the Katrina survivors who were hanging on by their fingernails.

Money, money, money is the motif of the “New Activist” federal judges, but they have also been busy, busy limiting congressional authority and individual rights. As People for the American Way notes, federal appellate courts—effectively the court of last resort for most Americans—are working on: questioning the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act, overturning the National Labor Relations Board rulings against anti-union discrimination and other unfair labor practices by employers, allowing the Bush administration to keep secret the records of the Cheney energy task force and rewriting by court order a state law on First Amendment activity.

Other Bush appellate judges have ruled to deny protection to workers who file claims of race and disability discrimination, made it harder to protect the environment, and issued other decisions that will affect our lives and liberties for decades.

Activist judges, indeed.

RELEASE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

AUSTIN, Texas—Royal Masset, a Texas Republican political consultant who has been accused of being less than brilliant, recently had this to say about Karl Rove: “I think we actually like Karl a lot more now than we did when he was more active locally.” He told the San Antonio Express-News he believed that Rove in Washington is remaining loyal to Bush while “fighting the good fight. He’s fighting budgets. He’s fighting wars. He’s doing conservative kinds of things.”

When Rove was in Texas, Masset continued, “there was a real sense of him being a total self-centered (person) who didn’t care about anybody. He would literally destroy people who tried to oppose him.”

Plenty o’ food for thought in that. But first we should maybe figure out how to smuggle Royal out of the country with a fake passport.

The Bushies are having the hardest time trying to un-lie now. For example, at his Monday press conference, the president asserted, “Nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the (Sept. 11) attack.”

How true: What Vice President Cheney in December 2001 said about links between 9-11 and Iraq was that it was “pretty well confirmed” that hijacking ringleader Mohammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence. On June 17, 2004, Cheney said: “We have never been able to confirm that, nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don’t know. ... I can’t refute the Czech claim, I can’t prove the Czech claim, I just don’t know.”

In July 2004, the CIA’s own report stated it does not have “any credible information” that the alleged meeting ever took place. The CIA said the whole concoction was based on a single source “whose veracity ... has been questioned” and that the Iraqi official allegedly involved was in U.S. custody and denied the meeting ever took place. The 9-11 commission had already concluded the meeting never occurred.

Cheney has a consistent pattern of exaggeration on intelligence related to Iraq. The tragedy is that at least half the American people believed Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9-11 plot—and most soldiers serving in Iraq still believe this.

It’s pretty embarrassing when the British intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, accuse the FBI of leaking like a sieve. British intelligence has a lengthy history in the leaking-like-a-sieve department—so that’s some pot calling our kettle black. Nevertheless, they are making the point that our leaks about the “liquid terror” plot have pretty well bollixed up the case. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was so annoyed he referred to the entire Bush performance in the Middle East as “crap.” This truth-telling has gone too far.

Or, come to think of it, maybe it’s just begun—and it’s high damn time we got on with it. I’d suggest starting with the reality on the ground. Iraq is a disaster. The most credible estimate of how long it would take to fix it—if it is fixable—is another 10 to 25 years and a commensurate amount of dollars. Is it doable? Is it worth it? What are the consequences if we do or do not continue the effort? What are the consequences if the most likely result of our withdrawal—partition into three parts—takes place? (That’s also a likely consequence of our staying.)

It seems to me that those who advocate withdrawal ASAP have just as much of a duty to make the arguments for doing so—and to admit how much they don’t know—as those who got us into this mess five years ago with that titanic combination of misinformation and ignorance.

Let’s start with what Donald Rumsfeld once described as “the known unknowns” and then see how far we get. Let’s have what we should have had at the beginning—as informed and unideological a debate as possible, with attention to the effects on our allies and the region. Onward.

RELEASE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2006, AND THEREAFTER

AUSTIN, Texas—The most cunning refinement yet in the administration’s plot to scare the liver, lights and onions out of us with Tales of Terror Plots is the Department of Homeland Security’s brilliant move to declare Indiana the national center of terrorism, with 8,591 potential targets. Many citizens have questioned the Indiana move—some claiming it is a waste of money trying to stop attacks on the Wabash Cannonball. The Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument might merit a little more attention. This is precisely why it is better to have Michael Chertoff and Karl Rove making this Homeland Security decisions, rather than Osama bin Laden.

The defeat of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary alerted Veep Dick Cheney to the menace. Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Lieberman, said he was surprised that Cheney claimed his victory would embolden Osama bin, as we call him Texas.

“My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how we can turn this to partisan advantage,” complained Lamont. Lieberman warned that Lamont’s call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be “taken as a tremendous victory” by the terrorists. Cheney said it would encourage “the al-Qaida types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”

Wow. How little we realized the fate of a single senator—especially such a whiny and sanctimonious one—meant everything to Osama bin. Must’ve pulled off his turban and danced around his cave when he got the news. The whole al-Qaida bunch stayed up just to hear the late returns from Darien, Conn.

Give President Bush another five years or so, and he’s bound to figure out that Osama bin is not in Iraq—then we’ll be right on his tail.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, The Hill newspaper reports that an Enron lobbyist (former aide to Joe Lieberman and money-raiser for him and convicted Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, whom he describes as being “like-minded guys”) is demanding that Democratic senators not campaign against Lieberman. When asking other professional influence-peddlers to contribute, he tells them to come back for Lieberman, saying, “Who knows what Lamont would be like?”

For example, Lamont might use his power to make sure the Enron investigation gets serious—a task Lieberman, ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs Committee, has avoided. No surprise that the lobbyists and insiders want to keep their guy.

In other news, we have the answer to a troubling part of the Middle East jigsaw puzzle: how to rebuild Iraq. We ought to drop Halliburton like a skilletful of rattlesnakes and get Hezbollah on the job. Did you ever see a better rebuilding bunch than this Hezbollah? The shooting hadn’t even stopped yet when the “Army of God” was hustling around with plywood and duct tape, putting everything back together. And who do they get to pay for it all, but the Arabs. Now that’s what I call rebuilding!

Bodega Bay Navigator Online / --------- Opinion by Molly Ivins

The syndicated colomnists that appear in the Navigator Online will not be updated after Jan. 20, 2007.

MOLLY IVINS

Stand Up Against the Surge

THANKS—NO, SERIOUSLY

NOW THEY’RE ALL FOR BIPARTISANSHIP

POST-ELECTION ETIQUETTE

KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE BALL

GOP INEPTITUDE AND SOME ADVICE FOR DEMS

A CAMPAIGN OF SLEAZE

THE GOOD ECONOMY MYTH

THE NOT-SO-GREAT TEXAS GUBERNATORIAL DEBATE

RING THE BELL FOR A TEXAS DEMOCRAT

BEYOND THE PALE

NEW NEWS IS BAD NEWS

A TORTURED DEBATE

REMEMBERING ANN RICHARDS

Note: Molly Ivins is on vacation. There will be no columns for the week of Sept 4 & 11.

SUSAN ESTRICH

KILLER KATIE

MOLLY IVINS

COW WHISPERERS AGAINST THE WAR

THE NEW “ACTIVIST” JUDGES