On Oct. 17, Dick Cheney appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, and said, in reference to Iraq:

"If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well."

(see http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/cheney-rush/)

Then on Oct. 18, The Daily Telegraph of London reported:

"Former US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a 'helluva mess', the BBC reported today."

(see http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20601699-5006506,00.html)

There really doesn't need to be any further comment about delusion, separation from reality, credibility gaps, or anything of the like. These two statements stand on their own and speak for themselves.

...and while the press conference is still ongoing, after nearly an hour:

Bush said, in response to question of whether the November elections are, or should be considered, a referendum on the war in Iraq (pardon if I misquote his EXACT words, without having a transcript):

"Some in Washington say, 'we are not at war'...".

Of course, Dubya affirmed the obvious, that we ARE at war! But WHO says the opposite? Why does the press let Bush get by with this "straw man" tactic over and over and over again? WHO says we're not at war right now? I WANT NAMES, MR. BUSH, and if you can't offer any prominent people who say this, STOP LYING TO US THIS WAY!!!

Definition of "sovereign" from Webster's Online Dictionary:

"One that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere"

I'll believe that Iraq has a sovereign government of its own when our government officials like Sec. Rice or Rumsfeld get approval from that government BEFORE making a visit to Iraq, or if that government actually makes an independent decision that goes AGAINST something that the Bush White House wants.

It all depends on the further definitions of "supreme" and "limited sphere", I suppose. It's quite a stretch, though, to maintain the fantasy that Iraq actually has a truly sovereign government!

As an Ohio resident who's keenly aware of the shenanigans here in 2004, and who also shares fears about voting fraud in November 2006, one thing keeps me somewhat reassured. If the GOP were certain of overall victory through some pre-arranged scheme to control electronic vote totals, would we be seeing all their gutter-level mudslinging? Would they appear to admit to complete (but false) desperation in the waning days of the campaign? Would Bush try to give the appearance of changing course in Iraq?

I wouldn't THINK so, but then again, others will probably point out a couple of alternate explanations. First, you might suspect a "double fake", with Republicans flinging mud at the Democrats only to make people doubt the reality of the voting fraud to come. In other words, they only LOOK desperate, but know they have nothing to fear, so it's all just an act. To me, though, keeping the campaign on a high road would make any unexpected come-from-behind victories more plausible. Leave it to the Democrats alone to go negative, and point to THAT as the reason for GOP success in the final voting.

Second, whoever is behind this widely hypothesized voting fraud scheme certainly wouldn't broadcast its existence any more than absolutely necessary. You wouldn't give this info to your average state or local candidate, for instance. I have no ready explanation to discount THIS possibility, unfortunately.

What do others think about this issue? What else logically points toward or away from electronic vote fraud?

...if negative campaigning were demonstrably responsible for "closing the gap" to a statistically insignificant margin, or at least one that's close enough to accept when a reversal occurs on Election Day.

It doesn't, however, explain Ken Blackwell's disgusting gutter-level campaign against Ted Strickland for Ohio governor. Without ANY doubt, Kenny Boy would be a ring-leader in any Ohio vote fraud (if it occurs), and the latest polls still confirm a huge double-digit lead for Strickland. Some even approach 2-to-1 margins! I don't find his behavior in any way confirms the theory set forth by Ufansius.

So, who thinks it will be the Bush news conference & the war in Iraq, and who goes for the NJ Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions?

My money is on the latter -- GAYS are much more of an emotional "grabber" than the continuing death and destruction half-way around the world. Death is so DEPRESSING, anyway -- there's so much more emotional lift from the good old anti-homosexual vibe, don't you think?

The only saving grace may be that Massachusetts had already revved up the so-called Religious Right (which is, of course, neither) years ago, so there may be little to gain politically at this point. Might affect the New Jersey Senate race, though. Either way, this benefits no one but the GOP at this point.

Great timing, NJ Supremes, GREAT timing. Less discussion of Iraq, more of ANYTHING else -- an unexpected gift to the GOP!

...what the Current Occupant said in response to questions about his Iraq policy was, "It's hard for me to think very long about this, which is precisely what is frustrating most people."

One of the final quotes posted in the National Review Online story on this session with the so-called conservative journalists is a real gem: "And I'm not a good faker."

No truer words have ever been spoken. He's been trying to fake being a competent president for almost six years, and to say the least, he's NOT a good faker.

In plain English, Bennett actually was saying "...merely 'moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.'"