ilovecress

Out of interest.
Looking into how Michael Moore has shaped attitudes. Has he changed anyones opinion of him or the presidential candidates. I am particularly interested in hearing from anyone who loved Moore in the past, but dislikes him now and vice versa.

Has Michael Moore changed your mind about who you want to become the next POTUS? Why?

Has Michael Moore changed your mind about him? Why?

Has Michael Moore strengthened your beleif in your candidate? Why?

Comments please!

Excellent edition of QT last night - although the audience was a little more unruly than we're used to! My opinion - Richard Littlejohn was suprisingly good, although he did go to peices on the religion/stem cell question. Michael Moore was, well, Michael Moore - although he argued quite well. David Frum was probably the most composed, and looked the most professional - clever by bigging up Kerry, making the sleaze look like democratic sleaze, but did do the old trick of mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in association. Sidney Blumenthal I thought was rubbish. Didn't really challenge anything, and never answered questions straight. Lisa Rodrguez Tassef was suprisingly good, even though she brought EVERY issue round to the mechanicas of the election.

What did everyone else think?

I think that a lot of the questions were missed in electioneering.

Audience question: Who do you think Bin Laden would like to see become president?
I thought that this was a rubbish question becuase Bin Laden probably doesn't give a shit. Both administrations are going to deal with the war on terror.

Audience question: Should President Bush apologise for invading Iraq now that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found?
This question really annoyed me. the question wasn't should Bush apologise for going to war, which is the question most of the panel answered. Should Bush apologise for convincing the public that WMD's existed when they didn't. Blair (kinda) did.

Audience question: This election is expected to be extremely close. What assurances are there that the vote count will be accurate?
I think that Frum's point was one of the best ones I've heard either side say all election. The campaign should start out with mutual respect from both sides, and the debate should be civilised. I think the animosity between Republicans and Democrats is ultimately hurting democracy in America.

Audience question: In a country which allows us freedom of religion, should a president make decisions regarding such crucial topics as stem cell research, abortion, and marriage based on personal religious "faith"?
Really interesting question! Should have spent a whole hour on this one alone. Frum basically said that Bush consults scientists, but basically makes his decision based on his christian ethics. He went on to say that no one can cut that part out of themselves, but I think that my point is that they should. Decisions should be made objectively - and not based on faith. Faith by definition a lack of facts, and this is what religious arguments are based on. Ethics and faith should not be confused.

Audience question: How do you feel the 2004 presidential election could affect Prime Minister Tony Blair's public standing if the outcome was a democratic victory?
Yawn. He'll keep doing his thing. It may embarras him for about 5 minutes, but I think he'll carry on as before.

Comments please?!

In case you're not thouroughly bored with the argument about what exactly constitutes a 'lie' - here are two links that should help you come to your own conclusion about Farenheit 9/11. My verdict on Bush vs Moore - they're both cunts
.http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm - Anti Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/ By Mikey himself (or you could just buy the book - out in time for Xmas!!)

This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and asbitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in onedirection, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedlyindependent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray thechallenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both theVietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor. Thebitterness has been felt mostly by the challenger’s adherents; yet there hasbeen more than enough to go around. This is one campaign in which no one thinksof having the band strike up “Happy Days Are Here Again.”The heightenedemotions of the race that (with any luck) will end on November 2, 2004, arerooted in the events of three previous Tuesdays. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000,more than a hundred and five million Americans went to the polls and, by a smallbut indisputable plurality, voted to make Al Gore President of the UnitedStates. Because of the way the votes were distributed, however, the outcome inthe electoral college turned on the outcome in Florida. In that state, George W.Bush held a lead of some five hundred votes, one one-thousandth of Gore’snational margin; irregularities, and there were many, all had the effect oftaking votes away from Gore; and the state’s electoral machinery was in thehands of Bush’s brother, who was the governor, and one of Bush’s state campaignco-chairs, who was the Florida secretary of state.Bush sued to stop anyrecounting of the votes, and, on Tuesday, December 12th, the United StatesSupreme Court gave him what he wanted. Bush v. Gore was so shoddily reasoned andtransparently partisan that the five justices who endorsed the decision declinedto put their names on it, while the four dissenters did not bother to concealtheir disgust. There are rules for settling electoral disputes of this kind, infederal and state law and in the Constitution itself. By ignoring them—bycutting off the process and installing Bush by fiat—the Court made a mockery notonly of popular democracy but also of constitutional republicanism.A resultso inimical to both majority rule and individual civic equality was bound toinflict damage on the fabric of comity. But the damage would have been far lesssevere if the new President had made some effort to take account of the specialcircumstances of his election—in the composition of his Cabinet, in the way thathe pursued his policy goals, perhaps even in the goals themselves. He made nosuch effort. According to Bob Woodward in “Plan of Attack,” Vice-President DickCheney put it this way: “From the very day we walked in the building, a notionof sort of a restrained presidency because it was such a close election, thatlasted maybe thirty seconds. It was not contemplated for any length of time. Wehad an agenda, we ran on that agenda, we won the election—full speedahead.”The new President’s main order of business was to push throughCongress a program of tax reductions overwhelmingly skewed to favor the veryrich. The policies he pursued through executive action, such as weakeningenvironmental protection and cutting off funds for international family-planningefforts, were mostly unpopular outside what became known (in English, notArabic) as “the base,” which is to say the conservative movement and,especially, its evangelical component. The President’s enthusiastic embrace ofthat movement was such that, four months into the Administration, the defectionof a moderate senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, cost his party control of theSenate. And, four months after that, the President’s political fortunes appearedto be coasting into a gentle but inexorable decline. Then came the blackestTuesday of all.September 11, 2001, brought with it one positive gift: asurge of solidarity, global and national—solidarity with and solidarity withinthe United States. This extraordinary outpouring provided Bush with a secondopportunity to create something like a government of national unity. Again, hebrushed the opportunity aside, choosing to use the political capital handed tohim by Osama bin Laden to push through more elements of his unmandated domesticprogram. A year after 9/11, in the midterm elections, he increased his majorityin the House and recaptured control of the Senate by portraying selectedDemocrats as friends of terrorism. Is it any wonder that the anger felt by manyDemocrats is even greater than can be explained by the profound differences inoutlook between the two candidates and their parties?The Bush Administrationhas had success in carrying out its policies and implementing its intentions,aided by majorities—political and, apparently, ideological—in both Houses ofCongress. Substantively, however, its record has been one of failure, arrogance,and—strikingly for a team that prided itself on crispprofessionalism—incompetence.In January, 2001, just after Bush’sinauguration, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published its budgetoutlook for the coming decade. It showed a cumulative surplus of more than fivetrillion dollars. At the time, there was a lot of talk about what to do with theanticipated bounty, a discussion that now seems antique. Last year’s federaldeficit was three hundred and seventy-five billion dollars; this year’s will topfour hundred billion. According to the C.B.O., which came out with its latestprojection in September, the period from 2005 to 2014 will see a cumulativeshortfall of $2.3 trillion.Even this seven-trillion-dollar turnaroundunderestimates the looming fiscal disaster. In doing its calculations, theC.B.O. assumed that most of the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2011, as specifiedin the legislation that enacted them. However, nobody in Washington expects themto go away on schedule; they were designated as temporary only to make theirultimate results look less scary. If Congress extends the expiration deadlines—anear-certainty if Bush wins and the Republicans retain control of Congress—then,according to the C.B.O., the cumulative deficit between 2005 and 2014 willnearly double, to $4.5 trillion.What has the country received in return formortgaging its future? The President says that his tax cuts lifted the economybefore and after 9/11, thereby moderating the downturn that began with theNasdaq’s collapse in April, 2000. It’s true that even badly designed tax cutscan give the economy a momentary jolt. But this doesn’t make them wise policy.“Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans,” Bush saidduring his final debate with Senator John Kerry. This is false—a lie,actually—though at least it suggests some dim awareness that the reverse RobinHood approach to tax cuts is politically and morally repugnant. But for tax cutsto stimulate economic activity quickly and efficiently they should go to peoplewho will spend the extra money. Largely at the insistence of Democrats andmoderate Republicans, the Bush cuts gave middle-class families some relief inthe form of refunds, bigger child credits, and a smaller marriage penalty.Still, the rich do better, to put it mildly. Citizens for Tax Justice, aWashington research group whose findings have proved highly dependable, notesthat, this year, a typical person in the lowest fifth of the income distributionwill get a tax cut of ninety-one dollars, a typical person in the middle fifthwill pocket eight hundred and sixty-three dollars, and a typical person in thetop one per cent will collect a windfall of fifty-nine thousand two hundred andninety-two dollars.These disparities help explain the familiar charge thatBush will likely be the first chief executive since Hoover to preside over a netloss of American jobs. This Administration’s most unshakable commitment has beento shifting the burden of taxation away from the sort of income that rewardswealth and onto the sort that rewards work. The Institute on Taxation andEconomic Policy, another Washington research group, estimates that the averagefederal tax rate on income generated from corporate dividends and capital gainsis now about ten per cent. On wages and salaries it’s about twenty-three percent. The President promises, in a second term, to expand tax-free savingsaccounts, cut taxes further on dividends and capital gains, and permanentlyabolish the estate tax—all of which will widen the widening gap between therichest and the rest.Bush signalled his approach toward the environment afew weeks into his term, when he reneged on a campaign pledge to regulatecarbon-dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global warming. His record sincethen has been dictated, sometimes literally, by the industries affected. In2002, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding a key provision ofthe Clean Air Act known as “new source review,” which requires power-plantoperators to install modern pollution controls when upgrading older facilities.The change, it turned out, had been recommended by some of the nation’s largestpolluters, in e-mails to the Energy Task Force, which was chaired byVice-President Cheney. More recently, the Administration proposed new rules thatwould significantly weaken controls on mercury emissions from power plants. TheE.P.A.’s regulation drafters had copied, in some instances verbatim, memos sentto it by a law firm representing the utility industry.“I guess you’d say I’ma good steward of the land,” Bush mused dreamily during debate No. 2. Or maybeyou’d say nothing of the kind. The President has so far been unable to persuadethe Senate to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, butvast stretches of accessible wilderness have been opened up to development. Bystripping away restrictions on the use of federal lands, often throughlittle-advertised rule changes, the Administration has potentially opened upsixty million acres, an area larger than Indiana and Iowa combined, to logging,mining, and oil exploration.During the fevered period immediately afterSeptember 11th, the Administration rushed what it was pleased to call the U.S.A.Patriot Act through a compliant Congress. Some of the reaction to that law hasbeen excessive. Many of its provisions, such as allowing broaderinformation-sharing among investigative agencies, are sensible. About othersthere are legitimate concerns. Section 215 of the law, for example, permitsgovernment investigators to obtain—without a subpoena or a search warrant basedon probable cause—a court order entitling them to records from libraries,bookstores, doctors, universities, and Internet service providers, among otherpublic and private entities. Officials of the Department of Justice say thatthey have used Section 215 with restraint, and that they have not, so far,sought information from libraries or bookstores. Their avowals of good faithwould be more reassuring if their record were not otherwise sotroubling.Secrecy and arrogance have been the touchstones of the JusticeDepartment under Bush and his attorney general, John Ashcroft. Seven weeks afterthe 9/11 attacks, the Administration announced that its investigation hadresulted in nearly twelve hundred arrests. The arrests have continued, buteventually the Administration simply stopped saying how many people were and arebeing held. In any event, not one of the detainees has been convicted ofanything resembling a terrorist act. At least as reprehensible is the way thatforeign nationals living in the United States have been treated. Since September11th, some five thousand have been rounded up and more than five hundred havebeen deported, all for immigration infractions, after hearings that, in linewith a novel doctrine asserted by Ashcroft, were held in secret. Since it isofficial policy not to deport terrorism suspects, it is unclear what legitimateanti-terror purpose these secret hearings serve.President Bush oftencomplains about Democratic obstructionism, but the truth is that he has madeconsiderable progress, if that’s the right word, toward the goal of stocking thefederal courts with conservative ideologues. The Senate has confirmed twohundred and one of his judicial nominees, more than the per-term averages forPresidents Clinton, Reagan, and Bush senior. Senate Republicans blocked morethan sixty of Clinton’s nominees; Senate Democrats have blocked only ten ofBush’s. (Those ten, by the way, got exactly what they deserved. Some ofthem—such as Carolyn Kuhl, who devoted years of her career to trying to preservetax breaks for colleges that practice racial discrimination, and BrettKavanaugh, a thirty-eight-year-old with no judicial or courtroom experience whoco-wrote the Starr Report—rank among the worst judicial appointments everattempted.)Even so, to the extent that Bush and Ashcroft have been thwartedit has been due largely to our still vigorous federal judiciary, especially theSupreme Court. Like some of the Court’s worst decisions of the past four years(Bush v. Gore again comes to mind), most of its best—salvaging affirmativeaction, upholding civil liberties for terrorist suspects, striking down Texas’santi-sodomy law, banning executions of the mentally retarded—were reached byone- or two-vote majorities. (Roe v. Wade is two justices removed fromreversal.) All but one of the sitting justices are senior citizens, ranging inage from sixty-five to eighty-four, and the gap since the last appointment—tenyears—is the longest since 1821. Bush has said more than once that AntoninScalia and Clarence Thomas are his favorite justices. In a second Bush term, theCourt could be remade in their images.The record is similarly dismal inother areas of domestic policy. An executive order giving former Presidents thepower to keep their papers indefinitely sealed is one example among many of amania for secrecy that long antedates 9/11. The President’s hostility toscience, exemplified by his decision to place crippling limits on federalsupport of stem-cell research and by a systematic willingness to distort orsuppress scientific findings discomfiting to “the base,” is such that scores ofeminent scientists who are normally indifferent to politics have called for hisdefeat. The Administration’s energy policies, especially its resistance toincreasing fuel-efficiency requirements, are of a piece with its environmentalirresponsibility. Even the highly touted No Child Left Behind education program,enacted with the support of the liberal lion Edward Kennedy, is being allowed tofail, on account of grossly inadequate funding. Some of the money that has beenpumped into it has been leached from other education programs, dozens of whichare slated for cuts next year.Ordinarily, such a record would be whatlawyers call dispositive. But this election is anything but ordinary. Jobs,health care, education, and the rest may not count for much when weighed againstthe prospect of large-scale terrorist attack. The most important Presidentialresponsibility of the next four years, as of the past three, is the “war onterror”—more precisely, the struggle against a brand of Islamist fundamentalisttotalitarianism that uses particularly ruthless forms of terrorism as its mainweapon.Bush’s immediate reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, wasan almost palpable bewilderment and anxiety. Within a few days, to the universalrelief of his fellow-citizens, he seemed to find his focus. His decision to useAmerican military power to topple the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who hadturned their country into the principal base of operations for the perpetratorsof the attacks, earned the near-unanimous support of the American people and ofAmerica’s allies. Troops from Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Norway,and Spain are serving alongside Americans in Afghanistan to this day.Thedetermination of ordinary Afghans to vote in last month’s Presidential election,for which the votes are still being counted, is clearly a positive sign. Yet thejob in Afghanistan has been left undone, despite fervent promises at the outsetthat the chaos that was allowed to develop after the defeat of the Sovietoccupation in the nineteen-eighties would not be repeated. The Taliban hasregrouped in eastern and southern regions. Bin Laden’s organization continues toenjoy sanctuary and support from Afghans as well as Pakistanis on both sides oftheir common border. Warlords control much of Afghanistan outside the capital ofKabul, which is the extent of the territorial writ of the decent but beleagueredPresident Hamid Karzai. Opium production has increased fortyfold.The WhiteHouse’s real priorities were elsewhere from the start. According to the formercounter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, in a Situation Room crisis meeting onSeptember 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld suggested launching retaliatory strikesagainst Iraq. When Clarke and others pointed out to him that Al Qaeda—thepresumed culprit—was based in Afghanistan, not Iraq, Rumsfeld is said to haveremarked that there were better targets in Iraq. The bottom line, as Bush’sformer Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has said, was that the Bush-Cheney teamhad been planning to carry out regime change in Baghdad well before September11th—one way or another, come what may.At all three debates, President Bushdefended the Iraq war by saying that without it Saddam Hussein would still be inpower. This is probably true, and Saddam’s record of colossal cruelty--ofmurder, oppression, and regional aggression--was such that even those whodoubted the war’s wisdom acknowledged his fall as an occasion for satisfaction.But the removal of Saddam has not been the war’s only consequence; and, as wenow know, his power, however fearsome to the millions directly under its sway,was far less of a threat to the United States and the rest of the world than itpretended—and, more important, was made out—to be.As a variety of memoirsand journalistic accounts have made plain, Bush seldom entertains contraryopinion. He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside adviserswho dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives andworks within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation. Nowhere has hissolipsism been more damaging than in the case of Iraq. The arguments andwarnings of analysts in the State Department, in the Central IntelligenceAgency, in the uniformed military services, and in the chanceries of sympatheticforeign governments had no more effect than the chants of millions of marchers.The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was made on the basis of fourassumptions: first, that Saddam’s regime was on the verge of acquiring nuclearexplosives and had already amassed stockpiles of chemical and biologicalweapons; second, that the regime had meaningful links with Al Qaeda and (as wasrepeatedly suggested by the Vice-President and others) might have had somethingto do with 9/11; third, that within Iraq the regime’s fall would be followed byprolonged celebration and rapid and peaceful democratization; and, fourth, thata similar democratic transformation would be precipitated elsewhere in theregion, accompanied by a new eagerness among Arab governments and publics tomake peace between Israel and a presumptive Palestinian state. The first two ofthese assumptions have been shown to be entirely baseless. As for the secondtwo, if the wishes behind them do someday come true, it may not be clear thatthe invasion of Iraq was a help rather than a hindrance.In Bush’s rhetoric,the Iraq war began on March 20, 2003, with precision bombings of governmentbuildings in Baghdad, and ended exactly three weeks later, with the iconicstatue pulldown. That military operation was indeed a success. But the cakewalkled over a cliff, to a succession of heedless and disastrous mistakes that leaveone wondering, at the very least, how the Pentagon’s civilian leadership remainsintact and the President’s sense of infallibility undisturbed. The failure,against the advice of such leaders as General Eric Shinseki, then the Army chiefof staff, to deploy an adequate protective force led to unchallenged looting ofgovernment buildings, hospitals, museums, and—most inexcusable of all—armsdepots. (“Stuff happens,” Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld explained, though nostuff happened to the oil ministry.) The Pentagon all but ignored the StateDepartment’s postwar plans, compiled by its Future of Iraq project, which warnednot only of looting but also of the potential for insurgencies and the folly ofrelying on exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi; the project’s head, Thomas Warrick, wassidelined. The White House counsel’s disparagement of the Geneva Conventions andof prohibitions on torture as “quaint” opened the way to systematic andspectacular abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American-run prisons--a moral andpolitical catastrophe for which, in a pattern characteristic of theAdministration’s management style, no one in a policymaking position has beenheld accountable. And, no matter how Bush may cleave to his arguments about agrand coalition (“What’s he say to Tony Blair?” “He forgot Poland!”), thecoalition he assembled was anything but grand, and it has been steadily meltingaway in Iraq’s cauldron of violence.By the end of the current fiscal year,the financial cost of this war will be two hundred billion dollars (the figureprojected by Lawrence Lindsey, who headed the President’s Council of EconomicAdvisers until, like numerous other bearers of unpalatable news, he wascashiered) and rising. And there are other, more serious costs that wereunforeseen by the dominant factions in the Administration (although there wereplenty of people who did foresee them). The United States has become mired in alow-intensity guerrilla war that has taken more lives since the mission wasdeclared to be accomplished than before. American military deaths have mountedto more than a thousand, a number that underplays the real level of suffering:among the eight thousand wounded are many who have been left seriously maimed.The toll of Iraqi dead and wounded is of an order of magnitude greater than theAmerican. Al Qaeda, previously an insignificant presence in Iraq, is animportant one now. Before this war, we had persuaded ourselves and the worldthat our military might was effectively infinite. Now it is overstretched, areality obvious to all. And, if the exposure of American weakness encourages ourenemies, surely the blame lies with those who created the reality, not withthose who, like Senator Kerry, acknowledge it as a necessary step towardchanging it.When the Administration’s geopolitical, national-interest, andanti-terrorism justifications for the Iraq war collapsed, it groped for anargument from altruism: postwar chaos, violence, unemployment, and brownoutsnotwithstanding, the war has purchased freedoms for the people of Iraq whichthey could not have had without Saddam’s fall. That is true. But a sad andironic consequence of this war is that its fumbling prosecution has underminedits only even arguably meritorious rationale—and, as a further consequence, thesalience of idealism in American foreign policy has been likewise undermined.Foreign-policy idealism has taken many forms—Wilson’s aborted world federalism,Carter’s human-rights jawboning, and Reagan’s flirtation with total nucleardisarmament, among others. The failed armed intervention in Somalia and thesuccessful ones in the Balkans are other examples. The neoconservative versionascendant in the Bush Administration, post-9/11, draws partly on these strains.There is surely idealistic purpose in envisioning a Middle East finally relievedof its autocracies and dictatorships. Yet this Administration’s adventure inIraq is so gravely flawed and its credibility so badly damaged that in thefuture, faced with yet another moral dilemma abroad, it can be expected toretreat, a victim of its own Iraq Syndrome.The damage visited upon America,and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s recklessmishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many votersthe desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry.But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W.Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care,the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreignpolicy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear,corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, anddemagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like tohave a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask whichcandidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.Throughout hislong career in public service, John Kerry has demonstrated steadiness andsturdiness of character. The physical courage he showed in combat in Vietnam wasmatched by moral courage when he raised his voice against the war, a choice thathas carried political costs from his first run for Congress, lost in 1972 to acampaign of character assassination from a local newspaper that could notforgive his antiwar stand, right through this year’s Swift Boat ads. As asenator, Kerry helped expose the mischief of the Bank of Commerce and CreditInternational, a money-laundering operation that favored terrorists and criminalcartels; when his investigation forced him to confront corruption amongfellow-Democrats, he rejected the cronyism of colleagues and brought down powerbrokers of his own party with the same dedication that he showed in going afterOliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal. His leadership, with John McCain, ofthe bipartisan effort to put to rest the toxic debate over Vietnam-era P.O.W.sand M.I.A.s and to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Washington’s normalizationof relations with Hanoi, in the mid-nineties, was the signal accomplishment ofhis twenty years on Capitol Hill, and it is emblematic of his fairness of mindand independence of spirit. Kerry has made mistakes (most notably, in hindsightat least, his initial opposition to the Gulf War in 1990), but—in contrast tothe President, who touts his imperviousness to changing realities as a virtue—hehas learned from them.Kerry’s performance on the stump has been uneven, andhis public groping for a firm explanation of his position on Iraq wasdiscouraging to behold. He can be cautious to a fault, overeager to acknowledgeevery angle of an issue; and his reluctance to expose the Administration’sappalling record bluntly and relentlessly until very late in the race was amissed opportunity. But when his foes sought to destroy him rather than todebate him they found no scandals and no evidence of bad faith in his past. Inthe face of infuriating and scurrilous calumnies, he kept the sort of cool thatthe thin-skinned and painfully insecure incumbent cannot even feign during theunprogrammed give-and-take of an electoral debate. Kerry’s mettle has beentested under fire—the fire of real bullets and the political fire that willsurely not abate but, rather, intensify if he is elected—and he has shownhimself to be tough, resilient, and possessed of a properly Presidential dose ofdignified authority. While Bush has pandered relentlessly to the narrowest urgesof his base, Kerry has sought to appeal broadly to the American center. In atime of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatictemperament. In campaigning for America’s mainstream restoration, Kerry hasinsisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of ourmoment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century.That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice.As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the higheststandards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for hisvictory.

BAGHDAD—After 19 months of struggle in Iraq, U.S. military officials conceded a loss to Iraqi insurgents Monday, but said America can be proud of finishing "a very strong second.""We went out there, gave it our all, and fought a really good fight," said Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "America's got nothing to be ashamed of. We outperformed Great Britain, Poland, and a lot of the other top-notch nations, but Iraq just wouldn't stay down for the count. It may have come down to them simply wanting it more."American tanks and infantry surged out to an impressive early lead in March 2003, scoring major points by capturing Baghdad early in the faceoff. The stage seemed set for a second American victory in as many clashes with Iraq, with commentators and generals alike declaring the contest all but decided with the fall of Tikrit in April 2003."In spite of jumping out to an early lead and having the better-trained, better-equipped team, I'm afraid we still came up short in the end," Casey said. "Sometimes, the underdog just pulls one out on you. But there's no reason for the guys who were out in the field to feel any shame over this one. They played through pain and injury and never questioned the strategy, even when we started losing ground.""The troops were great out there," Casey continued. "It's not their fault the guys with the clipboards just couldn't put this one away."Casey said that, although the U.S. military did not win, it did set records for kills, yardage gained, palaces overrun, defensive stops, and military bases stolen."The Americans can be proud of the numbers," Casey said. "All things considered, there was some very impressive maneuvering out there. We kept the folks at home on the edge of their seats, that's for sure."PFC Brian Walters was part of a squad defending Fallujah for the past three months."We're looking at an opponent who just keeps coming at you until the echo of the whistle," Walters said. "I gotta hand it to them, they weren't gonna roll over. We were just out there playing not to lose."Former civil administrator of Iraq L. Paul Bremer said the U.S. troops performed admirably, adding that overconfidence may have been a factor."After that strong start, I really thought that we were going to take it home," Bremer said. "I'd say we can chalk this loss up to a combination of Iraq's home-field advantage and a poor second-half U.S. game plan."U.S. offensive captain John Baptiste of the 656th Infantry said that his fellow troops "were solid to the end," adding that he was disappointed in U.S. leaders' decision to call the game so early."The chief should never come out at halftime and call it 'Mission Accomplished,'" Baptiste said. "You never say that until the clock runs out. My guys did their best, but we've gotta remember that everyone plays to the final gun."