Sunday, September 19, 2004

Mojowire for 9.18

Mojowire for 09.18; vol. 2, no. 15

intro with hendrix star spangled banner

J. Good morning, and welcome to The Mojowire, Vol. 2, No.15... I'm Mojo...

S. And I'm Sean, it's Saturday, September 18, 2004, Day 1,251 of the Neocon Captivity, and here's the news for the week gone-by...

J. Brought to you by Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988. Now headlines, from Mojohaus:

S. First this morning, we take a look at how horribly history can repeat iteslf, especially when you are lying through your teeth about an illegal and unwinnable war in a far away land, where young American men and women are dying for your delusions of grandeur and phat stax of mad bank.

J.Then this morning we get back a little in JK's record and look at a little heralded action he took for his country in the late '80s, namely exposing the hideous web of lies and deceit that was the bagman operation for international drugs, terror and intelligence operations known as BCCI, Banco Credito y Comercial Internacional.

S. Then Strychnnie is adjusting to life back in zero-g after a week down the well at a conference in Berlin, so in his place, we examine why the current state of polling in the election is not the end of the world for Presidential candidate JK. In fact, it is an object lesson in the old political saw that liars figure and figures lie, and that lie is a serious whopper when it comes to W's lead over JK in the polls.

J. ... So stand by to stand by while we get ready to pull the pin on this thing...

fade in more hendrix star spangled banner for five or six count then back out again

You know, if you had been listening to the President for the last two or three weeks, you would have the mental picture that Iraq is just a few brush strokes from being a Norman Rockwell still-life, kids and adults enjoying wholsesome pasttimes, secure in the place in the grand scheme of Americanism.

And you would also believe that the media that keeps harping on small stuff lie the fwe malcontents that like to play with things that catch fire and occasionally singe a person or two in downtown Bagdad...well, that's to be expected, given that they're savages and all; just takes a little time that's all.

I mean, the President has been saying for the last month: "Freedom is on the march," "we are bringing a new day to Iraq," and "conditions are improving."

Well, if you were to read or hear that our position in Iraq was: "exasperating for anybody looking at this from any vantage point." Or "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous," who would you attribute it to? Us here at the Wire, other liberal malcontenst, bent on destroying the American way of life, Al Qaeda operatives seeking a propaganda victory, the French?

No... those comments were from senior Republicans in Congress, like Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar of Indiana and Nebraska's GOP apologist Chuck Hagel. They made these public comments last week, once they were in receipt of a classified national intelligence estimate that said the best we can hope for in Iraq is a continuation of the deteriorating security situation with anarchy and blood being the order of the day.

But take heart, the NIE also says that with just a small amont of effort, we can plunge the country into a full-fledged three way civil war with American troops caught in the middle. Yea us!

And here is the best part: this estimate, still considered valid by the intelligence community starting more than a year ago! That's right, in spite of the happy-meal rhetoric coming out of the West Wing about how we are winning the peace in Iraq, the people who are paid to look at these things and tell the President what they see have been telling him we are hosed, the Iraqis are hosed and the prospects for some Pan-Arab fast-food strip mall extending from Haifa to the Indian Ocean are the fevered dreams of delirious 16 year old gamers who mistook Tom Clancy novels for scholarly discourse on Middle Eastern relations.

So let's put it another way: The President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Generals of Central Command and their deputies have been lying to us about the nature of the Iraq conflict.

That's right, everytime you see one of the letters to the editor from some "soldier in the field" talking about how the liberal media has been downplaying the success of Americanization of Iraq becuase their praise glands were poisoned as children, they are most likely Psychological Warfare operations aimed at Americans to keep them on board with this doomed enterprise.

You know... it continually sucks being right all the time.

For those old enough to remember, there was a similar thing about 30 some years ago, when then-President Nixon told us we could win the war in Southeast Asia, even though four years worth of intel and analysis, starting with his predecessor L.B.J., told us we were screwed in Vietnam.

That was called the Pentagon Papers; a heroic young DoD analyst named Daniel Ellsberg got a look behind the bright shining lie and decided in his conscience that he could live with himself as a man if he didn't help the truth come out.

The result were articles published by the Washington Post and New York Times detailing the Department of Defense discussion regarding how we couldn't win in Vietnam, but how poltiically important it was to not let the American people know that.

We are in luck. It didn't take years for that information to come out. We have it now, just a year or so after it was formulated. This is the bottom line: The Bush administration and their cronies have known for more than a year that the war was unwinnable, but they have been lying to the American people as the body count has ratched upward in concert with intel predictions.

Let me repeat that so you are sure you understand. A handful of companies are getting bank off of Iraqi oil, even at the cost of young American lives and the administration that put those brave young people in harms' way have known for a year now that the they were dying for an unwinnable cause.

Suffering wonder Bush would rather talk about ditching his Texas Air Naitonal Guard Drills. This makes him and his whole gang look a a gang of criminal war profiteers...which...well... we here at the Wire and loyal Wireheads have pretty much known all along.

But now JK and the untouchables are finally getting into the act on this one, and not a moment too soon, we might add. Seriously, JK, what have you been waiting for here, an engraved invite?

S. Kerry, speaking to thousands of National Guardsmen in Las Vegas two days after Bush addressed the same group, said: "The president stood right here where I am standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq,...He did not tell that you with each passing day, we're seeing more chaos, more violence, indiscriminate killing. He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder -- that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists."

Our Maximum Leader, whom mos Americans for reaons that pass understanding, logic or reason, trust more than Kerry to handle Iraq, babbles incoherently of how the United States is "making progress" stabilizing the political fiction of Iraq and setting the stage for a democratic election in January that promises to be about as legitimate as the 2000 American Presidential Election.

Democrats point out that W rarely, if ever, talks about casualties, the spread of terrorism, kidnappings and beheadings, and the strength of anti-American insurgents in and around Baghdad. Instead, Bush focuses on steady resolve and the broader war on terrorism.

    From the Washington Post last week: "Bush did not mention the intelligence estimate -- first reported Wednesday by the New York Times -- as he made three campaign appearances in Minnesota yesterday. But W again emphasized progress. 'There's a lot of violence in Iraq -- I understand that,' he told a rally in Rochester. 'But Iraq now has a strong prime minister, national council, and national elections are scheduled in January. The world is becoming more free.' "

Let me repeat this if you are only now starting to fire enough synapses to pay attention. The President has been receiving intel for the last 18 months telling him that our occupation in its current incarnation is doomed, but has been selling you a a line of complete and utter radio edit wrapped in a shiny ribbon.

 Sen. Hagel, who could hardly be called a weak-kneed franco-phile appeasement monkey, joined a small, but growing, chorus of GOP voices sounding grave concerns about Iraq, comments that tend to support Kerry's view. "We've got to be honest with ourselves ...The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse."

Look, even if you agreed with the reasons for the war, the rationale that somehow taking our Saddam Hussein makes us safer from Al Qaeda or the threat of Iraqi Flying Saucer technology, this intelligence estimate tells you that you, and specifically you have been lied to.

Believe me, it's not like the Bush Administration was worried about bringing us on board. As far as they are concerned, we are just as bad as the terrorists themselves. They couldn't care less if a bunch of wild-eyed-long-haired-hippy-liberal-french-loving-appeasement-monkies thought things in Iraq were going okay or not. They knew there was little they were going to say that was going to convince us.

This was aimed at you. That's right, the generic, SUV owning, Republican voting, White-Christian, Suburban homeowner, who supports our President't war against the them-those-they evildoers and those who love them.

You have been lied to, deliberately. Sure, you're mad...that's right, deep clensing breaths, the acknowledgement is the first step in the healing. Believe me, we're Democrats, we know what this feels like. You're in good company. That's right, keep breathing...

Now for the next step... you know that election coming up in a a month and half? Well, I think if you can get your head past the various bits of hyper-partisan radicalness on both sides, the issue still becomes crystal clear, when you think of which one of these guys have been engaged in a massive campaign to decieve you.

You know what to do...

One of the primary issues in the campaign is: who can better prosecute the war against Al Queda and terrorism in general, and ultimately, who can partially or wholly restore that sense of security we enjoyed before 9/11.

The Bush campaign has laid much of its candidacy on making this the central issue of the campaign, avoiding running on their domestic policies and their Crusade in Iraq like the clap. The President enjoys a significant advantage among voters on this issue over Senator Kerry.

Naturally, even a cursory examination of the President's record before and after 9/11 should be advantageous to John Kerry. The 9/11 commission report, the failure to destroy Al Queda in Afghanistan, the ever elusive Osama Bin Laden, all stand as monuments to incompetence of this administration and it's war on terror.

Don't even get us started on the legal chaos that John Ashcroft has created domestically. So if this campaign really is going to revolve on whom is going to deal with the Terror threat, who is better qualified.

When you examine John Kerry's career as a Senator, you discover that he is uniquely qualified to deal with the unique threats posed in today's world, specifically Asymmetric threats like Al Queda and the Proliferation of Nuclear weapons.

Senator Kerry, in the late 80s, demonstrated that he recognized the threat of international terror long before it became vogue in the rubber rooms at AEI and the chickenhawk club of the Neo-Conservatives.

While Paul Wolfwoitz and Richard Perle were still fighting the Cold War, John Kerry picked a fight with the nastiest International criminal organization in the world, and demonstrated that he has the juevos and the game to fight this war and win it.

Let's kick this story of with some a summary from Washington Monthly:

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing.

As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients -- it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

BCCI was more than just a money-laundering scam for drug cartels. BCCI was the preferred bank and money launderer for dictators seeking to finance the sale and purchase of weapons, including the procurement of the technology and materials to construct nuclear weapons.

BCCI is the most likely suspect in the being the main agent by which Saddam Hussien procured and financed the advanced Nuclear program that was dismantled by UNSCOM inspectors in the early 90's. When Oliver North wanted to launder money from weapons sales to Iran to the Contras, he used BCCI.

In addition to its dangerous and sleazy clientele, BCCI employed a vast army of lobbyists and political figures to protect it from discovery and prosecution by regulatory agencies. Kerry endured an endless barrage of complaints and attacks from members of his own party like Clark Clifford, and sleazy jerks like Orrin Hatch, trying to short circuit his investigation into BCCI.

S. Even Jackie O'Nassis, a friend of Cliffords, called him to beat him about the head for his determination to find out the truth. The list of intelligence figures that did business with BCCI is a who's-who of criminal scum bags, Admiral Bobby Iman, CIA director William Casey, Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, the prime sponsors of the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.

BCCI maintained a large private security force that has long been suspected in being involved in the deaths of Journalists who came too close BCCI, such as Financial times reporter Anson Ng, who was killed in his hotel room while investigating BCCI.

We could go on about BCCI, but you get the picture. John Kerry and his committee, spent two years against unrelenting pressure and attack to investigate BCCI, ultimately convoking US Attorney Robert Morganthu to investigate and empanel a Grand Jury, that resulted in the unraveling of BCCI's web of protectors in the US and other Western Governments,and resulted in its subsequent shutdown around the world.

By contrast, President Bush gets a briefing entitled "Osama Bin Laden going to attack the United States Domestically" directly from his CIA director, and fails to initiate and significant action to attempt to motivate his Iraq obsessed VP , Defense secretary and National Security Advisor into taking it seriously.

The parallels between BCCI and Al Queda are not by accident. Pieces of BCCI left from its demise were used by Bin Laden to form his network. John Kerry recognized that organizations like BCCI, that operate outside the normal boundaries of nation states, offer unique opportunities for terrorists like Bin Laden or rogue states like Iraq and Pakistan to pose dangerous threats.

John Kerry didn't need to get a memo from CIA to recognize this, he saw it clearly himself. His political courageous investigation into BCCI demonstrates he has the brains and the vision to combat these new threats. He didn't need to see the destruction of the World Trade Center to get it through his thick skull, nor would be rolled by dangerous cranks into attacking states like Iraq unrelated to Al Queda to serve their Metternech fantasies.

If this race is truly about the War on Terror, should we not place our trust on the guy who saw it coming long before it became obvious to everyone? John Kerry has proved he can recognize a threat to the country without the blood of Americans on his hands.

The President and his thugs could not. Not even when they were given a big piece of paper that said "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States" and a bunch of papers behind detailing exactly how they would do it. Not even when FBI agents were jumping up and down in fits of apoplexy over leads that lead them to beleive an imminent attack was in the works.

The choice is clear, so clear even a Right wing shcmuck should be able to see. ...Turn off the Fox News Red States and wake up, your President isn't making you any safer wealthier, or more secure, he is grifting you like a rube at craps table. Roll of the barca loungers and save your country before it's too late... .

In recent weeks, we've seen a dramatic change in the polls of the Presidential Election. From a race that JK was leading nationally by a few points, and leading in many of the Battleground states by a healthy spread, suddenly we see a jump by the President in several polls, particularly the Gallup poll to a nine point spread.

What happened? Did Zell on Earth and the Republican National Monster Movie actually convince undecideds that 4 more years of Darth Cheney was going to keep them safe from the Al Queda Devil Rain?

There are a few things at work here. First, the polling data has been conflicting. The Gallup/CNN/USA today poll, and in fact other News organization polls, have shown a fairly wide spread nationally between the canddiates.

Yet seveal other polling organizations, Zogby, Rasmussen, Arc, among others have the candidates neck and neck within a few percentage points. So what gives. Who are they talking to that the Gallup people are not? Are they making it up?

A few things are at work, but first, we need to have a heart to heart to all the Dems, Kerry supprorters, and those of you who just want George Bush out of the White House.
Don't Panic. Just put down that latte, douse that cigarette and listen up. The Polling data you are hearing is utterly bogus. The Kerry campaign may not be all you may have hoped..but the sky has not falled. Now listen up:

Let 's let the fine gentleman at the left Coaster sum this up for you all:

Why You Should Ignore The Gallup Poll Friday Morning - And Maybe All Of Theirs

This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters.

The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. That's right. The Gallup statistics pimps, who have been very courteous to requests, to send their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls.

In both polls, Gallup oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, Gallup just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls.

Gallup says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly?

Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from Gallup that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? We already know from an email from Gallup reported earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems.

For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, Gallup used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where Gallup shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

"If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000."

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet Gallup trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they haven’t been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other Gallup Poll is to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

S. Not very likely.

In fact, considering the level of actualization on the part of Democrats, virtually impossible. And remember, this is a dead heat after John Kerry was savaged by Swift Boat liars for Satan, after a month of endless attack ads in swing states, and an unrelenting attack on him during the RNC where even the dead in the form of Zell MIller were summoned to afflict the living in order to attack John Kerry.

Maybe, just maybe, we have taken a solid shot from the Might Wurlitzer and instead of being on the mat, we are still standing,. If you still have doubts. let's also remembe that Gallup is a GOP donor. Yes that's right, you are sucking down polling data from a GOP supporter. Puts this in whole new light huh?

Look, we agree that the Kerry campaign needs to get of the dime and pick a message and then get a solid lick on the President. What we are suggesting is that the polling data showing the President pulling away is not credible, and that John Kerry has a solid fighting chance.

Don't let the Mighty Wurlitzer work is foul arcane magic on you. YOu can win this one. Just go out there and do it. And memo to JK, get John Edwards off the bench and into the game. Stop trying to fight these guys yourself. And for God's sake get your game face on....

This is a big part of the problem with polling. It is so easily skewed and the results treated like so much gospel, that it really becomes a suspect method for determining what is really go on in the electorate, other than the gauge of moods and a preview of the various marching orders given by the orcs in the West Wing.

There is an old political addage that we here at the Mojowire are often fond of beating each other with when we start looking at numbers too much: "Perception is reality." And at the end of the day, isn't that what polling is all about? The manufacure of consensus?

The Bush people understand this, and this accounts for their inability to open their mouths for the last 72 hours without reciting the Gallup numbers by rote. Then those with the version 1.2 upgrade have the full set of talking points that endlessly bloviate about how the "polls show the President pulling away in the polls as Kerry sinks into the mire."

Sure, if you only poll Republicans, I'm sure you will find a solid Bush lead over Kerry. I would be shocked if it were otherwise. In fact, given the Gallup predeliction for polling Repulicans as opposed to Democrats, I would almost expect a bigger lead than they are currently showing.

The reality of the situation is this: Republicans are going to support Bush and Democrats are going to support Kerry. The nation is so polarized right now that polls are completely inadequate to make anymore of a prediction than that.

Anything else, is simply voodoo. You might as well be reading entrails or the bumps on the head of the neighbor's cat for guidance on any real substantive idea of what the electorate is likely to do.

But that is the real value of polls for the candidates at this stage. Perception is reality and if the perception is that one candidate is starting to pull away from the other candidate, then people will look at that as some sort of reflection of an empirical reality. Beacuse, hey, after all, numbers don't lie, do they?

And the then the circle is complete, and the prophecy fullfills itself as more people rush to jump on the bandwagon. Because, let's face it, no one wants to be on the losers bus. The lonely sound of crickets squeaking away their contempt for a doomed campaign is something that no real politicos want to witness first hand.

Because if you are there when it happens, the *you* are the guy it is happening to...

So polls become a critical part of the industry. They tell people when it's time to bail out of a campaign or when it is time to jump on board. But their utility to the voters in general, no matter what partisan cool-aid you drink, is dubious at best, and downright misleading at worst.

And that's the real crime, because we are absolutely sure (based on our polling) that people stay at home and don't bother voting based on poll results that show their candidate is either a. so far out in front, that they don't have to worry about it or, b. that their candidate is so far behind that their one vote is not going to make a difference.

J. It's 45 days until the election and our patriotic thought for the week is: asking Democrats who they're going to vote for, means the terrorists win, or as John Ashcroft says... “what does the Eye command...”


S. And that's all for this week, tune in again soon for another exciting installment, until, of course, we are declared enemies of the state.

And remember, you can now email the Mojowire at, that's Email, us hippies!

J. And now you can check out the Mojowire online at; you can read the entire archive along with our general ramblings...

This has been the Mojowire, brought to you by Mojohaus...Mojohaus-fine journalism, afflicting the comfortable since 1988, and produced by our super funky fly producer Mike Payne and the Darkling Eclectica, here on KUCI, 88.9...

No comments: