ABC World News Tonight reported that there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft approving water boarding and other interrogation techniques. After the fold I give highlights of the article.

While ABC has not proven that this presidental finding actually exists, it sounds like ABC has very reliable sources. Any thoughts on how we can determine whether it exists and bring about its release?  I think its important for the American people to see it and know what other interrogation techniques are included.

As the article acknowledges, there is a question about whether water boarding is torture. (I personally have no question - it's torture.) I think the likely existence of this presidental finding highlights the need for a discussion among American people about what constitutes torture, what interrogation methods are supported by our values and laws, and what the president can do without knowledge of the American people.

Any other thoughts on the implications?

Everyone seems to assume that Wilson was the target of the Plame outing, but what if Plame herself was the target? What if Plame, in her CIA work on WMDs, was getting close to uncovering whomever committed the Niger uranium forgeries?  

Want to see a strong, well-thought-out argument for this possibility? Look at this post by Tex at antiwar.com.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2460

Tex explains that Plame-as-target answers two key questions:

1. why Fitzgerald's probe into the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame has led him to the Niger forgeries.
   
2. why Fitzgerald's existing authority covers the Niger forgeries.

I remember that on this past Sunday's MTP Frank Rich said something like: Wilson would have been like a flea to the White House (not an exact quote). The heavy-handed response to Wilson by the White House did not make sense to Rich. But if Plame was uncovering the forgeries, I doubt that the White House would have seen her as a flea. Agree?

Terrific news!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) and President George W. Bush (news - web sites) are neck-and-neck in their race for the White House, but Kerry is seen as a bit more likeable according to a new poll out just ahead of the second presidential debate.

The article doesn't give much detail, just this:

Kerry's strong showing lent his candidacy a significant boost as 30 percent of voters said that they were more likely to vote for Kerry because of the debate. That compared to 14 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Bush due to the debate.

The survey found Kerry's "bounce" came from a surge of support from female voters. They now back Kerry over Bush by 12 points, 50-38 percent, the survey showed.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041008/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_poll&cid=1506 &ncid=1963&sid=96378801

Apparently lots of people really did see the real Bush and the real Kerry during the last debate and this week.

I've read that someone dressed in a fish costume appears at some Democratic activities to send the message that Kerry flip-flops.  While I wonder about the meanness of such antics (and would welcome opinions on this), I have, nevertheless, been thinking about characters that could appear at Republican activities. I like the idea of finding a way to make a genuine, negative Bush characteristic stick.  

Some of my character ideas are listed below. Any thoughts on which of these would be most effective? Least effective? Any thoughts on whether they would help Kerry at all? If they would help, I would be happy for anyone to use them.

As you will see, my ideas can use some refinement. If anyone is willing to help, jump in with suggestions. Also, I hope these ideas inspire others to create better, more effective characters.

Jann

Am I missing it or is Bush's plan for continuing US control of Iraq being largely ignored by the media, Democrats, and even progressive and liberal internet blogs?  Some Congress members are questioning the June 30 hand-over date as though they do not realize this power transfer exists in name only. What's going on?