"We've got the basic strategy right." He added, "It may not be popular with the public--it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."

and asks:

...if 71 percent do not have faith in the White House's Iraq policy, why would Cheney make a point of declaring--defiantly--that he and Bush are committed to racing down that unpopular road? It was as if he were shooting the bird at the American public.

He is "shooting the bird", I think. They've shown, as Corn explained so clearly, that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks. They know it's lost tomorrow. They're basically saying fu*k you to the whole country and the world. They'll fight tooth and nail, and veto everything that comes out of a Democratic controlled House that doesn't go their way, and claim "inherent executive power" for any trouble the Senate gives them.

And Rumsfeld is a hero to the neocons. Bush is not going to get rid of him. And they are going to continue following their neocon dream and probably try to realize their Iran fantasy sometime in the next two years.

Operation Comeback, or how the neocons plan to save themselves.

Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.
...
The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be deafening, and it will have many echoes at home. It will be an injection of steroids for organizations such as MoveOn.org. We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes. In particular, we need to help people envision what the world would look like with a nuclear-armed Iran. Apart from the dangers of a direct attack on Israel or a suitcase bomb in Washington, it would mean the end of the global nonproliferation regime and the beginning of Iranian dominance in the Middle East.

As usual, it's all about them. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons see all the negative press and opposition as a PR problem for them. Nothing Else. Human lives, including American lives, are incidental numbers. Collateral damage. As is Americas reputation.

The little respect America has left in the world will vanish.
They do not care.

The American economy will be irreparably damaged.
They do not care.

America will become a pariah in the world - a rogue state.
They do not care.

Americans will be safe nowhere in the world.
They do not care.

Many people will die.
They do not care.

Let's look at his evidence for the crazy idea that the White House intends to lose tomorrow:

First, the President continues to support Secretary Rumsfeld. Whether this is right or wrong, the President's support has been consistent. Moreover, if the President is still optimistic about Iraq, why would turn against Rumsfeld?

Corn answers that question for us: "Rumsfeld is the poster boy for that debacle." Apparently Corn thinks that it's appropriate for Bush to kick out a Secretary who he still agrees with just so he can get the support of the Military Times. That's the very definition of unprincipled cynicism. Furthermore, I'd be interested to know which voters Corn thinks are basing their vote on Rumsfeld's retention.

Second, Dick Cheney told reporters that the Administration would "stay the course." Well, that's not new at all. Again, Corn seems to think that the White House should roll over on itself--and those Republican candidates who still support the war--days before the election.

This comes solidly under the category of "disingenuous advice." The White House still supports the mission in Iraq. Voters who do not agree with that should vote for someone other than Bush or Cheney. Oh, wait...neither are going to be on Tuesday's ballots.

This is the strongest reason that the Administration has chosen to take actions which just further policies and attitudes already adopted. The president and vice president are not running for office. They've apparently made a concious decision not to tremble the water.

Which brings me to Corn's third piece of evidence: Cheney as Fudd. Not only is it within character for the Vice President to lay low, but it furthers the "stay the course" idea that the Administration has been following for months. (Incidentally, I wonder what story Corn would have chosen to write if Bush and Cheney had chosen to fly all of the country. Maybe something with "frantic" in the title?)

Also, I wonder if there's some little bit of interest in reminding a few voters of the gun control issue, one which has been largely ignored this election season (and which not coincidentally has been blamed for recent Democratic defeats).

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

• Prepare to Bomb Iran.

Currently in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean:

USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Persian Gulf

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):

• USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Persian Gulf
  USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Persian Gulf
  USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Persian Gulf

Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):

• USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Indian Ocean
  USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Indian Ocean
  USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Indian Ocean

As for the house, now this is where things get interesting...25 house pick up will sure get things riled up but I bet once Pelosi is chosen as Speaker then Bush's numbers will go up and not down.

And, the Dems would certainly help him and his corporate backers with the latter, enabling him to flood the U.S. with millions of low-wage workers, busting unions and driving down wages for our own low-wage workers.

11/03/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Don Rumsfeld is not a good leader. In fact, he is a very bad leader. Leadership is predicated on three basic factors: Strong moral character, sound judgment, and the ability to learn from one's mistakes. None of these apply to Rumsfeld. As a result, every major decision that has been made in Iraq has been wrong and has cost the lives of countless Iraqis and American servicemen. This pattern will undoubtedly continue as long as Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense.

Here's a simple test: Name one part of the occupation of Iraq which has succeeded?

Security? Reconstruction? De-Ba'athification? Dismantling the Iraqi military? Protecting Saddam's ammo-dumps? Stopping the looting? Body armor? Coalition government? Abu Ghraib? Falluja? Even oil production has been slashed in half.

Every facet of the occupation has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing has succeeded. Everything has failed.

Everything.
...
Apart from the immense damage to Iraqi society, the enormous human suffering, and the massive loss of life; there is also the astronomical cost of the war which has been purposely concealed by the Defense Dept. Originally, the war was supposed to "pay for itself in oil revenues". (according to neocon Paul Wolfowitz) That, of course, never happened but, the real costs appeared in this week's Washington Post in an article by Jim Wolf called "Pentagon Expands War-funding Push". The article states:

"With the passage of the fiscal 2006 supplemental spending bill, war-related appropriations would total about $436.8 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced security at military bases, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept 22 report....this is in addition to the more than $500 billion sought by President Bush in his baseline fiscal 2007 national defense request."

That's right; we're spending a whopping $1 trillion a year for a war that we're losing.

But don't forget to vote for a republican tomorrow. They're strong on national security. At least that what they keep saying...