As I wrote earlier this month, the well-respected non-governmental organization Save the Children recently selected Dr. Bill Frist as its front-man for its new "Survive to 5" campaign against childhood mortality. (For more details on the program, visit here.) But despite his checkered past when it comes to the misuse of science, CBS gave Frist an opportunity to redefine himself as the second coming of Al Gore, merely swapping the fight against global warming for childhood diseases in the developing world:

"I was surprised at one of the people you cited as one of your role models now, in post-public official life, is Al Gore," says Gupta.

"It's fascinating to me. He had a passion -- it was the environmental issues. I don't agree with everything that Al stands for," Frist says, "but taking an issue that is important, that does affect health in many ways, and elevating it to the global arena-- it's some thing that I really admire."

Frist has not ruled out an eventual return to politics, but for now, he believes that he can change the world, by helping to save the lives of those children.

But even with his past, high-profile efforts on behalf of children in the developing world, Dr. Bill Frist brings a lot of baggage to his latest crusade. As he showed repeatedly while Majority Leader, Senator Bill Frist was never shy about subverting medicine and science for political purposes.

The case of Terri Schiavo provides but one case in point. During the height of the intense battle over Michael Schiavo's effort to honor his wife's wishes in March 2005, Doctor Frist took to the Senate floor to offer his own videotape diagnosis, Disputing assessments that Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state (a diagnosis later confirmed by autopsy), Frist declared:

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

A surprised and concerned Laurie Zoloth, director of bioethics for the Center for Genetic Medicine at Northwestern University, noted of Doctor Frist's statements, "It is extremely unusual -- and by a non-neurologist, I might add. There should be no confusion about the medical data, and that's what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical status." Democratic strategist Marshall Wittman was much less charitable:

"I suspect that Senator Frist has his eye more on the Iowa caucus than the Hippocratic Oath."

Frist's perversion of science for partisan political ends hardly starts - or ends - there. The previous December, Senator Frist tried to defend a federally-funded abstinence program which claimed that HIV/AIDS could be contracted through tears and sweat. Pressed by ABC News host George Stephanopoulos, Frist was forced to recant. "It would be very hard," he said. In 2003, Frist fast-tracked a House version of President Bush's $15 billion AIDS bill that incorporated religious amendments funding abstinence programs and barring condom distribution by faith-based groups.

Frist's political uses of science cut both ways. In 2001, Senator Frist strongly supported President Bush's draconian curbs on stem cell research But in the wake of his disastrous intervention in the Schiavo case, would-be presidential candidate Frist decided discretion was the better part of valor and switched sides. After his Schiavo debacle, Frist no doubt concluded the reversal on stem cells was necessary for the 2008 general election; calling him a "sell-out" and "Dr. Duplicity", his former friends on the religious right made it clear he would never survive the GOP primaries.

Doctor Frist's dubious medical ethics both predated and followed his time in elected office. As a student, Frist was a frequent visitor to animal shelters where the future Doctor adopted cats only to dissect them later as part of his learn-at-home medical studies. Later, Senator Frist's World of Hope faith-based charity may have won awards for its work on AIDS, but its fundraising also filled the coffers of many of Frist's closest associates. And in 2007, Frist narrowly avoided insider trading charges in connection with his sale of stock from the HCA business started by his father and brother.

In the aftermath of Frist's Senate floor witness malpractice regarding Terri Schiavo, Democratic strategist Jim Jordan noted, "It'd be hilarious if it weren't so grotesque, how his presidential ambitions and pandering to the right wing is clashing with his life's work."

Alas, Save the Children is now letting the quackery of Dr. Bill Frist tarnish its good works. And sadly, CBS News just gave him a helping hand on the path to his political resurrection.

Early in his presidency, George W. Bush was an enthusiastic proponent of "Hooked on Phonics" for educating America's children. Now we know that his ringing endorsement came from personal experience. At the United Nations today, President Bush addressed the General Assembly using a crib sheet of phonetic pronunciations for those difficult country names and leaders sure to trip up any leader of the Free World.

Much to the dismay of a White House which only yesterday deemed Barack Obama "intellectually lazy," the UN briefly posted a marked up copy of Bush's speech including pointers for avoiding the rhetorical pitfalls that come with addressing the world body. Tips included:

• Kyrgyzstan [KEYR-geez-stan]
• Mauritania [moor-EH-tain-ee-a]
• Harare [hah-RAR-ray]
• Mugabe [moo-GAH-bee]
• Sarkozy [sar-KO-zee]
• Caracas [kah-RAH-kus]

Of course, Bush's losing struggle with the English language involves far more than his butchery of individual word pronunciations. Though not on display during his prepared remarks at the UN today, the President's unscripted rhetorical incontinence often renders his speech incomprehensible to friend and foe alike.

As I wrote two years ago, Bush unconstrained by written text is a veritable gaffe machine:

This latest incomprehensible utterance illustrates the last of the four types of Bush gaffes. The first, Accidental Truth, involves Bush inadvertently saying what he actually feels or believes. The second, What He Really Meant, are those cases where the discerning observer can find the actual intent of Bush's words that had been sadly lost in his lack of familiarity with English. The third, Post-Modern Dyslexia, involves President Bush changing the order, conjugation or tense of words to render the mundane incomprehensible. Last, as in the case of Bush "going on with his life", is the What the F**k? category, where the meaning of Bush's words are hidden to man and God alike.

For more analysis and detailed examples, see "On W's Words of Wisdom."

As the AP reported this morning, Rudy Giuliani, the self-proclaimed mayor of 9/11 is now to be the beneficiary of a $9.11 fundraiser. Hoping to make his friend literally the leader of the Party of 9/11, Giuliani moneyman Abraham Sofaer is hosting an event in his Palo Alto, California home where guests will be asked to pony up the symbolic $9.11 contribution.

Giuliani spokesperson Maria Comella disowned the unfortunately titled "$9.11 for Rudy," pinning responsibility on "two volunteers who acted independently of and without the knowledge of the campaign." Despite that setback, Giuliani's campaign has plenty of less controversial themes to choose to from for future fundraisers.

"Take the Plunge with Rudy." Support Rudy and show your tough stance on immigration. Donors at the $500 level get an autographed replica of the toilet plunger used by Giuliani's NYPD to violate Abner Louima.

"Dress for Success with Rudy." As it turns out, you can put lipstick on a pig and run for President. For $500, you can cross party lines (so to speak) at this elegant costume soiree. Givers at the $1,000 level and above get their picture taken in a chorus line with Rudy, who will be dressed as Mrs. Doubtfire.

"Three Strikes and You're Out." Honor Rudy's tough stance on crime and commitment to serial marriages. Write three checks for $2,300, and Rudy will autograph the first two that get cancelled.

"Rudy Family Values." Join us for a fun-filled family picnic for Rudy. Don't worry about bringing the kids: at the $1000 level, our staffers will take care of your children so you can ignore them, too.

"Pin the Tail on the Radical Islamic Terrorist." Combining Republican hatred of Democrats with Rudy's terror fighting pose, contributors at the $1,000 level get to pin a symbolic tail on a donkey cutout with Osama Bin Laden's head.

"It's Giuliani Time." America needs Rudy in 2008. Show your commitment to change by coming to this rollicking beer-bash. At midnight, donors of $1,000 or more get to join Team Giuliani in beating up the local homeless.

"Friends of Rudy." Max out at the $2,300 level and you can enjoy an intimate day with the Friends of Rudy. Listen to Bernie Kerik's riveting lecture, "The Sopranos: Myth and Reality" before joining Monsignor Alan Placa for a meeting with the St. Ignatius boys' chorus.

"Blast from the Past." Show your support for Rudy and the NRA at this exclusive gathering. For $500 and up, you can pack heat and unload 50 rounds at an amazingly accurate effigy of Amadou Diallo.

But largely lost in the build-up of the Ahmadinejad-Bush confrontation are the striking - and disturbing - similarities between the two men. As I wrote in May 2006, there are eerie parallels between presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad and their respective fundamentalist followers. Ahmadinejad's visit once highlights the alarmingly analogous views regarding religious prophecy, second comings and the End of Times for their respective Christian and Shiite faiths, parallels which may help push Ahmadinejad and Bush inexorably towards conflict.

For the analysis, see "Iran, Bush and the Second Coming," reprinted in full below.

Growing evangelical angst over its choices in the 2008 Republican presidential field reached new heights this week. Just two days after the GOP frontrunners skipped the supposed Values Voters Debate, Focus on the Family's James Dobson lambasted late entrant Fred Thompson.

Dobson, whose previous crusades for moral righteousness included his campaign to out SpongeBob Squarepants, claimed he could not support Thompson under any circumstances. In a private email disclosed to the Associated Press, Dobson raged against the former Tennessee Senator and TV star hyped by some desperate Republicans as the Second Coming of, well, something:

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

For the radical right, there is much to dislike about Thompson beyond his deadly sin of sloth. The one-time lobbyist for a pro-choice group played dumb on the Terri Schiavo controversy so near and dear to the hearts of the American Taliban. Claiming he too was in a persistent vegetative state, Thompson said, "That's going back in history. I don't remember the details of it." Digging a deeper hole with evangelical voters, Thompson described his on-again, mostly off-again church-going habits. "I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean (Va.), right now. I don't attend regularly when I'm up there." Thompson only complicated matters with his hesitation to prosecute women for having first-term abortions:

Authorities "can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I'm concerned," the former Tennessee senator said. But "if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I'm against that."

Dobson is not the only charter member of the American Taliban smiting Fred Thompson. "Right now, I think people are stepping back a little and watching," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, adding, "The field is still very fluid." Pastor Rick Scarborough, who once compared Tom Delay to Jesus Christ, concurred:

"The problem I'm having is that I don't see any blood trail. When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you're going to shed some blood in the process. And so far, Fred Thompson's political career has been wrinkle-free."

As James Dobson made clear, that free ride is about to end. Thompson's run-in with the religious right once again highlights the quandary facing the Christian conservatives who dominate the GOP primary process. With no heir apparent to George W. Bush, frustrated evangelicals face flawed front-runners or symbolic choices among the second-tier of Republican candidates. No doubt, watching the radical right eats its own is going to be one of the more enjoyable experiences of election 2008.

Just not, it appears, for Fred Thompson.

(For more on the latest GOP faith-based follies, visit here.)

Back in the days before Democrats regained control of the Senate, "up or down vote" was a favorite GOP talking point. Now twice in a single day, Senate Republicans resorted to the filibuster to the thwart the will of the American people.

This morning, Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy failed to get the needed 60 votes to end debate on the Restore Habeas Corpus Act, a measure designed to undo the worst excesses of President Bush's draconian 2006 Military Commissions Act. Now comes word that the Republicans once again blocked by 44-56 the Webb Amendment calling for U.S. troops in Iraq to receive time back home at least equal in duration to their tours of duty.

For more on how these latest filibusters are just the latest acts in the Republicans' ongoing strategy of obstructionism, see "Up or Down Vote: Death of a GOP Talking Point."

Seldom do disparate breakings news stories converge to paint a larger picture. Even as news of atrocities by American military contractor Blackwater rocked Baghdad, Republicans in the Senate blocked the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, ensuring that the most draconian features of the Bush administration's detainee policies remain in place. Meanwhile, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) lamented the presence of "too many mosques in this country." It's no wonder a recent Pew Research Center poll revealed plummeting approval ratings for the United States within Muslim countries worldwide.

Back in Washington DC, Senate Republicans showed their similar willingness to devalue the lives of Muslims. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, co-sponsored by Pat Leahy (D-VT), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) sought to undo some of worst excesses of President Bush's Military Commissions Act. But by a 43-56 vote, Senate Republicans prevented debate from coming to a close, just the latest filibuster in the GOP's ongoing strategy of obstruction.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Congressman Peter King added insult to injury by baselessly questioning the loyalty of Muslim Americans. As the Politico reported this morning, King claimed there are "too many mosques in this country," adding:

"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them."

These episodes serve to provide more grist for the mill when it comes to global opinion of the United States. As a June Pew Research poll showed, America's global standing continues to deteriorate through the Muslim world. Despite some upticks in U.S, favorability in Jordan and Lebanon since 2002, the trend among friend and foe alike is disturbing:

"Opinions of the American people have declined over the past five years in 23 of 33 countries where trends are available. In Indonesia and Turkey, where favorable views of the U.S. have declined markedly over the past five years, opinions of Americans have fallen sharply as well. In Indonesia, positive opinions of Americans have fallen from 65% in 2002 to 42%; in Turkey, favorable opinions have declined 19 points."

Introducing Karen Hughes as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy in September 2005, President Bush described the vital role he saw for his administration's propaganda in the war on terrorism:

"I've asked the State Department to improve our government's capabilities to confront terrorist propaganda quickly, before myths have time to take root in the hearts and minds of people across the world. Listen, our enemies use lies. They use lies to recruit and train and indoctrinate. So Karen and her team have a vital task. They must ensure that the terrorist lies are challenged aggressively, and that our government is prepared to respond to false accusations and propaganda immediately."

As events this week once again showed, it's not just the lies of Al Qaeda which are costing America hearts and minds across the Islamic world. Sadly, it is the truth which so damages our cause.

As I recently detailed, in recent weeks the GOP White House hopefuls have sent a powerful message to minority voters by skipping the Univision, NAACP, and upcoming PBS presidential debates. Now, even many Republican proponents of the race card worry the GOP has overplayed its hand.

As the Washington Post reports, Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Ken Mehlman and other leading lights of the Republican Party voiced concerns that the GOP's debate no-shows are alienating voters inside - and outside - minority communities. Newt Gingrich, who termed the suffering of New Orleans residents in the wake of Hurricane Katrina the result of their own "failure of citizenship," complained:

"For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error. I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney."

Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman also sounded the alarm regarding the impact of the cancelled Univision event and the frontunner no-show nexus of Romney-Giuliani-McCain-Thompson at next week's PBS forum hosted by Tavis Smiley at predominantly black Morgan State University. A concerned Mehlman worried that the Party is selling itself short when it comes to African-American and Hispanic voters.

"Every one of these candidates I've talked to is sincerely committed to offering real choices to African American and Hispanic voters, and in my opinion have records that will appeal to many of these voters."

(Mehlman, of course, has a proven track record of getting those records wrong. During a July 2005 speech to the NAACP, he confused victim and villain in the dragging death of James Byrd, one of the worst hate crimes in recent history. Mehlman described Byrd as "a racist killer in east Texas, who the president brought to justice." Mehlman's error was sadly ironic, as it was Bush's bizarre, smirking comment about the Byrd case and hate crime legislation during his second debate with Al Gore in 2000 ["The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death"] that unnerved so many American voters.)

Be that as it may, the Republican braintrust is right to worry. The snubbing of minority organizations' presidential events combined with the rabid anti-immigration animus currently on display among Republican primary voters is certain to cause the GOP pain at the ballot box. As Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza put it, "It's not just that they are not coming. It's that some of them are visibly insulting us." A frustrated Tavis Smiley concluded:

"There is a pattern here. When you tell every black and brown request that you get throughout the primary process that 'no, there's a scheduling problem.' That's a pattern...Are we really supposed to believe that all four of these guys couldn't make it because of scheduling?"

The numbers tell the tale. In 2006, the GOP showed no progress among black voters, who continued to back Democratic candidates at historically high levels approaching 90%. More telling, Republicans are losing the ground they had gained among the nation's rapidly growing Hispanic communities, now totaling 43 million. While John Kerry carried only 53% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, by 2006 Democrats won 69% support among Hispanics who went to the polls.

Republicans in the Age of Rove may play to their base, but they can also read the tea leaves of demographic change. The xenophobia and hate-mongering of the current GOP presidential field puts the party on the wrong side of history. And finally, at least some Republicans are acknowledging that.

Consider the side-splitting antics of the Republican God Squad over just the last several weeks. Mitt Romney declares the President should be a man of faith, but then refuses to discuss his own. While John McCain assures voters the important thing is that he is a good Christian, Rudy Giuliani says he'll leave to the priests to decide if he's a bad Catholic. And while instant front-runner Fred Thompson hardly ever steps inside a church, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee took their holy war outside the pulpit.

Here's a quick run-down of the latest GOP faith-based follies:

John McCain. Having long identified himself as an Episcopalian, the Arizona Senator this week apparently decided his wife's Baptist faith was a better fit for his party's bible-thumping primary voters. McCain then sought to defuse the controversy over his faith-based flip-flop at the expense of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and virtually all other Americans by declaring, "The most important thing is that I am a Christian." As Jon Stewart concluded after McCain embraced Jerry Falwell, a man he once labeled "an agent of intolerance," "you can't unsell out."

Fred Thompson. Thompson's first campaign baptism by fire didn't go much better. The one-time lobbyist for a pro-choice group played dumb on the Terri Schiavo controversy so near and dear to the hearts of the American Taliban. Claiming he too was in a persistent vegetative state, Thompson said, "That's going back in history. I don't remember the details of it." Digging a deeper hole with evangelical voters, Thompson described his on-again, mostly off-again church-going habits. "I attend church when I'm in Tennessee. I'm in McLean (Va.), right now. I don't attend regularly when I'm up there."

Rudy Giuliani. The twice-divorced, pro-choice and frequently cross-dressing Giuliani has his own cross to bear with the religious right. Rudy, who admitted in 1999 "I don't attend Mass regularly," proclaimed in August that "my religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests." That's probably a good idea. After all, Giuliani admitted, "I pray like a lawyer," adding, "I try to make a deal - get me out of this jam, and I'll start going back to church."

Mitt Romney. Romney has latter day problems of his own. After a series of gymnastic flip-flops on abortion, stem cell research and rights for gay Americans, Romney created a conundrum over his Mormon faith. In 2006, the former Massachusetts governor told Fox News, "People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president." But when WHO radio host Jan Mickelson took him up on it and questioned him about his Mormon religion, an agitated Romney complained he was not "running as a Mormon" and that Mickelson was "trying to tell me I'm not a faithful Mormon." To help douse the fire he lit, Romney has promised a Kennedyesque speech on faith and politics.

Sam Brownback. Romney foe and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback isn't making his life any easier. In June, a campaign aide for the evangelical turned Catholic Brownback sent an email to Iowa GOP leaders criticizing Romney's Mormon faith. Among other attacks, the email from Emma Nemecek noted "the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith." While Romney ultimately accepted Brownback's apology, Romney told evangelical voters that "the difference between me and Sam Brownback is he has run a uniformly negative campaign."

Mike Huckabee. Meanwhile, the campaign of Mike Huckabee has apparently concluded it is better to give than receive. In one of campaign 2008's most ironic moments, a Catholic-turned-evangelical supporter of the former Arkansas Governor attacked the evangelical-turned-Catholic Brownback. The Reverend Tim Rude of Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa emailed colleagues:

"I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's. I don't if this fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback."

Given the endless parade of egregious gaffes, pretentious pandering and hilarious hypocrisy, what is an evangelical voter to do? "Right now, I think people are stepping back a little and watching," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, adding, "The field is still very fluid." Pastor Rick Scarborough, who once compared Tom Delay to Jesus Christ, concurred:

"The problem I'm having is that I don't see any blood trail. When you really take a stand on issues dear to the heart of social conservatives, you're going to shed some blood in the process."

And last night, McCain, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani didn't make matters any easier for the right's self-proclaimed "values voters." No doubt fearful of scaring the bejesus out of mainstream general election voters, the GOP's Big Four all punted on the radical right's Values Voters Debate. While the Republicans' second tier got its hate on towards gay Americans, immigrants and Muslims (among others), the front-runners apparently decided discretion was the better part of valor.

Which brings us full circle. All of the 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls find themselves in a faith-based fix. That is, desperate to win the support of the Christian conservative voters who control the GOP primary process, they each made a Faustian bargain by publicly proclaiming their deep religious faith. Now, the American people want proof.

UPDATE 1: Mitt Romney is at again. Just one day after the blogosphere noted a pro-gay rights flyer distributed by Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts, Mitt began running anti-gay marriage radio ads in Iowa.

UDPATE 2: On Thursday, the AP published stinging email from Focus on the Family's James Dobson declaring he could not support Fred Thompson.

Last week, I detailed the continuing aversion of the Republican White House hopefuls to participate in debates sponsored by minority organizations. Now hot on the heels of their collective snub of the Univision and NAACP presidential forums, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are skipping a PBS event hosted by Tavis Smiley at the predominantly black Morgan State University.

Like the current Oval Office occupant, these Republicans apparently have no stomach for authentic, unscripted questions from the American people. But it may not be the questions as much as which Americans are asking them that explains the GOP evasion. As Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza put it, "It's not just that they are not coming. It's that some of them are visibly insulting us." A frustrated Smiley concluded:

"There is a pattern here. When you tell every black and brown request that you get throughout the primary process that 'no, there's a scheduling problem.' That's a pattern...Are we really supposed to believe that all four of these guys couldn't make it because of scheduling?"

The upset is not limited to voices of the left. African-American Republican leader Michael Steele, the head of GOPAC defeated in the 2006 Maryland Senate race, pleaded for the Republican frontunners to participate in Smiley's forum. Recognizing the GOP's dismal performance among black voters, Steele told WBAL last week:

"I think it's an important opportunity for Republican candidates to put up or shut up, when it comes to minority communities in the country."

Shutting up appears to be exactly what the GOP has in mind. While John Kerry carried only 53% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, by 2006 Democrats won 69% support among the nation's 43 million Hispanics who went to the polls. Meanwhile, Democrats continued to capture almost 90% of the African-American vote.

The Republicans' collapse among minority voters extends to evangelicals as well. "Right now, the nativist and xenophobic constituency is in charge of the Republican Party," says the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "That's a party the Hispanic-American voter cannot support."

Which these days makes them no different from most any group of Americans.

In August, the Bush administration fired a shot across the bow of those advocating the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). Last week, New Jersey Governor John Corzine fired back.

First, a little background. Last month, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed separate packages adding an additional 3.3 million children to the 6.6 million already insured under the program covering low income families. The White House, hoping to block the expansion of the popular S-CHIP program, retaliated by issuing draconian new regulations designed to cap limit benefits to families below 200% of the poverty line. As I wrote on August 23rd:

With Congress out of session, Dennis Smith of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations notified states that they must reach 95% enrollment of families below 200% of the poverty level before they can expand their programs. Of course, no state currently approach the 95% figure today (nationally, almost 30% of eligible children remain unenrolled in S-CHIP). Worse still, several states previously received the federal government's OK to extend their coverage to even higher income levels and more are considering further expansion still.

In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature has passed a bill that would raise the limit to 400 percent - $82,600 for a family of four - but the change is subject to federal approval.

California wants to increase its income limit to 300 percent of the poverty level, from 250 percent. Pennsylvania recently raised its limit to 300 percent, from 200 percent. New Jersey has had a limit of 350 percent for more than five years.

It's no wonder incredulous state health care officials are horrified by the Bush administration's new regulations. Ann Clemency Kohler, deputy commissioner of human services in New Jersey, said "It will cause havoc with our program and could jeopardize coverage for thousands of children."

On Friday, New Jersey Governor John Corzine responded, telling President Bush that the Garden State will not obey the new federal rules. Calling the Bush regulations "onerous," Corzine insisted the state would act to add 10,000 more children to the 122,000 covered by its FamilyCare program:

"I am deeply concerned about the devastating impact that this misguided policy will have on our efforts to address the growing problem of the uninsured."

While Corzine made it clear that his state is prepared to sue to halt the new administration rules, White House spokesman Tony Fratto made it clear that New Jersey is on it own:

"New Jersey is free to use its own funds to cover children who are not eligible under the federal guidelines. It's premature to say what CMS would do if they are not in compliance."

In the growing battle over S-CHIP, New Jersey's Corzine does not stand alone. On August 30th, California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer jointly sent a letter to Bush decrying the new rules. "It is bad policy," Spitzer wrote, adding, "It is a violation of the basic decency that argues in favor of giving kids health insurance." On Sunday, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley followed suit, telling Bush that his harsh approach will slash 3,700 children from his state's program.

While his administration and the states are at loggerheads over children's health coverage, President Bush has his own solution. As he told an audience in Cleveland:

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

For more background on George W. Bush's war on S-CHIP, see:

• "Bush Repeats His Texas War on Children's Health Insurance"


• "S-CHIP On Bush's Shoulder"

UPDATE: With fiscal funding for S-CHIP due to expire at the end of the month, the New York Times reports that Senate and House negotiators are poised to send President Bush a compromise bill extending coverage to 4 million more children. The White House's Fratto insists the veto threat remains, declaring, "the House and the Senate still appear to be far away from legislation that we would find acceptable."

Just days after highlighting his own foreign policy inexperience in a boomerang attack on his Democratic opponents, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is at it again. Returning to his favorite bogeyman in Tehran, Romney called on the United Nations to ban Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from speaking to the world body next week and instead indict him for genocide.

Romney's penchant for grandstanding was on display in his letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Citing Iran's support of Hezbollah, its nuclear program and General Petraeus' testimony about Tehran's backing of Shiite militia in Iraq, Romney called on the UN "to revoke any invitation to President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly."

Not content to rest there, Romney demanded the UN prosecute the Iranian President for his 2006 boast that he would "wipe Israel off the map." Influenced perhaps by hate speech laws or the 2002 Spielberg sci-fi stinker Minority Report, Mitt believes the Tehran tyrant should be arrested for speaking of crimes he has not yet committed:

"If president Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention."

Romney then offers his Republicans allies, virtually none of whom supported American action to halt genocide and ethnic cleansing Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo or Sudan, a two-fer. If the UN fails to act against Ahmadinejad, Mitt suggests President Romney would retaliate against the hated United Nations itself:

"A failure by the United Nations to take a strong stand against Iran's President Ahmadinejad would be especially disturbing given the United Nations' record of failure to prevent genocide in other circumstances and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Council to confront the Iranian regime and others among the world's worst human rights abusers. The United States must reconsider its level of support and funding for the United Nations as we look to rebuild and revitalize effective international partnerships to meet 21st century threats."

This is just the latest episode in Mitt Romney's campaign of tough talk towards Iran. But far from displaying Romney as a visionary national security strategist, his Iran demagoguery instead shows him as an opportunist with an extreme case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Consider his much hyped - and short lived - effort in early 2007 calling on state pension funds (in Democratic states!) to divest their holdings in companies doing business with Iran. On February 22, Romney sent letters to Democratic leaders including New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of "strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime." But as the AP quickly detailed, Romney's former employer (Bain & Co.) and the company he founded (Bain Capital) have extensive links to recent Iranian business deals. Apparently missing the irony, Romney responded by saying of his Iran disinvestment PR scheme, "this is something for now-forward."

As I've suggested before, Mitt Romney if nothing else is a perpetual irony producing machine. With new rumors of preparations by the Bush White House for military strikes against Iran, Romney apparently wants some of the limelight.

Even if he looks like a jackass while doing it.

For more on Mitt's cavalcade of foreign policy missteps, misunderstandings and comical gaffes, see:

• "Romney Attacks Dem Foes' Foreign Policy Experience"


• "Romney's Love-Hate Relationship with Hezbollah"


• "Romney, Cheney in Deep with Iran Investments"

UPDATE: Romney is joining Alan Dershowitz and John Bolton in calling for Ahmadinejad's prosecution for "public incitement to commit genocide" under Article 3 of the UN Genocide Convention. To date, no one (as far as I can tell) has been prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for anything other than acts of or conspiracy to commit genocide which actually occurred. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney continues to hold stock in companies doing business in Sudan...

In his speech to the nation Thursday night, President Bush unveiled the latest official White House talking point on Iraq. Destined for regurgitation from reliable Republican mouthpieces is "Return on Success." That business sounding jargon from our first - and failed - MBA president is designed to reassure the American people that after our troops fight them there, they can come home here:

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.

Here, then, is the newly updated list of official GOP Iraq Talking Points.

Current GOP Talking Points
The following GOP Iraq talking points appear to still be in use:

• "Return on Success"


• "We're Making Progress"


• ""(Debate is a) Political Stunt"


• "(Even Discussing Withdrawal Contingency Plans) Reinforces Enemy Propaganda"


• "The Surge Has Just Started"


• "Precipitous Withdrawal"


• "Support Our Troops"


• "Surrender Date"


• "White Flag"


• "Micromanage the War"


• "Embolden the Enemy"


• "How Can Congress Confirm General Petraeus But Oppose His Mission?"


• "Don't Tell the Generals How to Run the War"


• "Handcuffing Our Generals"


• "Follow Us Home"


• "Islamofascists"


• "Mixed Messages (to Syria)"


• "Mixed Messages (to the Troops)"


• "Mixed Messages (to Iraq)"


• "Slow Bleed"


• "Surge"


• "The World is Safer Without Saddam"


• "Saddam Killed His Own People"


• "Pre-9/11 Worldview/Mindset"


• "Cut and Run"


• "As They Stand up, We'll Stand Down"


• "Govern Itself, Defend Itself and Sustain Itself"


• "Better to Fight Them There Than Here"


• "It's Hard Work"


• "Slam Dunk"


• Al Qaeda Link: "Al Qaeda was Present in Iraq"


• "Freedom is God's Gift to Humanity"


• "Iraq is the Central Front in the Global War on Terror"

No Longer in Use
Many other Iraq sound bites of yore, however, have mercifully ended up on the dustbin of history.

• "Augmentation"


• "Wait Til September"


• "New Way Forward"


• "Adapting to Win"


• "Stay the Course"


• "Turning the Corner"


• "Fresh Eyes"


• "Last Throes"


• "Purple Fingers"


• "Rewriting History (is Irresponsible)"


• "(Saddad Was) An Ally of Al Qaeda"


• 9/11 Link: "Pretty Well Confirmed (Atta Went to Prague)"


• "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"


• "Uranium in Africa"


• "Pay for Itself"


• "Mission Accomplished"


• "Imminent Threat"


• "Gathering Threat"


• "Greeted as Liberators"


• "Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud"


• "Weapons of Mass Destruction"


• "Axis of Evil"

For a look back at the changing Top 10 GOP sound bites over time, visit the archives here. And to access a repository of all the key Iraq war intelligence documents, commission reports, key memos, essential analyses and other required reading, visit the Perrspectives Iraq WMD and Intelligence Resource Center.

Twenty four hours after his reprehensible remark about the "small price" the U.S. is paying in Iraq, House Minority Leader John Boehner appears to be paying no price himself. While DNC Chairman Howard Dean and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) took Boehner to task, the mainstream media has remained largely silent. And far from disqualifying Boehner as a Republican mouthpiece on Iraq, diminishing the sacrifices of U.S. troops, leaking classified national security information and weeping on the floor of the U.S. House has apparently earned him a privileged position as prized Bush confidant.

On Tuesday, Boehner's defense of President Bush's Iraq surge was callous even by Republican standards:

"We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

Disgusting as that may be, it is hardly the first instance of Boehner's demagoguery on Iraq. During the House Iraq debate in February, Boehner gave an Oscar-worthy performance uniquely combining Republican rage and feigned sorrow. As the AP reported:

"We will embolden terrorists in every corner in the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East. And who doesn't believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?"

Boehner teared up before reporters as he listened to Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, describe being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and learning of U.S. protests back home.

In May, Boehner again resorted to tears - and revisionist history - crying on the House floor as he pleaded for passage of the President's $100 billion Iraq funding request:

Members on both sides of the aisle feel differently about our mission in Iraq and our chances of success there,” Boehner said, pausing to compose himself. As he continued, Boehner began to weep openly, crying out: “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?"

Boehner's banality was also on display during that same debate, as he compared the American fiasco in Iraq to his own travails as a small business owner:

"I used to run a small business. I owned a small business. I have benchmarks every month, but if I didn't meet the benchmarks and if I missed the profit margin, I didn't shut down the business."

Dating back to 2006, it was Boehner who emerged as the architect of Congressional GOP messages on Iraq. His June 2006 memo declared:

"Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world."

Boehner's hyper-partisanship extends beyond Iraq to illegal NSA domestic surveillance and the use of torture. It was, after all, Boehner's timely leak of classified details of the supposed "intelligence gap" created by a FISA judge's ruling helped drive the passage of the disastrous Protect America Act codifying the Bush administration's lawbreaking on domestic surveillance. And in the run-up to the 2006 mid-terms, Boehner went on the warpath to sell the Military Commissions Act - and the demise of habeas corpus:

"The Democrats' partisan opposition to this program, at the urging of the radical leftist element of their Party, provides further proof that they continue to put politics ahead of addressing the security concerns of the American people...it underscores why the American people don't trust Democrats when it comes to national and homeland security."

By October, President Bush was parroting Boehner's venom, declaring "however they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses." It's no wonder that as Americans – and many in his own party – withdraw support from the beleaguered and battered Bush, the President now view John Boehner as one his closest friends and advisers.

Back in May, John Boehner himself wavered briefly in his steadfast support of President Bush's path to perdition in Iraq. "By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B?" But as his "small price" comment shows, as President Bush prepares to address the nation regarding a perpetual American presence in Iraq, John Boehner once again is ready to get his hate on.

And again, it seems, Boehner will pay no price for it.

No doubt, the proliferation of presidential debates held by every interest group under the sun has become one of the more fatiguing aspects of the 2008 campaign. But by adding this week's Univision Hispanic presidential forum to a growing list of events they've skipped, the GOP White House hopefuls are sending a clear message as to which American voters the Republican Party does - and does not - value.

On Sunday, all but Joe Biden among the Democratic contenders came to South Florida to participate in a Spanish language Univision event in which the immigration issue was featured prominently. Both of which explain why all of the Republican candidates (with the exception of immigration reformer John McCain) refused to participate. The GOP no-shows, no doubt fearing a backlash from their own base over immigration and the de facto endorsement of the Spanish language, ensured the Republican Univision debate was scuttled.

As the Politico noted, this politics of hate may endear Giuliani, Romney et al to their party's hard right, but could produce devastating defeats for Republican candidate among Hispanic general election voters. Coming on the heels of the July snub by the major GOP hopefuls of the convention of National Council of La Raza, Republican prospects among Hispanic voters are quickly dimming. John Kerry carried only 53% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but by 2006, Democrats won 69% support among the nation's 43 million Hispanics who went to the polls. As NCLR's Cecilia Munoz put it, "It's not just that they are not coming. It's that some of them are visibly insulting us."

Hispanics are just the latest group of Americans to get the cold shoulder from the Republican presidential wannabes. In July, the GOP hopefuls turned their back on the NAACP debate, with only Tom Tancredo (R-CO) standing alone amidst a stage of empty podiums. Just days after that debacle, the major Republican candidates signaled their desire to avoid the popular YouTube/CNN event then scheduled for September. (Content to duck questions from black Americans, Mitt Romney showed disdain for white ones as well, saying of the YouTube format "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.") Facing overwhelmingly pressure from many of their own party faithful, the recalcitrant Republicans backed down and agreed to a rescheduled YouTube event now slated for November 28.

Interestingly, even the radical religious right is struggling to get all of its water carriers to participate in its events. On September 17, a who's who of the American Taliban will host the Values Voters Debate. Led by Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America, the force behind 2006's "War on Christians" Conference, the debate features Paul Weyrich, Phyllis Schlafly, Judge Roy Moore and a host of others. Seeking support for its extremist Values Voters Contract, Scarborough warns, "If they care about our votes, they'll care about our values." Worried no doubt about a general election backlash from more moderate American voters, GOP pack leaders Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are staying away, attributing their discretion to scheduling conflicts.

And so it goes. Like the current Oval Office occupant, these Republicans apparently have no stomach for authentic, unscripted questions from the American people. Worse still, it may not be the questions, but which Americans are asking them.

If nothing else, Mitt Romney is a perpetual irony machine. Yesterday, Romney added to his legend by proclaiming that his three leading Democratic opponents - all U.S. Senators - lack his foreign policy experience. More ironic still, the one-term governor and international affairs neophyte leveled the charge while speaking in Midland, Texas, home of one George W. Bush.

Speaking to the Midland Republican Women's Club, Romney attacked Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards for supposed ivory tower inexperience:

"Sitting on committees in Washington does not guarantee that someone has the skills to solve the problems on the international stage. In those three cases, you have people who have never really led or managed a substantial enterprise. They learned how to speak well and they learned how to ask good questions at hearings and how to receive briefings. But the role of being a leader and manager of a state, of a city, of an Olympics, of a business, of an enterprise is entirely different than sitting in a hearing chair."

Sadly for Mitt Romney, his own cavalcade of foreign policy missteps, misunderstandings and comical gaffes show him to be not ready for prime time on the world stage. In April, for example, Romney downplayed the important of capturing Osama Bin Laden, declaring, "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Playing to the crowd at a GOP debate just one week later, Romney pulled a 180, promising of the Al Qaeda chief, "He's going to pay, and he will die."

That stumble came just weeks after Romney's short-lived campaign to target state pension funds with investments in companies doing business with Iran. On February 22, Romney sent letters to Democratic leaders including New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of "strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime." But as the AP quickly detailed, Romney's former employer (Bain & Co.) and the company he founded (Bain Capital) have recent links to recent Iranian business deals. Apparently missing the irony, Romney responded by saying of his Iran disinvestment PR scheme, "this is something for now-forward."

But Mitt Romney's most misguided - and dangerous - pronouncements concern the greatest American foreign policy and national security challenge of our age. In May, Romney anointed himself as the leading proponent of "conflation" in the war against Al Qaeda. Alarmingly and erroneously equating Sunni and Shiite, the guilty and the innocent, Romney claimed he has more than Osama Bin Laden in his crosshairs:

"But I don't want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there's going to be another and another. This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate."

(As a hilarious postscript, by August Romney was praising Hezbollah in Lebanon as the very model for American aid and social services in the Muslim world.)

His myriad foreign policy failings aside, the greatest irony of Romney's side-splitting attacks on his Democratic foes was that chose to deliver it in Midland, Texas, Governoe George W. Bush's launching pad to the White House. There, an oblivious Romney stated:

"If you look over the history of this country, great governors, not great senators, have been able to make a huge difference in foreign policy and in conflict."

Of course, Governor George W. Bush gave Americans every indication that as President he would preside over the greatest foreign policy and security debacles since World War II. The warning signs were there early. Candidate Bush, who had never traveled outside of North America, failed to identify several world leaders when quizzed during a 1999 radio interview. Just months later, Bush fell for the practical joke of a Canadian television show and glowingly accepted the endorsement of a made-up Prime Minister Poutine (named after a common meal in Quebec). Showing his national security acumen, the future President asked his foreign policy tutor Saudi Prince Bandar, "Why should I care about North Korea?"

All of these ironies and more are lost on Mitt Romney. His contradictory positions and gymnastic flip-flops even more than his perfect hair and gleaming teeth have come to define his presidential candidacy. But if Mitt Romney believes his five sons serve an America at war by helping their father's presidential campaign, then claiming his inexperience makes him supremely qualified as a world leader must not seem ironic at all.

Today's New York Times reports that former Solicitor General Ted Olson has emerged as President Bush's leading choice to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. That Bush might tap the controversial Olson, a key player in the 1990's Arkansas project targeting Bill Clinton and the man who helped win the 2000 Florida recount at the Supreme Court, should come as no surprise. It's just another part of George W. Bush's strategy of "maximum confrontation" guiding the remainder of his presidency.

Maximum confrontation serves three purposes for President Bush. First, it is an essential ingredient in preventing Democrats from winning victories of any kind and claiming successes as they head into the 2008 elections. Second, perpetual conflict with the "Democrat" Party, whether over nominees, filibusters or vetoes, helps mobilize the President's hard right base. And last, as Robert Draper's new biography Dead Certain makes clear, the image of the battling, brawling President helps Bush cement his legacy as a man of resolve, unbending in the face of either opposition or reality.

With no reelection campaign to run, no vice president to protect and leading a party whose electoral strategy is to whip up the conservative base while suppressing Democratic and independent voter turnout, Bush will pay no price for his thirst for conflict. (His Republican allies in Congress, however, may be another matter.)

All of which explains the predictable choice of inflammatory nominees like Ted Olson. On the day of Gonzales' resignation, conservative movement godfather Richard Viguerie counseled President Bush, "Confront the Democrats, don't 'reach out' to them as liberal commentators are urging." In his vitriolic statement lamenting Gonzales' departure, Bush appeared to heed Viguerie's advice, decrying the "unfair treatment" that led to Gonzales' being "dragged through the mud for political reasons." Only too happy to resort to recess appointments to ensconce extremist appointees like Kerry Swift Boater turned Ambassador Sam Fox or former UN ambassador John Bolton, President Bush has no intention of accommodating the likes of Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who reacted to the prospect of an Olson AG pick, "My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable."

Bush's craving for conflict and endless obstructionism hardly ends with his predilection for in-your-face nominees. As Robert Novak detailed in June, Bush's veto strategy will define the remainder of his term. While Bush withheld his veto pen during a first term featuring a compliant GOP Congress, the President is promising a tidal wave of vetoes from here on out. Blocking stem cell research, federal spending bills, Iraq war benchmarks, expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and government negotiation of Medicare prescription drug prices are just a few on the threats Bush has issued. His dander (and testosterone) up, a feisty Bush crowed in June:

"If the Democrats want to test us, that's why they give the president the veto."

In the Senate, Bush's Republican allies are working overtime to make sure it doesn't come to that. The same GOP who demanded the "up or down vote" in 2005 is now making unprecedented use of the filibuster to block Democratic initiatives - and victories - at all costs. Republican obstructionism blocked every major Democratic effort to change the course in Iraq and even stalled the Alberto Gonzales no-confidence vote. The Republican commitment to portraying Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of a do-nothing Congress through the 208 elections ensures that the Democrats will need a filibuster-proof 60 votes to do anything. (President Bush's veto threats raise that bar to 67 votes.) As Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) publicly bragged:

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us."

Even the Iraq debate reflects President Bush's endless appetite for political fireworks. During a 2004 debate with John Kerry, President Bush might as well have been discussing Democrats and not Islamic insurgents when he said, "best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive." His only concession to the reality of potential Republican devastation next November is the appearance of withdrawing U.S. troops beginning next summer.

No doubt, if President Bush selects Ted Olson (or someone like him) as his choice for Attorney General, he will ignite a firestorm angry confrontation with Democrats. Which is exactly what he wants.

As Bush's past flip-flops suggest, Osama Bin Laden's importance is inversely proportional to the political fortunes of the President and his party. With General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker defending Bush's Iraq surge in Congress this week, Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and the specter of September 11 loom large for Republican message makers. In a July 25 address to U.S. troops at Charleston Air Force base, President Bush previewed the Bin Laden subtext, mentioning Al Qaeda 95 times in a speech on Iraq. Testifying before the Senate yesterday, Director National Intelligence Mike McConnell concurred, "They have regained a significant level of their capability," adding, "the threat is real." (Apparently, Bush homeland security adviser Fran Townsend didn't get the memo; in the wake of the latest Bin Laden video, she termed the Al Qaeda chieftain "virtually impotent.")

After President Bush himself, no one seeks to capitalize on Americans' fear of the next 9/11 more than Rudy Giuliani. The self-proclaimed "Mayor of 9/11" is running to be the President of 9/11. Despite the buffeting his reputation has received from Harper's, Rolling Stone and Time, Giuliani has made it clear that Osama Bin Laden serves as his invisible running mate. "For me," Rudy stated last Friday, "every day is an anniversary of September 11." Encapsulating the Republican politics of fear he shares with the man he hopes to replace in the Oval Office, Giuliani continued:

"If we don't talk about September 11, you can't prepare to try to avoid another September 11."

As I wrote on Sunday, President Bush may be burdened by his Iraq war strategy overwhelmingly rejected by the American people, but his inability to capture Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan may actually be his last trump card at home. Past Bin Laden videos, as the New Republic noted, served to reinforce the fear-mongering that is so central to the Bush/GOP message machine. Far from reminding Americans about Bush's failure to take out Bin Laden, the videos instead highlight our continued vulnerability to sudden and unexpected terrorist violence. As John Judis suggests, Bush's subliminal message plays on the fear of death.

Which should come as no surprise. Now increasingly powerless on this sixth anniversary of 9/11, George W. Bush has nothing to offer but fear itself.

The contrast with FDR, another wartime president who spoke of fear itself, could not be more stark. As I wrote on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, FDR's World War II call for sacrifice has been replaced by ritualistic displays of grief and remembrance which reflect the new mass cultural experience of participatory mourning in the United States. And for a nation engaged in a global war with Al Qaeda, the American culture of grief is not only unseemly, it is extremely dangerous.

For more on "9/11 and the Culture of Grief," continue reading below.

With the long-awaited surge progress report from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker due beginning today, Perrspectives has updated its Iraq Document Center. The repository includes the latest news, statistics, key reports and other essential materials surrounding the Iraq war and its run-up.

For more background to assess the Petraeus and Crocker testimony, the Iraq Document Center includes several recent reports concerning progress in Iraq, the state of the Iraqi security forces, and the stability of the Al Maliki government. These include an updated National Intelligence Estimate as well as President Bush's interim July report and the much more pessimistic GAO assessment. In addition, the Jones Report from the Independent Commission on Iraqi Security Forces as well as a gloomy forecast for the Iraqi government by the Congressional Research Service is also provided. You can also see General Petraeus' assessment in his letter to his troops in Iraq.

No doubt, President Bush's supporters and critics alike will selectively cite statistics of attacks on coalition forces, U.S. and Iraqi casualties, sectarian violence, oil production, energy availability and other economic indicators to proclaim progress or quagmire. The Washington Post offers a helpful summary of key statistics, while the AP has assembled a devastating chart of rising insurgent attacks against U.S and Iraqi forces. For more background on the utility and meaning of the Iraq numbers, Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly provides compelling data and analysis.

As the New York Times reports, General Petraeus in his testimony to Congress this week will call for continuing the surge for at least the next six months, with token troop withdrawals starting perhaps in December. (According to the Washington Post, that recommendation is causing division even inside the Bush administration.) But you can decide for yourself.

Visit the Iraq Document Center.

In the wake of the newest video from Osama Bin Laden, Bush homeland security adviser Fran Townsend feebly attempted to discount the importance of the still at-large Al Qaeda leader. Trapped in his mountain redoubt, she said, Bin Laden is "virtually impotent." But with the man he wanted "dead or alive" securely ensconced in his Pakistani safe haven and directing a reconstituted Al Qaeda network, it is President Bush who is looking impotent indeed.

To be sure, the American intelligence community sees Bin Laden's network as anything but flaccid. In the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the CIA concluded that Al Qaeda had "rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the 2001 terrorist attacks." Almost six years after the Twin Towers fell, the study suggested a failing report card for a Bush administration distracted by the war in Iraq and unable to pressure the Musharraf government over Al Qaeda's free reign in the northwest territories of Pakistan. As I noted in July:

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as sayi