It appears that John Edwards changed his mind on a specific point of Iran policy, regarding the declaration of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.  Surprisingly, this change took place within the span of only two months.

I found this myself after a Google archive search of several blogs, and just now realized the Politico beat me to the punch (so, credit to them for the quick research).  It appears a few sentences have changed in Edwards' counterterrorism strategy from early September until now.  On 9/7/07, Edwards' strategy noted that the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization was pending, and stated he would "ensure that such steps are not just more rhetoric, but actually lead to results."  And now..

I've done a bit of research and the term "swiftboating" is exactly appropriate for the smear article on John Murtha released by the "news" organization Cybercast News Service.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth parallels are very very close.  Cybercast News Service also claims to have run what might have been the first Swift Vets story on John Kerry: Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues (May 3, 2004)

More after the jump..

I've been reading a lot about suggestions to create searchable online databases so people can reach their families and so forth.  I've been thinking.. What could be simpler than making it possible for people to call home themselves and to be in touch with family as they are moved around to various shelters?  

Phone companies give away prepaid cell phones for free all the time.  Most everyone knows how to use them.  They can't be that expensive to manufacture and this is an emergency, after all.  So.. What if we were to contact cell phone companies and ask them to donate prepaid cell phones?  Sound like a good idea?  Surely Verizon/Nokia/etc. can afford it.  (How will they be charged?  Will this create a problem or not?  Are there models with long lasting batteries?)  

Just tuning in to Air America - Joe Conason is filling in for Al Franken - and they are focusing at the moment on the next chairman of the Democratic Party.  

Markos is scheduled to be on the show soon, so I thought I'd use my diary to post a heads-up for everyone.  First up is a writer from the American Prospect so Markos is to be after this segment - possibly at the same time as Chris Suellentrop of Slate.  

[editor's note, by daria g]/Update [2004-12-17 10:44:19 by daria g]: OK, a preface. I'm being really flip here, and I know that. At the heart of my disgust, which some replies have made me realize, is that I'm getting ready to go home and celebrate Christmas with my family - and yet now everywhere I turn I'm finding it turned into a massive political football by the right, and I wish they'd take a break, frankly.

Yet another conservative scold is complaining about alleged complaints about Christmas.  One can only wonder why these people don't prefer to take a holiday themselves from all the complaining.  

Sure, there are some disagreements on the local level going on out there.  But really, I find this whole round of right-wing fretting over an assault on Christmas so transparently calculated, so gratingly predictable, the usual howling cacophony of fake outrage seems oddly reduced to a single flat, plodding note that was first sounded by Fox News and just goes on and on and on and on...  

[editor's note, by daria g]Thanks for Newsie's heads-up. More links and details added. Via Atrios, who found the link from Laura Rozen's terrific blog, War and Piece..

The notorious arms trafficker Viktor Bout, who we knew was nevertheless hired to work for the coalition making flights into Iraq, was actually working for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root.

Isikoff's story - Iraq: Government Deal With a 'Merchant of Death'?

Right now.  Just to let y'all know..

Beinart: "I don't think there is a passion among liberals today for winning the war on terrorism."

More updates to follow.  Worth tuning in for.

I am not surprised to read that Kerry has conceded.  Most people do indeed just want this election to be over with.  It's been exhausting.

I don't feel bad, I'm not angry and I have no plans to move to Canada. I really think the world of John Kerry both as a candidate and as a person, for what it's worth.  I hope he stays in the Senate for a long time - we need him, and somebody is going to have to stand up for the Iraq vets.  I guess now that he won't be behind the White House bubble, perhaps I'll actually get to meet the guy some day.  I'm very, very proud that we had him as our candidate this year.  He handled all they threw at him with class and grace, fought hard, and never gave up.  He made a fool of Bush in the debates and even his political opponents have to respect him for that.  The last Gallup polls had him equal with Bush on the ability to handle Iraq, and closing fast on the ability to fight the war on terror.  We're getting our security cred back, and that's not nothing.

There are some things I'd like to know..

I just read the Ron Suskind article in the Sunday New York Times magazine with all sorts of juicy quotes about Bush's messianic beliefs.

But after all the noise, buried near the end, is a quote that is not to be missed:

This is a sequel of sorts to a diary I posted a few months back, titled "What don't we get about the war on terror?"  (Hey, I like the echo even if it's a little off.) It's also a response to what seems to be (link goes to an excellent diary by "republicansforkerry") on what may be the new Republican smear attack on John Kerry - distorting his quote in the New York Times magazine in which he says:

 "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

What follows are some of my thoughts on why Bush supporters and Kerry supporters seem to be living on different planets as far as dealing with the "war on terror," and why I'm deeply enraged about the implication from the GOP that, in effect, terrorists should be the focus of our lives.  They can ask me to support their candidate; they do not have the right to demand that I accept their worldview.

I've been tracking down information on Halliburton scandals and questionable activities, and tonight John Edwards finally confronted Dick Cheney with some of these issues.

I don't doubt the public knows very little about it so I've provided a few stories here for some background.  I'd love to see more diaries on the subject, and this is admittedly scattershot because.. it's late & I'm super tired!  At least check the first link though, regarding the attack Edwards made on Halliburton's dealings with states that sponsor terrorism..

Sen. Frank Lautenberg held a hearing on this earlier in the year.  Here's a link - warning, PDF file! - and some quotes in the extended copy, followed by a few more pieces on Halliburton.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing12/lautenberg.pdf

I guess it's time for a little rhetorical bomb throwing, starting with the title - but as a reaction to a diary calling out the leading Dem in the House as an idiot, it seems only appropriate.

My point is this: John Kerry gave the right answer, the only good answer, to the hypothetical question: "Knowing what you know now, would you have voted to go to war in Iraq?"

The key is in the hypotheticals.

A deliberately provocative title, but this is an aspect of the Kerry campaign's message (Shrum? this is Shrum's doing, I don't doubt) which desperately needs some work.

My problem is.. every time I hear Kerry or Edwards answer a question with the gratuitous use of the verb "to fight," it makes me so fucking angry...

Following a link from Atrios, I was reading the list of RNC bloggers from the WSJ Online, available here.  There's a profile of each blogger, and here is blogger Roger L. Simon's reply to the final question:

Found a link to this story via the Democratic Underground.  Kerry is sending Max Cleland and Jim Rassman to ask Bush to put a stop to the Swift Liars ads - sending them directly to Bush's "heavily guarded ranch" in Crawford!

I really do admire the sheer nerve it takes to pull off a stunt like this.  What in the world is Bush going to do?  I don't think they bet on team Kerry having the guts to go straight into their territory.  (My guess is Bush will find a way to avoid them, like he does everything else.)

Wow. And I was thrilled back when Zephyr Teachout stopped on the Drive for Democracy to put up Dean for America signs on the road leading to Crawford..

Link in extended copy-

I want to start a mini think tank here, and if anyone is up for it, help me out.

What strikes me about the Swift Boat group is that their status as an organized political group is really the only unique thing about it.  Perhaps this is paradoxically a lucky thing for Kerry; the usual smear campaign artists in the GOP got too big for their britches and actually formed a 527 group that is regulated by laws, instead of just using unofficial and unregulated channels.

Which was pretty stupid, you ask me - these guys had the whole Internet to use for the purpose of disseminating outrageous lies about John Kerry, and they went and formed an official organization, solicited donations and legal advice from prominent Texas Republicans, and bought television ads.  If they'd read Joe Trippi's book and started a Swift Boat Veterans for America blog, they could've probably gotten the same $$ and put the same lies out there without leaving a clear paper trail leading right to the White House.

Still, we gotta deal with the lies, and I want to propose a different sort of counter strategy than fighting smear with smear.

This story was all over the BBC Radio last night but I can't seem to find much coverage in the US media.  In Iraq, over 3,000 members of an Iranian opposition group - designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department - have been granted protection under the Geneva Convention.  This group, based in Iraq, had been supported by Saddam Hussein, but apparently has been given a dispensation by the US since it has (only) been committing acts of terrorism against Iran.

There's a number of articles in the diary that follows, but please note the New York Times piece at the end, in which a "senior American official" declares, "A member of a terrorist organization is not necessarily a terrorist."

Here's some information from the State Department on the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq):

Just read an online chat transcript with Rep. Charles B. Rangel at the Washington Post and came across this question..

As I recall, there already was a movie with the opposite political view, and no, none of us on the Democratic side of the spectrum tried to shut down free speech.