Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003.

Robertson said Bush told him, ” ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.’ “

More than 1,100 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion, most of them battling an insurgency that followed the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

CNN.com – No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment: 10/20/2004

It hurts. It just hurts don’t it?

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body.

“We haven’t seen anything good from Democrats,” Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

“We do not desire to see Democrats take over,” Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news – web sites) against Bush.

Yahoo! News – Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran: 10/19/2004

How ironic is that?

Congressional officials said mounting frustration with the agency prompted the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman of California, to send a letter to the CIA two weeks ago directing the agency to deliver the report.

The existence of the letter was first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday in an opinion column by Robert Scheer. The column quoted Harman as saying, “We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report. We are very concerned.”

Yahoo! News – Lawmakers request CIA’s 9/11 report: 10/20/2004

Sounds explosive. And it figures this would be suppressed until after the election.

Bush Relatives for Kerry. Is this real? Ouch that’s gotta hurt!

When you come down to it, Jon Stewart’s segment on Crossfire was actually sort of lame. He told the hosts that they’re playing into the hands of the politicians and corporations, but he didn’t tell them how. He called them hacks but didn’t explain in what sense. He said they were degrading democracy but not what an alternative might be. When people replay this segment in ten or fifty years, they’ll wonder why it mattered.

Nevertheless, I believe this was a seminal moment in the re-framing of the media. To be precise, the moment came when Stewart refused to be Tucker Carlson’s funny “monkey.” Now who’s the entertainer and who’s the seeker?

Joho the Blog: Stewart’s re-mastered narrative: 10/20/2004

The new at Sinclair Advertiser Boycott and at Media Matters looks promising.

Instead of showing the original, uncut, anti-Kerry Bush advertisement, they still plan on showing portions of it in a new “documentary”. You can’t blame me for being skeptical. And it looks like Josh Marshall is too.

Philadelphia Daily News: Republican operatives working to re-elect President Bush submitted last-minute requests in Philadelphia on Friday to relocate 63 polling places.

If so, according to the Bush team, you’re in the minority, and you don’t count.

… Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ”You think he’s an idiot, don’t you?” I said, no, I didn’t. ”No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don’t care. You see, you’re outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don’t read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it’s good for us. Because you know what those folks don’t like? They don’t like you!” In this instance, the final ”you,” of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

…The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Ron Suskin, New York Times: 10/17/04