Mr. Rumsfeld evidently feels that torturing helpless Iraqi teens is OK, because what terrorists do is worse:

Washington- American abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were terrible, but they are not crimes on par with beheadings and other acts carried out by terrorists, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday.

First of all, Don, let's call it what it was: "torture".

Second, simply because you can find something worse doesn't mean the Abu Ghraib tortures were in any way made better. In fact, the two things have literally nothing to do with one another, and it's insulting to try to "put the Abu Ghraib tortures in perspective" by comparing them to what terrorists do.

There simply was no excuse for what we did at Abu Ghraib. And when I say "we", that is exactly what I mean: Sy Hersh's new book, which comes out on Monday, will make the clear case that the Bush administration knew about the abuses, and did nothing.

It is time that people such as Mr. Rumsfeld, who are burdened by such a morally bankrupt sense of right and wrong, are removed from positions of power. They have made this country immesurably less safe.

Couldn't they at least wait a couple of days, out of respect for the dead?

Coincidences are the strangest things ...

AP: 'U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000 mark' ... 4:27 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

AP: 'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election' ... 4:40 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004

Or if they don't respect the dead, how about out of respect for the intelligence of the American people?

Just how stupid do they think we are?

Talk about the politics of smear and fear:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Umm...wow. And they say the Kerry campaign is in a state of panic and disarray.

Sounds like someone has done the math, and is a little concerned that their bounce won't go the distance. Hence, yet more of the politics of anything goes.

As with Bush's continual misrepresentation of Kerry's position on Iraq, Cheney's statement indicates a campaign willing to say anything to win. Too bad they can't tell the difference between good campaigning and something that makes them look desperate.

On second thought, maybe that's not "too bad" after all--at least for the country.

The increase in the rate of American deaths in Iraq continues in September with today's deaths of seven marines thanks to a car bomb. These deaths bring the number of fatalities in September to 15 in the last six days, and the total number of U.S. deaths to 993. There's a good chance we'll pass the 1000 mark in the next few days. Will the media sit up and take notice?

The latest theme coming out of the Bush campaign is basically this: "Bush is focused on the future, Kerry is focused on the past". It's the theme they have to run with, since Bush's record in office is horrendous.

In driving this theme, Bush is capitalizing on his smears of Kerry.  By getting Kerry to focus on his Vietnam war record and the Vietnam records of Bush, Cheney and others, Bush is making it look like Kerry is obsessed with what happened 35 years ago.  They have correctly deduced that most voters want a discussion of something more recent, and by default, it would appear that Bush is the one doing that.

Kerry is getting all sorts of advice, from all sides, these days.  But here's some advice I hope he takes to heart:  Kerry himself, very badly, needs to focus entirely on re-directing any questions about his fitness for office to what's happened the last four years, and leave attacks on Vietnam-era service up to surrogates.

To his credit, Kerry already seems to know this: in his midnight speech, Kerry referred to "unfitness for command" as being defined by misleading the nation into Iraq and failing on the economy.  So I have much hope.

Now, a couple of words about this "forget the past!" theme.  This election, in essence, will be an employee evaluation.  As he has so many times in his life, George Bush would like to weasel out of his misdeeds and convince people that his evaluation should ignore his actual job performance, which has been worse than dismal.  No employer who wanted to stay afloat would ever fall for such a cheap gimmick.  And neither should we.

While it's certainly true that John Kerry has leaped to defend his biography from Bush distortions, Kerry is putting forth a comprehensive set of plans for the future.  His campaign is entirely about the future.  George Bush, by contrast, offers nothing but re-tread broken promises from his first term.

For John Kerry, "focusing on the future" means presenting a real plan to make America better.  For George Bush, "focusing on the future" means running from his past.  Take your pick.