The three participants in the third U.S. presidential debate last week pretended Iraq didn't exist, but if you go to a rally of supporters for either candidate it's the top issue talked about. Baghdad, a city in ruins, divided into ethnically cleansed fiefdoms of rubble, rats, and open sewage, a place where one risks death by walking outside, is managing major rallies of tens of thousands of people in opposition to the treaty to extend the occupation for three more years (and beyond) that is being negotiated by Bush and Maliki. And yet, the U.S. peace movement is largely hibernating until the November 4th U.S. elections, and the U.S. Congress remains almost entirely comatose.

To a consumer of U.S. corporate media this makes some sense. The occupation is for the benefit of the people of Iraq and, with the help of "the surge", it is "succeeding." President Bush is actually working on an "agreement" to "end" the "war." Peace activists should be celebrating, right?

To begin the reeducation process necessary to recognize such positions as sick jokes, I recommend the best history of the U.S. occupation of

Here’s the difference between vote fraud, which is real, and voter fraud, which, though almost nonexistent, has instantly gripped the popular imagination:

The former is a complex, internal problem of democracy, the acknowledgment of which requires us to face our national contradictions and inner demons, and, applying informed intelligence, demand changes in our system so it restrains our worst impulses and truly serves our ideals; the latter is a simple, mythical problem, a variation of the familiar “us vs. them” scenario that allows “us” to feel righteously threatened and strike at “them” (and their allies) with passion and force.

The two issues — one real and deeply troubling, the other false yet familiar and compelling — define, with what I would call barbed irony, our national juncture, which is headed toward a profound resolution on Election Day, less than three weeks hence.

David W. Moore, who worked for Gallup for 13 years as managing editor and senior editor of the Gallup Poll, has a new book out denouncing most polls by Gallup or anyone else as useless, and explaining that this became obvious to him when he first began work at Gallup, raising the obvious question of why he stuck around for 13 years. The explanation seems to be that he was trying to fix the problem, and one of the motivations for the book seems to be that he believes he still can fix it.

To the Editor:

I am a college student and have begun to make decisions that will affect the rest of my life as well as my children's lives. When I think about the state of our world I can't help but feel the weight of my personal responsibility to push for change, not only for my sake but for the sake of my future family. Scientists agree that at the very least we need to cut our global warming pollution 80 % by 2050 in order to avoid the most devastating effects of global warming. Right now, the elections are nearing, and I know that we need the candidates to make this their goal. I know that Steve Stivers and Mary Jo Kilroy, who are running for Congress, have talked about global warming quite a bit, but neither has committed to cutting our global warming pollution 80 % by 2050. Why would I vote for someone who isn't going to fight for a safer world and for our country's future?

Stephanie Smith
Columbus, Ohio

The Wall Street bailout that was supposed to save the economy from collapse is a flop.

Only weeks ago, the media hype behind the $700 billion bailout was so intense that it sometimes verged on hysteria. More recent events should not be allowed to obscure the reality that the news media played a pivotal role in stampeding the country into a bailout that was unwise and unjust.

Exceptions in the news coverage underscore the fact that other perspectives were readily available when the Bush administration began pushing its bailout proposal in late September. "Many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that if the Wall Street bailout passes, it would be a dangerous rush job," McClatchy Newspapers reported on Sept. 26. For instance, economist James K. Galbraith called the warnings of economic disaster in the absence of a swift bailout "more hype than real risk." He added: "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that."

When the House of Representatives rejected the bailout on Sept. 29, all media hell broke loose. During the next few days, journalists and