After only a year on the job, the nation’s top cybersecurity guru quit “amid a concerted campaign by the technology industry and some lawmakers to persuade the Bush administration to give him more authority and money for protection programs.”

But it seems Amit Yoran and George Bush were never made to get along.

Both were born to a life of privilege, but while Bush chose to party and had no interest – until even just a couple of years ago – in foreign policy, Amit never had an interest in things like drugs and was focused from early on on foreign affairs.

While President Bush chose the typical rich boy Ivy League route by going to Yale, Amit chose to serve his country by going to West Point.

While President Bush did as much as possible to avoid having to serve in the military – fleeing to the Texas Air National Guard, and even fleeing AWOL from there – Amit fought to overcome scholastic and physical challenges to fight his way into West Point.

While George Bush was handed businesses by his daddy’s friends and one by one ran them into the ground, Amit started a company on his own and quickly grew it into a massive success.

And while President Bush is a newcomer to “conservative” values and political ideas, only coming to them after 40-plus years of being an unambitious, uninterested alcoholic – and even then only embracing the dishonest, fully-flawed Rush Limbaugh version of conservatism – Amit has always been a moderate socially and conservative politically, and his conservative politics are based on solid ideals and a belief in certain policies that has been borne over years of active consideration and experience.

So in the end the question is not, “Will Amit Yoran make a good chief of cybersecurity for the Department of Homeland Security?”

He will, and, not being a Bush-brand Republican but a true, morally sound moderate, he can be trusted not to abuse his position or attack in the way the hateful, paranoid Ashcroft does.

Yoran’s days were numbered from the day he took the job.

There’s plenty of good analysis about the debate (just not in my beloved Washington Post). Josh Marshall’s take is pretty good.

While most observers say Kerry achieved what he wanted, i.e., to look and sound like a credible commander-in-chief, the real test comes in the next few days to see if the GOP can spin it otherwise. I suspect the one quote you’ll hear the right talk about was when Kerry said a pre-emptive strike must “pass a global test.” He seemed to regret the words as soon as they came out. My guess is that is one of the phrases that will be in the president’s speeches, perhaps an ad and certainly in the right wing cable TV and radio echo chamber. Kerry better have a quick answer.

But Kerry still has work to do. He did not address the mangled “I voted for it, before I against it” syntax. He had the chance and could have said, “I always supported the $67 million for our soldiers but I thought the additional $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction should have come from rich taxpayers who’ve never been asked to sacrifice for this war. I voted for the bill when they were asked to join our soldiers in sacrifice, but when the president said he didn’t want them to sacrifice and backed a competing bill, I voted against it as a protest.”

Kerry also needs to look at the camera. Speak to the people, not to the moderator. TV commentators always respond to questions from the host by turning directly to the camera. Bush was better at this.

He also needs to ridicule the president more. He should make a point of trying to make light of his not including Poland in the alliance – as if they are critical. And when he talks about allies he should refer to them as “world power” allies, to make the distinction between them and Costa Rica et al. He could also use the quote Kevin Drum uncovered.

Here’s what President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland thinks of the coalition today: “They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.”

While the rules say he can’t address Bush directly, he should occasionally look directly at Bush when speaking. I’ll bet that will rattle Bush or cause him to give us one of his unforgettable faces, perhaps the “My Pet Goat” deer-in-the-headlights stare.

Kerry also need to make the point in the town hall debate that he says he’ll win the war in Iraq only because he is responsible enough to know that just because Bush made a monumental mistake we can’t walk away from it, but that we’ll be cleaning up after Bush for a long time to come and Bush must be held accountable.

A second university has rescinded its invitation to filmmaker Michael Moore to speak after protests from conservatives.

President Alan Merten of George Mason University in my community of Fairfax, Va. said of Moore, whose film “9/11 Fahrenheit” was critical of Bush, “It would have been well within our right to [invite Moore],” according to The Washington Post article — but that Merten decided it “was not the wisest use of state money.” California State University-San Marcos, near San Diego, also recently caved to pressure.

The snub came after two of the Virginia state legislature’s most conservative members, Republicans Dick Black of Loudoun County and Bob Marshall of Prince William County, complained.

Word spread quickly, and after complaints from the legislators and some members of the community reached the office of President Alan G. Merten this week, the school announced that the event, coming so close to the presidential election, would be “an inappropriate use of state resources.”

A few things are important here:

One, Moore is coming anyway but obviously won’t be paid a fee by GMU. Who will sponsor his appearance isn’t clear. But my guess is he’ll have a bigger audience because of the flap.

Two, the obvious capitulation of an academic institution that is supposed to be a place where all views are heard sends a chilling message to students and faculty. The state-funded GMU is fast becoming overcrowded and only this year got an infusion of cash after Democrats and moderate Republicans formed an alliance to pass new tax measure. Merten may have feared that having Moore could result in legislation in the next Assembly cutting his funds.

Three, The Post story, co-written by one of the newspapers laziest reporters, Lisa Rein, makes no attempt to find out if conservative speakers were paid to speak at the university. The story broke Wednesday. So reporters had time to do a little research and ask for a list of speakers GMU has paid in the past couple of years. But they either declined to do so or were unsuccessful, a point they should have made in the story. The reporters included a comment from a GMU student who agreed with the decision to cancel the speech to but did give voice to any faculty or student opposed to the cancellation.

But that’s typical of Rein’s conservative and lazy reporting.

I and I’m sure others will be trying to find out who has spoken at GMU.

Care to complain? Here’s GMU President Alan Merten’s email address: amerten@gmu.edu

The Washington Post continues its “For the Record” series today with a debate “primer,” telling us where the two candidates misrepresent the issues. It’s a perfect example of how the headline writers, striving for “balance,” sway the debate. If you read the headline and the sub-head, one might be tempted to not read the article and say pox on both your houses. Both sides lie would be a fair conclusion.

The headline is “A Primer for Tonight’s First Debate, but the sub-head is “Both Bush and Kerry Have Set the Stage With Some Misleading Claims.”

But when you read the article, roughly 80 percent of the text that debunks either’s claims or attacks is about Bush’s exaggerations, false implications and outright lies.

But to say that Bush is by far the more dishonest wouldn’t be considered partisan. And the headline writers, who I suspect are more junior journalists, don’t want to be accused of playing favorites. So what we get is misinformation.

According to a report that just aired on NPR’s “All Things Considered,” the Pentagon has posted on its web site the official totals for dead and wounded in Iraq. Dead: 1,152; wounded: More than 7,500.

Apparently a lot more according to the report. One count (I didn’t catch the reference) is that 20,245 military personnel have been so injured that they had to be transferred to hospitals in Europe and the U.S.

Many of the wounded lie in hospitals with diseases and injuries that prevent them doing something as simple as tying their shoes. The story will be available around 7:30 this evening.

Don’t expect much from tonight’s debate. They’re so scripted that the substance is expected to be versions of the stump speech. That will leave reporters looking at how the candidates stand, sweat and look at and to the home audience. “Who won” will be the bottom line for most journalists, and most of them will decide that based on whose post-debate spin they believe.

Jay Rosen writes about how the media will cover the debates and cites one reporter whose is charting his own path. As the Miami Herald reported,

Some experienced reporters shun the spin. In fact, Adam Nagourney, The New York Times’ national political correspondent, is going to watch the debate and write his story from his office in Washington.

”I avoid Spin Alley at all costs,” he said. “I think it’s degrading for reporters and degrading for political operatives.

“What’s important to me is what the candidates say. I don’t care about anyone else.”

There are links within Rosen’s post that are worth exploring. Comparing Nagourney’s report with those of the talking heads after the debates could be elucidating.

Some think most bloggers “are not fit to carry a reporter’s notebook.” But ask some veteran reporters what they would ask Bush and Kerry at the debates and you don’t get anything more compelling that the average pajama-wearing blogger would ask. Instead, you get a lot of versions of the “still beat your wife?” question.

Except for Jack Germond, former political columnist for The Baltimore Sun.

For Bush: “You have depicted the war in Iraq as a patriotic cause, so why haven’t you urged your daughters and other young people in your family and administration to help fight it?”

Amen.

So much for the judicial use of anonymous sources by The Washington Post. But in this case, it’s somewhat understandable, given that most of the sources are either of current or past intelligence officers. By talking to the press, even is they are retired, there could be dire consequences. And given this administration’s track record, e.g., Joe Wilson, it’s good bet there would be vindictive consequences.

The story’s lede is unequivocal.

A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.

Kevin Drum has a summary of some of the comments, if you don’t want to read the whole story. But I recommend reading it. The entirety of the charge is overwhelming.

The administration’s sunny optimism, even that based on false evidence as Wilson pointed out, is getting a boost from CBS, according to FAIR. CBS is holding a story about the “forged documents that the Bush administration used to sell the Iraq war….”

CBS, which in the past refused to run MoveOn’s ad about the Bush deficits during the Super Bowl (and gave us Janet Jackson’s breast instead) and pulled the Regan documentary after pressure from the GOP that it was too critical, decided the timing was off.

A network spokesperson issued a statement declaring, “We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election.”

Why in the world would a news organization withhold information because it’s too close to an election? Are they afraid it might hurt the candidate they love? FAIR says that’s a legitimate question.

Maybe CBS is too embarrassed after being duped by false documents about Bush’s national Guard service, or lack thereof. But FAIR points to another reason.

Sumner Redstone, CEO of CBS’s parent company Viacom, made an unusual political statement at a gathering of corporate leaders in Hong Kong (Asian Wall Street Journal, 9/24/04):

“I don’t want to denigrate Kerry… but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people…. But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company.”

Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):

“There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

According to a write-up by Forbes (9/23/04)– the sponsor of the conference where Redstone issued his endorsement of Bush– the CEO asserted that “he never gets involved in any aspects of the network’s news coverage.” But that claim, hard to believe when made by any media industry chief executive, seems particularly dubious given Forbes’ report that ”Redstone said he has been talking daily to top CBS officials and to Viacom board members about the controversy” over the Guard memos.

Ironically, the report was supposed to air the night CBS’ “60 Minutes” ran the story about Bush’s National Guard service.

You can write CBS at 60m@cbsnews.com or call them at 212.975.3247 to complain about the network’s bias.

John Ashcroft has decided to get the phone records of two New York Times reporters in an investigation of leaks to them about a planned raid upon, and freezing assets of, Islamic organizations shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

When the Justice Dept. couldn’t obtain them from the Times, the DOJ says they’ll get them “from third parties unlikely to be interested in challenging its authority.” Sounds like the phone (“We don’t care ‘cause we don’t have to”) company to me.

It’s just another example of the loss of freedom we’re suffering under this administration. It’s blatant attempt to intimidate sources who will worry that if they talk to reporters, the DOJ can at any time get records that would expose them. Do we really want John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and George Bush to have that power?

I’ve mentioned Jon Stewart as one of the most incisive observers of the body politic. But the Columbia Journalism Review’s Campaign Desk blog goes one step further, naming Stewart among the top ten reporters covering the campaign.

Not bad for a guy who would never call himself a reporter but a “dancing monkey.”

Update: More on Jon Stewart from Jay Rosen at PressThink. The entire post is worth a read.

Jon Stewart, who is in every sense a professional, is part of this plurality. He delivers a take on the news that is more truthful than the news for a good hunk of the audience. And so Stewart is cited by Campaign Desk for some of the most original work of the year. Often, he’s more believable than both the candidates or the press.

It’s possible to describe The Daily Show as just one more source of information about politics. But it’s really a competing system of trust for viewers in a Spin Age. Stewart’s executive producer Ben Karlin: “Many people in this country have strong bullshit detectors. For some reason, most major media outlets have turned theirs off out of fear of being labeled partisan.”

Another Update: It now seems that Jon Stewart’s audience is smarter. Of course smarter than whom? you may ask. Well, we admit, smarter than Bill O’Reilly’s audience. Not really fair, huh. If that’s the criteria, my son’s goldfish is smarter.