Tuesday, April 10, 2007

WHO'S BEHIND CRIMINAL BOT NETWORKS?


Interesting Tech article. I don't know much about this stuff but why don't anti-spam, virus and spy ware companies assemble teams to target these internet criminals? Also once these hackers demand money to be transfered via bank accounts can't law enforcement cooperate internationally to track down these dudes? It is in the best interest of the online community and e-commerce for government and business to work together and give due attention to this issue.

"Posted: Tuesday, April 10 at 07:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan
They have infected perhaps 100 million computers with viruses, turning the PCs around the world into an army of willing criminal assistants known as “bots.” They are using those PCs to send out billions of spam e-mails and make millions of dollars by attacking Web sites and extorting their owners. They have even attacked the core computers that keep the Internet running smoothly. Who are they?

The answer to that question is elusive, but there are a few clues.
In part one of this series, we described the epidemic of hijacked computers that’s swept the Internet. Controlled by malicious programs, the computers are turned into robots, or bots, that are directed by criminals known as bot herders.

Part two looked at how profitable the bot business has become, leading hackers to engage in gang warfare in cyberspace for control of these hijacked computers -- a digital battle that has spilled out onto the Internet’s Main Street.

Today, we examine who is behind these networks of infected computers.
For years, computer hackers typically were precocious, anti-social teen-agers who committed digital violence just to get attention. But computer crime has grown up, and grown into a big business. Now it is used by highly organized gangs to steal millions of dollars.

The top gangs, most agree, are in Russia, Eastern Europe and Brazil, although there also are a few up-and-coming cybercrime syndicates in Asia.

Cybercriminals tend to be talented computer programmers who can make much more money stealing than working, the experts agree. There is so much money to be made in cybercrime that some observers speculate that terrorists are using it to raise money and support their organizations.
Computer security experts disagree on whether terrorists are involved in cybercrime, but there is one sure sign that computer crime has become a much more sober affair: Many experts interviewed for this story shied away from talking about the topic of who’s behind botnets, pointing to concerns for family safety.

"When I got into this, it was kind of a game," said one expert who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Now, it's very serious. I wouldn't want my name attached (to comments about the topic)."
That's a new sentiment in an industry that has often been criticized for using hyperbole to generate publicity.
Recruited by professionals
Bot herders are still typically young – perhaps 18 to 25 -- often only a little bit older than a teenage hacker, says David Marcus, security research and communications manager with McAfee. They are nearly always men. And they often live in an area where traditional, big-money computing jobs are difficult to find.
"There are limited ways to make money," he said. "This is the way for them to make a lot." Marcus said he thinks organized crime is behind a lot of bot activity, but Mafiosi aren’t coding Trojan horse programs. Instead, their money funds hacker operations and is used to recruit computer savvy youngsters, he believes.

CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT
THE LOWDOWN ON 'BOTS'IS YOUR COMPUTER A CRIMINAL?FIVE TIPS TO BOLSTER VISTA SECURITY"They watch for bright kids and they start them on small tasks, like ‘Find me 100 passwords and I'll give you 1,000 rubles,’” he said.
In more aggressive recruitment programs, organized crime will actually pay for a computer geek to get through college, essentially a hacker scholarship, said Marcus.
Some say there are as many as 45,000 different botnets sending out spam and being used for other cybercrimes, but Professor Randy Vaughn of Baylor University said he believes there are as few as six or seven major bot gangs and as few as 1,000 criminals controlling all the infected computers.

“And the number of genuine genius bot programmers is probably much smaller than that,” he said. “In each group there are a few geniuses and there are a bunch of groupies who hang around on the botnet and attempt to gain credibility with the botnet operators.”
The groupies hope to learn enough that they can control their own vast botnets, but in the meantime they act as money handlers or perform other menial tasks for the “genius” programmers, Vaughn said.

E-commerce nightmare. Bot herders aren't necessarily spammers, but the two are often linked, as virtually all spam is now sent from hijacked computers, experts say.
The Spamhaus top 10 list of worst spammers is now populated by Russians, Ukrainians and a Chinese ring.

Craig Schiller, a professor at Portland State University and author of “Botnets: The Killer Web Applications,” said those who designed the Internet wanted a system that would allow buyers and sellers to connect from around the globe. They had no idea that the network would become a platform for global crime, he said.
“This is the e-commerce that people dreamed about but didn't realize it was a nightmare,” said Schiller.
The arrest of three Russian bot herders last year offers a rare glimpse into the world where such nightmares are born.
Three men -- Alexander Petrov, Denis Stepanov and Ivan Maksakov – spent a year terrorizing e-commerce sites as part of a ring of 16 criminals. The ring used armies of computers to overwhelm gambling Web sites and other firms that could ill-afford Internet down time, then extorted money from the operators to halt the traffic flood.
Mikko Hypponen, a security expert at F-Secure, acted as a consultant to one victim, an online CD and DVD retailer. The store eventually paid a ransom of $40,000 to get its site back, he said.
In all, the hackers took in about $3.9 million in payments, according to evidence presented at their trial.
“And many companies invested much, much more paying to build a defense against these attacks,” Hypponen said. Russian media estimated the total damages caused by the group at $79 million.
The ransom money was wired in small amounts to 10 different bank accounts in Riga, Latvia, Hypponen said. So-called “money mules” – middle men who simply help move stolen money from one account to another, usually crossing borders along the way – picked it up from these accounts and wired the money to accounts in St. Petersburg or Moscow.
Another set of mules eventually brought the money to the small city of Balakov in western Russia. It was in Balakov that Maksakov, a 22-year-old student at the Balakov Institute of Engineering, Technology and Management, issued orders for the botnet attacks, according to Russian media reports. But while the orders were given in Balakov, the main computer server that controlled the attack was in Houston.
Russian police nabbed the threesome with the help of Scotland Yard by following the money trail, Hypponen said.
The three Russians were sentenced to eight years apiece in jail by a Balakov court last fall. But Hypponen said most of the gang remains at large, including several suspects in Kazakhstan.
Their exploits don’t rival those of Brazilian gangs, experts say. In 2005, more than 50 Brazilians were arrested after allegedly stealing $33 million with targeted, Trojan horse program that stole online banking passwords.
Domingo Montanaro, a computer forensics expert and banking consultant in Sao Paolo, Brazil, said Internet crime gangs there operate almost with impunity. In a recent case, he said, he helped nab a ring of 100 criminals that had gained access to 10,000 Brazilian bank accounts.
“Criminals in Brazil do some incredible stuff because police cannot fight them anymore,” he said. “They are not even using techniques to hide themselves. We only arrest maybe 3 or 4 percent of them.”
Driven by revenge
Some attacks are driven by revenge as well as financial gain.
Last year, a noted Russian spammer nicknamed PharmaMaster – he usually advertises pharmaceuticals – felt his business was endangered by a Silicon Valley anti-spam startup named Blue Security.
PharmaMaster initiated an attack that crippled Blue Security’s Web site. The firm countered by placing information about the attack on its corporate blog, hosted by popular blog site TypePad, owned by Six Apart Ltd. PharmaMaster then hired a bot herder to conduct a denial-of-service attack that shut down all of Six Apart’s blogs, including those hosted on its Typepad.com service.
Eventually, Blue Security surrendered and got out of the business of anti-spam software.
“PharmaMaster paid $1 million to take out Blue Security,” or about $2,000 an hour for the attack, said Schiller, the Portland State professor. “But (PharmaMaster) was making $3 million a month, so it was worth it.”
At the time, security experts said the Blue Security attack was so severe that only a few of the world’s largest corporations would have been able to withstand it.
Given the power that the bot herders wield, questions inevitably arise about whether terrorists are behind such crimes. There is no clear answer, and security experts are divided on the issue.
Terrorism link?
The discussion was energized by Gartner security analyst Avivah Litan last month, when she issued a report describing the recent arrest of about 50 hackers in Egypt and Lebanon.
“My hypothesis is that the computer brains are still in Russia and Eastern Europe, but some of their operations are being financed by terror organizations. I am hearing that,” she said. “If you were terrorists, wouldn’t you get in touch with these guys?”
Hypponen disagrees, saying there isn’t any evidence that terrorists are playing with bot networks.
“Sure it could happen some day. But I don’t have any information, or even any hearsay, that links this to terrorism,” he said.
There is plenty of evidence that organizations like al-Qaida are willing to use the Internet to get attention or to communicate, counters Schiller.
“I’d be surprised if (terrorists) weren’t using these (botnets),” he said. “In their charters they talk about using terrorism to further their aims. They are inclined to use technology against us; it is a huge force multiplier for them.”
Botnets are indeed a textbook example of a “force multiplier” -- one computer, telling 100 other computers, telling 10,000 others computers to attack someone or something.
That makes it inevitable that terrorists bent on disrupting communications and financial systems will at least attempt to harness their power.
But while terrorism’s link to botnets is tenuous at best, there is no doubt that real-world criminals already are using them to make big money. And given the alarm bells being rung in almost all corners of the computer security world, it seems likely that the botnet problem is going to get worse before it gets better. "

comments welcome

Will Bush Compromise on Iraq?

Political

Bush urges talks over war funding, warns clock is ticking
Source: Agence France Presse 04/10/2007
FAIRFAX, Virginia, April 10, 2007 (AFP) -

US President George W. Bush on Tuesday invited leading US lawmakers to talks to end a stalemate over funding the unpopular war in Iraq, warning there was no time to lose.

Leading Democrats, while not refusing the invitation outright, said they would reject any talks with preset conditions in the dispute over a war spending bill that includes a schedule for troop pullout from Iraq.

"When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste," Bush said, inviting "leaders from ... both political parties, to meet with me at the White House next week."

"I know we have our differences over the best course. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need," he said during a visit to war veterans in Fairfax, Virginia, close to Washington.

Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, are trying to end the war in Iraq by tying military funding to a withdrawal of US troops in 2008.

The House and Senate, which have both passed bills with different deadlines, must iron out the differences between their bills and send one to the president for his signature to become law.
With Iraq this week marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would reject any talks with preset conditions.

"The president is inviting us to the White House with preconditions. It's not the way we should operate. He must deal with Congress, we are an independent branch of government," Reid said.

The White House was careful to make clear that the invitation did not signal any readiness to compromise, and Bush repeated his vow to veto any legislation that ties release of war spending funds to a timetable for troop withdrawal.

"We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops, without an artificial timetable for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground," Bush said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stressed that the president's invitation was "not a meeting in order to compromise."

"This is a meeting to discuss the way forward. Because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the president's veto. And at the same time they say that they want to fund the troops," she added.

"Maybe they need to hear again from the president about ... why he thinks that it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal."

In a joint statement Reid issued with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they said "any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions.

"The president is demanding we renew his blank check for war without end ... we renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."

Perino called the Democrats' statement "a knee-jerk reaction that's unfortunate."
Bush has called on a skeptical public to give his new "surge" strategy time to work, saying the commanders on the ground in Iraq were already seeing "encouraging signs" that an extra 25,000 troops being deployed in the country were helping to secure Baghdad.

"The Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field," Bush warned.

He said the military would soon notify Congress, which holds the power of the purse, that the army would need to transfer 1.6 billion dollars from other military accounts to cover the shortfall.

This was on top of 1.7 billion dollars already transferred in March, the president said.
If by May no bill on funding the war has been passed into law, the army could have to slow or freeze funding for depots where equipment is repaired and mull a delay to military training programs, Bush said.

"These actions are only the beginning. And the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces will be," Bush said.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Obama's Hilary Youtube video

Barrack Obama's campaign produced a negative video opposing Hilary Clinton on youtube. If this is the "hopeful" tone his campaign expects to take along with his zero results as a Senator then I'd advise Mr. Obama today to drop out of the race for president.

Snoop Dogg Says: ''F*ck Bill O'Reilly!'' TBOHipHop.net

Bill O'Reilly definately is a prick. Snoop Dog has a Constitutional right to own a gun.

Bill O'Reilly spends all this time critizing others while he is a sexual harraser. O'Reilly needs another job.

U.N. Climate Report on Global Warming


"There is a 90% of certainity behing global warming. " This finding was not produced by a meeting of tree huggers but it was reached through international consensus, including the United States.


After five days of debate and an all-night, down-to-the-wire battle, scientists and government officials from around the world agreed Friday to a new report outlining the effects of global warming on the planet.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations scientific group, released its findings Friday in Brussels, Belgium. Although haggling over the fine print diluted some of the original language, the final report is stark in its depiction of what's in store for the planet: flooding, droughts, extinctions of plants and animals, and high costs for everyone.


This is the fourth report from the U.N. climate panel in 17 years, and it has proved to be one of the hardest-hitting ones. The first chapter came out in February after tough negotiations. It said that scientists are more than 90 percent sure that humans are warming the planet.


In the latest report, the panel addressed the impacts of global warming, and what their assessment turned up is troubling: Many coastal communities will flood. Severe droughts will damage crops, and there will be stronger storms, hurricanes and heat waves. Many coral reefs will die, and many of the world's plants and animals will be at higher risk of extinction.


But scientists who wrote the report wanted to say they had "very high confidence" in their findings. That means they think they have a nine out of 10 chance of being right. That started a fight, according to Patricia Romero Lankao, one of the scientific authors, who works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.


"Some countries, like China and Saudi Arabia, didn't want to accept our statement that it was very likely that global warming was causing those impacts on physical and biological systems," Lankao said.


China is expected to pass the United States as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saudi Arabia owns the largest reserves of oil. Officials representing China and Saudi Arabia won that fight, striking the word "very" and reducing certainty to eight out of 10.


Lankao says European scientists also wanted to stress how seriously the economies of poor nations in particular would be damaged, and how little they actually contributed to warming compared to industrialized countries. Lankao says the U.S. delegation sought to tone down that language.
Despite the compromises, the final document makes it clear that big impacts are on the way, and that the world is already changing.


"Examples are earlier melting of lake ice in the Great Lakes and later freezing; plants, flowers blooming sooner; the migratory patterns of birds changing — mostly distinctly through the second half of the 20th century," says climate scientist Linda Mearns, also from the atmospheric center in Colorado, who contributed to the study.


Friday's report moves the climate debate into new territory, she added.
"The real heart of the climate change issue is now shifting more from the climate science, the physical science, and more into the impacts, and then also issues of mitigation, about how we reduce greenhouse gases," she said.


The IPCC report isn't all dire news. Some temperate regions, such as North America, will see longer growing seasons for crops, for example. But effects will differ regionally. In a study published this week in the journal Science, climate researcher Richard Seager at Columbia University says the southwestern United States could see the kind of long-term drought that caused the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.


"The overall pattern, if you were going to distill it down to something very simple, is that the drier regions get drier and the wet regions get wetter," Seager said.
Many of the hardest-hit regions are where the poor live — in Africa and in many other parts of the tropics. But climate scientist Mearns says wealthy countries such as the United States shouldn't think they'll escape.


"Poor populations within a country will probably suffer more," Mearns said. "And of course, one can take the example of Katrina — and the people who suffered most there were the poorer residents."
There's more to come from the U.N. panel. They'll report in May on what kinds of things can be done to lessen the impacts of climate change.

Commentary: The G.W. Bush administration asserts that technology will solve problems with climate change. Such a policy is baseless with no sincere intention to address the issue. At the end of 8 years of Republican governance the United States has produced nor promoted any significant technology to combat glaobal warming. Policy must be change now, it is possible for government and business to lead such a change in far less than 8 years.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

What’s up in Dubai




American business is far to concerned with setting up shop in Dubai (Middle East).

First they were involved in a political matter of controlling a U.S port . , then Halliburton moved its headquarters there and now GE is boasting of its investments in Dubai.

Call me a protectionist but I will be the first to say that globalization and outsourcing are robbing Americans of high paying jobs.

India clearing economic zones


Political


India to restart clearing economic zones
Source: Agence France Presse
04/05/2007


"NEW DELHI, April 5, 2007 (AFP) -

India lifted a freeze on scores of economic zones on Thursday imposed following deadly protests, but promised there would be no forcible acquisition of land for the enclaves.

The government suspended land clearances for special economic zones (SEZs) last month following clashes between protesting farmers and the police who were sent to clear land for a petrochemical hub in the Marxist ruled eastern West Bengal state.

Fourteen people were killed when police opened fire in Nandigram, a village 120 kilometres (75 miles) south of West Bengal state capital Kolkata.

"We are not stopping any (SEZ) process," Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said.

But following the protests at Nandigram and other proposed SEZ sites, Nath told reporters "no state can compulsorily acquire land from farmers" and said the onus had now shifted onto the developers.

Instead of the government acquiring land, promoters would have to approach landowners and acquire property at commercial rates.

The government said permission would be now be given for 83 SEZs and India's Board of Approvals will consider 162 SEZs which already have initial approval, along with 140 new applications.

Approval would be given to applications where there was no land dispute, the government said. 63 SEZs have already received final clearance.

The SEZ scheme to give foreign firms Chinese-style tax-free enclaves to push industrialisation has met with massive protests from landowners.

Nath also announced a cap of 5,000 hectares (12,350 acres) for SEZs.

The farmers' protests have sparked a debate over whether farmland should be used for industry in India, where some two-thirds of the billion-plus population live off agriculture.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last month that his government would not reverse plans to create SEZs although the federal government has promised to come up with a compensation package for displaced villagers.

In eastern Orissa state which borders West Bengal, 13 protesters died last January when authorities forcibly tried to clear land of tribal people.

Industry lobbies hailed the government's move, but the communists criticised it.

The Confederation of Indian Industry said it hoped it would "end the ambiguity about the future of SEZs."

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said the decision "will clear uncertainties and give a clear signal that SEZs are here to stay."

The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry president Venugopal N Dhoot said clearing the SEZ proposals "will accelerate economic activities for increased production and exports."

But India's Communist Party of India -- lending crucial support to the Congress-led government in New Delhi and partners of the Marxist administration in West Bengal -- slammed the decision.

"How can the empowered group of ministers take a decision in such an ad hoc manner" when a parliamentary committee is still debating the SEZ policy, a report quoted Communist Party of India's national secretary D Raja as saying.

"We do not think that this sort of ad hoc decision ... will help in any way," Raja said. "

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Bush vs Reid on Iraq


While President G.W. Bush threatens a veto of legislation containing timetables for withdrawing soldiers out of Iraq, the Democratic Leader Senator Harry Reid finds his balls. His response to the President is a threat to completely cut off funding for the Iraq War. This is truly good politics. Much better than the corrupt rubber stamp Congress of old. I believe the Democrats are finally finding some back bone. "Give 'em Hell Harry"!


Political

Bush to push back at Democrats over Iraq deadline
Source: Agence France Presse 04/03/2007
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2007 (AFP) -


President George W. Bush is expected to remain defiant Tuesday one day after Democrats hardened their position on linking Iraq war funding to a troop pullout deadline.

Bush is scheduled to make a statement on the over-100 billion dollar Iraq and Afghanistan war budget legislation at around 10:10 am (1410 GMT) after weeks of demanding the funding without the Democrat's added requirement for a timetable to end the US presence in Iraq.

For weeks Bush has threatened to veto the legislation which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate in two versions, and now awaits reconciliation into one bill before being forwarded to Bush.

On Monday Senate Democrats raised the stakes in the bitter fight themselves, unveiling a new bid to cut off nearly all funding for the Iraq war after March 31, 2008 if Bush vetoes the bill they plan to submit to the White House.

Co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Russ Feingold, the new Democrat measure would cut funding for most Iraq war operations after March 31, 2008, the date already set as a goal for withdrawal of most combat troops in the 122 billion war budget bill passed by the Senate.

It would permit funding only for operations against Al-Qaeda, training and equipping Iraqi troops and protecting US personnel and installations.

"If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period," Reid said.

Feingold said in an email message to supporters that the bill would use "Congress's constitutional 'power of the purse' authority to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008."
"Our bill funds the troops, it just de-funds the war," he said.

The legislation, to be officially unveiled on April 10 when the Senate returns from its Easter break, would almost certainly face a veto by Bush.

But it is a high-stakes poker game: Democrats lack majorities required to overcome a Bush veto, and they are depending on widespread fatigue over the war to keep the public on their side.
But the White House is playing strongly to the public as well, declaring that Congress was going to deny US soldiers adequate funding to do their jobs, and meanwhile give the enemy a timetable to take over.

Vice President Dick Cheney warned Monday the United States faced defeat in Iraq if Democrats succeed in imposing withdrawal.

It's time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you're going to quit," Cheney said in prepared remarks.
"When members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy to simply watch the clock and wait us out," he charged.
"It's time for Congress to stop the political theater and send the president a bill he can sign into law."
But Democrats said it was necessary if Bush fails to bow to the public will.

"We'll fund the war in three month increments. We're going to keep you on a tighter string," said Senator Barack Obama.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the public no longer supported the war.
"As more and more Americans demand to see the troops get out of what is clearly a civil war, this administration stubbornly continues to stick its head in the sand," Manley said.
Democratic and Senate negotiators are spending the current recess in Congress reconciling the House and Senate versions of the budget bill that can be sent to Bush's desk.
The House version of the war budget contains a withdrawal deadline of August 31, 2008.

Feature:Bush aide says faith was misplaced


I believe this article to be significant insight and persuading information in support of those of us who are so firmly opposed to the policies and presidency of G.W. Bush. These statements are from Matthew Dowd, a former lead participant in putting Bush into the White House. It seems that Dowd needed “spring cleaning for his soul”.


Matthew Dowd slams president's actions, isolationism
Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
Sunday, April 1, 2007


(04-01) 04:00 PDT Austin, Texas -- In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush's early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.


A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Bush's political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president's chief campaign strategist.


Looking back, Dowd now says his faith in Bush was misplaced.


In a wide-ranging interview in Austin, Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Bush's leadership.


He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Bush still approached governing with a "my way or the highway" mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.
"I really like him, which is probably why I'm so disappointed in things," he said. "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."


In speaking out, Dowd became the first member of Bush's inner circle to break so publicly with him.
He said his decision to step forward had not come easily. But, he said, his disappointment in Bush's presidency is so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Bush gain and keep power.


Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Sen. John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.


"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do -- to me, by God; other people call it karma -- is to restore balance when things didn't turn out the way they should have," Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."


Dowd's journey from true believer to critic in some ways tracks the public arc of Bush's political fortunes. But it is also an intensely personal story of a political operative who at times, by his account, suppressed his doubts about his professional role but then confronted them as he dealt with loss and sorrow in his own life.


In the last several years, as he has gradually broken his ties with the Bush camp, one of Dowd's prematurely born twin daughters died; he and his second wife divorced; and he watched his oldest son prepare for deployment to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist fluent in Arabic. Dowd said he had become so disillusioned with the war that he had considered joining street demonstrations against it, but that his continued personal affection for the president had kept him from joining protests to which anti-Bush fervor is so central.


Dowd, 45, said he hoped in part that by coming forward he would be able to get a message through to a presidential inner sanctum that he views as increasingly isolated. But, he said, he holds out no great hope that he will succeed.


Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Dowd's criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war. "It's an issue that divides people," Bartlett said. "Even people that supported the president aren't immune from having their own feelings and emotions."


He said he disagreed with Dowd's description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal. He said Dowd, a friend, has "sometimes expressed these sentiments" in private conversation, though "not in such detail."


Dowd said he decided to become a Republican in 1999 and joined Bush after watching him work closely with Bob Bullock, the Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas, who was a political client of Dowd's.


"It's almost like you fall in love," he said. "I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy's personality -- he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration."


Dowd established himself as an expert at interpreting polls, giving Karl Rove, the president's closest political adviser, and the rest of the Bush team guidance as they set out to woo voters, slash opponents and exploit divisions between Democratic-leaning states and Republican-leaning ones.


He said he thought Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice." He was dumbfounded when Bush did not fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after revelations that American soldiers had tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


Several associates said Dowd chafed under Rove's leadership. Dowd said he had not spoken to Rove in months but would not discuss their relationship in detail.


Dowd said, in retrospect, he was in denial. "When you fall in love like that," he said, "and then you notice some things that don't exactly go the way you thought, what do you do? Like in a relationship, you say, 'No, no, no, it'll be different.' "


He said he clung to the hope that Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won re-election. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory. He describes the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, and the president's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war protester whose son died fighting in Iraq, as Bush entertained the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his ranch in Crawford as further cause for doubt.


"I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up," he said. "That it's not the same, it's not the person I thought."


He said that during his work on the 2006 re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, which had a bipartisan appeal, he began to rethink his approach to elections.
"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," he said, "but bring the country together as a whole."


He said that he still believed campaigns must do what it takes to win, but that he was never comfortable with the most hard-charging tactics. He is now calling for "gentleness" in politics. He said that while he tried to keep his own conduct respectful during political combat, he wanted to "do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been part of."


This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle