The Sickening Repugnance Of “Dr. No”

November 6, 2009

(I may just be posting videos here for a little while; I don’t know more about that at the moment.)

I get really tired of our corporate media treating Tom Coburn as if he’s just some oddball curiosity in the U.S. Senate. He’s a dangerously unhinged individual who frequently acts in an irreparably harmful way towards his own constituents as well as those of the country as a whole. And if anyone chooses not to inform themselves about that and remain utterly ignorant, that’s their fault.

This post from Think Progress tells us that he’s put “holds” on several veterans benefits bills because he wanted to divert money from unspent “stimulus” funds on them (Coburn opposed the “stim,” of course).

(Note: I transcribed this from the TP post, but I have a feeling that the issue is that Coburn isn’t the one who wants to divert the funds, but the issue is that he’s blocking the “stim” funds from being diverted for our veterans, though that’s a bit unclear.)

This unconscionable act hurts individuals such as the person profiled in the video below, as well as many, many others who have made great sacrifices for our country.

The fact that this individual continues to take up space in the U.S. Senate is a damning indictment of those who voted for him, and our country generally for continuing to tolerate his presence (click here for more).

Update 11/9/09: Good for Akaka, Tester and Begich for this.


A “Friday Funny” On Iraq (Sort Of)

October 2, 2009

Yesterday at The Weakly Standard, I came across this item…

Goldfarb_Iraq_Victory

(Update: The text in the red block says “This is what victory looks like”; didn’t realize that that would be hard to read – sorry…)

What good news, I thought to myself.

So I clicked on the link and it took me to this article by Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, in which we learn the following…

All U.S. military actions in Iraq now occur “by, with and through” the Iraqi security forces, “within the framework of the security agreement.” (Gen. Raymond Odierno) praised the departure of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities on June 30 as a “major milestone” whose “positive psychological impact has been profound.” He called the Iraqi security forces capable.

Nine months after implementing the security agreement and three months after leaving the cities “we continue to make consistent…progress,” Odierno said. Reduced attacks “of all types” to levels not seen since the “summer of 2003.” He’s got charts! Overall attacks have decreased 85 percent over the last two years, to 594 in August of 2009. “Ethno-sectarian deaths” have decreased 77 percent. Only 19 ethno-sectarian incidents over Ramadan 2009, compared to 978 in 2006. There are “high-profile attacks” that continue, but Odierno brings out stats to show their decline even after June 30. “There was a clear security lapse on 19 August in Baghdad, but I do not believe it was the result of any systematic security problems,” Odierno said, referring to massive Baghdad bombings occurring that day, saying the government “responded effectively … enabled by U.S. forces, and they continue to reassess their security posture.” Extremist efforts to re-spark sectarian violence “have failed.”

Assuming I could overlook the approximately 4,348 casualties we our country alone have has suffered over Dubya’s war of choice (to say nothing of thousands of our wounded/traumatized military personnel, as well as the price paid by innocent Iraqis and the subsequent millions displaced by the world’s worst refugee crisis), is this an occasion for me to give anyone who supported this monstrous debacle since Day One even a smidgeon of credit?

Not really; as noted here (also from Gen. Odierno’s testimony)…

“I’m not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq, because first off, I’m not sure we’ll know for 10 years or five years,” Army Gen. Ray Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon.

Lather, rinse, repeat (silly wingnuts)…

Update: And speaking of conservative idiocy (including the Standard), after reading this, please read this.


Wednesday Mashup (9/30/09)

September 30, 2009

Obama_Crist

  • So it looks like Repug Florida Governor Charlie Crist, running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat soon to be vacated by Mel Martinez, is trying to play to the base by claiming that President Obama will fall victim to a “Carter-esque loss” in 2012 here (recalling the loss President Carter suffered to Reagan in 1980).

    Putting aside Crist’s ridiculous attempt at political prognostication for a moment, I would say that his pronouncement (funny when you consider how Crist smartly supported Obama on the “stim” earlier this year, pictured above) has a lot more to do with this than anything else.

    This is how the Republican Party treats anyone showing any impulse for moderation whatsoever. And this is why their only possibility of electoral success lies with Democratic cowardice in the face of positions of popular support, to say nothing of failing to make the case for party causes not enjoying that support (and sadly, either prospect is always a possibility).

  • kaganohanlon31

  • Here is some spin from this New York Times article today about President Obama and his supposed communication problem with Afghanistan U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal by Times reporter Peter Baker…

    Questions about Mr. Obama’s relationship with General McChrystal have percolated for weeks, following reports that the administration delayed his troop request and kept him from testifying before Congress. “Someone has to explain what the strategy is,” said Frederick W. Kagan, a military expert at the American Enterprise Institute. “I think it’s important for the American people to hear from the commander.”

    And just as a reminder, here is “military expert” Kagan pronouncing that the Iraq civil war is over, recounted in this March 2008 post from Glenn Greenwald, even though Patrick Cockburn of The Independent reported that “a new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad” at very nearly the exact same time.

    So basically, I don’t think Kagan can speak with any credibility on anything related to matters of war.

    But Baker’s piece actually gets more interesting…

    Some supporters of the war said Mr. Obama had made a mistake not to consult more directly with his commander.

    “I don’t think I can defend him for being out of touch with his commander,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution (in the pic above, O’Hanlon is on the right and Kagan is at the left). “He has other people who advise him. But there’s no one else with the feel on the ground that McChrystal has.”

    See how having fewer meetings with McChrystal than Dubya did with his military people running Iraq translates to Obama being “out of touch with his commander,” according to O’Hanlon.

    Yep, that’s the same Michael O’Hanlon who (as noted here) advocated for the Iraq “surge” in the pages of the Times despite the fact that seven active duty force members wrote an Op-Ed that also appeared in the Times at about that same time saying that the surge wasn’t working.

    As Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones tells us…

    What O’Hanlon refuses to recognize is that the surge was designed to slow violence in Iraq only in service of political ends. Going on the offensive against the insurgents is fine, but it’s only an important development if Iraqi politicians seize the opening and make progress towards a reconciled nation and a functioning government. They haven’t done that. They haven’t even come close.

    Without political progress, the surge (and the military success O’Hanlon believes it is having) is just another swing in the cycle of war. We’re doing better now, but the insurgents will return with new and different tactics in a few months.

    And as Stein also notes, we lost more troops in Iraq during June-July-August of 2007 than at any other same-month period of time during the war, despite O’Hanlon’s surge cheerleading.

    On second thought, though, I suppose O’Hanlon is a subject matter expert when it comes to being “out of touch.” I hope that is the only reason why the Times would be interested in his otherwise worthless opinion.

  • 091509PimpandHo3wf

  • Finally, here is some true Fix Noise comedy on the matter of the ACORN controversy…

    The courts should vindicate the First Amendment rights of the reporters and media outlets involved in breaking the ACORN scandal wide open.

    The intrepid duo of independent reporters James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles (pictured above), working undercover, caught ACORN workers in Baltimore and other locations across the country on tape, talking about these workers’ willingness to help the undercover pair engage in tax fraud, housing fraud, prostitution, and even smuggling in underage girls from abroad to be prostitutes in a brothel that would be obtained with ACORN’s help.

    “Intrepid duo” – tee hee hee (here)…

    Well anyway, given the legitimate news story about questions surrounding the contracting of Sarah Palin’s house on Lake Lucille and the concurrently contracted Wasilla Sports Complex (here), I think the above description can be edited as follows…

    The courts should vindicate the First Amendment rights of the reporters and media outlets involved in breaking the story of alleged favors involving the construction of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s house on a two-acre site along scenic Lake Lucille in Wasilla, assessed at $532,500 (3,500 square feet with four bedrooms and four baths), wide open.

    The intrepid duo of independent reporters Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice and Huffington Post blogger Shannyn Moore reported that Palin steered contracts for the 2003 construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex before leaving office as Wasilla mayor the previous fall, in return for work building her home about the same time.

    And Just Plain Folks Sarah Palin and her team of barracudas can huff and puff all they want, but the last time I checked, the truth was always a sound defense regarding a question of libel.

    And the only ones who are alleged to have broken any laws here are “journalists” O’Keefe and Giles, as noted here.


  • Monday Mashup (9/28/09)

    September 28, 2009

    William_Safire_main
    Yes, I know William Safire is dead.

    Aside, from the fact that he once called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar” (to which HRC famously replied that she didn’t feel offended for herself, “but for her mother’s sake”), and aside that he brought up the thoroughly debunked claim that Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, met with “an Iraqi intelligence agent” in Prague, he also claimed that the Iraq war would be “quick,” with “Iraqis cheering their liberators.”

    Bill Moyers called him out on this here, but, like Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer and Judith Miller, Safire chose not to stand up and try to defend that which is indefensible.

    Also, this tells us that Safire once claimed that “nobody was telling (President Obama, on the occasion of his acceptance of the Democratic Party nomination for president last year) or the voters that Democrats preferred abject surrender,” when in fact Dems are routinely vilified by Safire and his like-minded brethren in that manner.

    Good riddance.

    fiorina_6a00d8341e9e5b53ef00e55400e1388834-800wi
    This tells us that former John McCain Presidential Campaign Adviser Carly Fiorina, currently debating whether or not she’ll challenge California Dem U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer next year, discussed her battle with breast cancer in this interview with Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine. I give Fiorina credit for enduring this and trying to turn her struggle into something positive.

    However, as noted here, Fiorina has claimed that “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore,” an interesting remark for someone who, as former CEO of Hewlett Packard, turned a blind eye to that company’s trading with Iran (at the very least), as noted here.

    And as Mike Morrill of Keystone Progress tells us here (noting, among other things, HP’s disastrous merger with Compaq):

  • Fiorina Laid Off Nearly 18,000 HP Workers During “Restructuring.” According to the Omaha-World Herald, “Hewlett-Packard, based in Palo Alto, Calif., had a $ 903 million loss on revenue of $56.6 billion for its fiscal year that ended last Oct 31. According to a summary by Hoover’s Inc., an Austin, Texas, provider of business information, Hewlett-Packard has undergone extensive restructuring under Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina. The company announced earlier this year that it planned to cut 17,900 people by October because of a weak economy and its merger with Compaq.” [Omaha-World Herald 9/29/03]
  • Fiorina Suggests Her Biggest Mistake Was Not Firing More People More Quickly. In 2005, Fortune magazine reported that “Fiorina does not agree, naturally, that there’s been a brain drain (at HP). In fact, she believes that one lesson she’s learned while running HP is that she should have moved more quickly in ejecting certain people. Smartened up now, she says, “I would have done them all faster. Every person that I’ve asked to leave, whether it’s been clear publicly or not, I would have done faster.” [Fortune, 2/7/05]
  • Despite Being Forced Out, Fiorina’s Severance Package Was Reportedly More Than $42 Million. CNNMoney reported, “Ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina will get a severance package worth about $21.4 million, but stands to reap another $21 million after she was forced out by the computer maker’s board last week, a newspaper reported Saturday. The additional amount reflects the estimated value of her Hewlett stock and options as well as her pension, which were not included in her severance package, the New York Times reported.” [CNNMoney.com, 2/12/05]
  • Fiorina Was Paid $10.7 Million In 2002, But Was Decreased To $6.6 Million In 2003 Due To Poor Performance. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, “Hewlett-Packard has slashed the pay of chief executive Carly Fiorina after she missed some performance targets last year, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission… Fiorina’s total pay — including salary, bonus and stock options — dropped about 38 percent from $10.7 million in fiscal 2002 to $6.6 million last year.
  • While her base salary went up from $1 million in 2002 to $1.24 million in 2003, her performance-based bonus dropped from $2.9 million to $2.1 million and the value of her stock option grants declined from $6.8 million to $3.3 million.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 1/24/04]

    If Fiorina is serious about making a run for the Senate, she should expect some sympathy for overcoming the odds on her personal health.

    However, that would be grossly overshadowed by the monstrous incompetence she has demonstrated in her corporate career, a frightening harbinger of what she would do in “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

    Medical Devices Fraud
    And finally, I’m going to do something I’ve been meaning to do for some time; that would be bringing us up to date on that political piñata running for governor of New Jersey as the Republican standard bearer (from here):

  • Hmmm, Christie and Turd Blossom, huh?
  • Christie’s bad week (8/18) continued.
  • Somehow I don’t quite think “oops” covers this on Christie.
  • Is it just me, or does Christie’s whole “law and order” facade start to crumble (here)?
  • Is the Christie juggernaut “off the rails” (here)?
  • Christie is nothing but a bully and a thug (here – h/t The Daily Kos).
  • It’s getting harder to keep up with all of the Christie revelations (here and here…this guy shouldn’t be running for dog catcher, let alone governor of New Jersey).
  • And it sounds like Christie’s running mate has a case of foot-in-mouth disease herself (here).
  • Not an appearance of wrongdoing by Christie on this, but worth considering anyway…
  • It should be an interesting fall.

    Update 10/14/09: No “small dive” is good enough for Christie, it seems, based on this, unless you’re talking about his polling numbers.

    Update 10/19/09: At least Christie is honest in acknowledging his debt to Bushco; I’ll give him that much based on this.


    Wednesday Mashup (9/23/09)

    September 23, 2009


    gwb_13-george-w-bush

  • Someone named Iain Murray at Irrational Spew Online has criticized President Obama for using the term “carbon pollution” instead of “greenhouse gases” in recent speeches here, as follows…

    I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. . . . We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.

    This supposed catch is attributed to a reporter named Lauren Morello from openmarket.org, who noticed this “shift in the vocabulary (of) U.S. officials.”

    I would think that conservatives should be the last people in the world decrying a “shift in the vocabulary” or the employment of likely-marketing-tested wording to help sell a policy on behalf of the current administration.

    For you see, Bushco was proficient in selling any policy it wanted to achieve its nefarious ends, twisting words and meaning whenever it suited its foul purposes (of course, more and more people became wise to their con over time, but not soon enough).

    For me, the phrase “return on success,” as it allegedly pertained to the Iraq war, was a particularly galling example.

    As Think Progress told us here, “return on success” was Bushco-ese for “some of our troops are leaving Iraq, but most are staying behind.”

    And as Salon.com’s Alex Koppleman tells us here…

    …the withdrawal of these forces isn’t tied to success in the way the president pretends. In fact, he had little choice but to begin these drawdowns, and his top generals — including Gen. David Petraeus — have not made a secret of that.

    In July 2007, Petraeus appeared on Good Morning America, where he said, “We know that the surge has to come to an end … General Odierno and I have — are on the record telling our soldiers that we will not ask for any extension certainly beyond 15 months.”

    Also, as a Think Progress commenter noted…

    “Return on Success” is actually a play on the business term: “Return on Investment.” Looked at from that angle, it’s been a huge loss of investment in both lives and treasure for the American public. If this war/occupation was a stock offered in the financial markets, it would be worth about $-0.2. The only profitability has been for the war profiteers and stock holders in THOSE criminal corporations.

    So given all of this, I believe that using the phrase “carbon pollution” instead of “greenhouse gases” isn’t anything to get hot and bothered about (unless you’re thinking of replacing the phrase “return on success” with “return on failure” to describe the foul, fetid Bushco reign, in which case you would be substantively correct).

  • gay_rainbow_flying_flag

  • And by the way, anyone who had Kevin Jennings, assistant deputy secretary for the office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education, as the next person on the list “Cracker Nation” (as Bill Maher calls them) would get into a tizzy over automatically wins first prize (wonder what it would be – a collage of “family values” Republicans such as Jesse Helms, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Mark Sanford, maybe?).

    As noted here, Jennings’ “crime” is “aiming to prevent gender- and sexual orientation-related bullying in schools,” (wingnuttia reigns in this excerpt)…

    Jennings has spent decades actively and successfully promoting myths about homosexuality to schoolchildren as founder of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN). Van Jones was done in by two key charges and one taped quote; FRC documented at least seven outrageous facts about Jennings and five inflammatory quotes in documents we released in June (see www.stopjennings.org).

    Unfortunately, Jennings has now taken his office at the Education Department-where he will be charged with implementing laws like the “Safe Schools Improvement Act,” introduced as H.R. 2262. This bill to combat “bullying” and “harassment” is like a “hate crimes” law for schools-but without being limited to actual violence. Cutting down on bullying and harassment of anyone is a worthy goal, but naming “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected categories makes this bill more about advancing the homosexual agenda than keeping schools safe.

    Ah yes, the dreaded “homosexual agenda.” I know it’s permeating every aspect of my life whenever I feel an unmanly urge to watch “Project Runway,” read The Bell Jar or wear Mrs. Doomsy’s beige pumps.

    (…give me a frackin’ break, people!!…)

    As we learn from Pam’s House Blend here, charges that Jennings “hates Christians,” “is teaching children nasty sexual behavior through the group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network),” and “covered up the sexual abuse of an underaged child” have all been refuted.

    However…

    The newest “controversy” is that Jennings gave a speech in 1995 explaining how to introduce lgbt supportive groups in schools:

    In 1995, he gave a speech in which he described how he has used the concept of “safety” in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools in Massachusetts. He gave a speech called “Winning the Culture War” at the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference on March 5 of that year.

    Excerpts have been posted on the website of MassResistance, where chief Brian Camenker has worked to oppose the demands of homosexual activists.

    In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of “safety” instead.

    “If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,’” he told the conference. . . “

    Actually there is nothing wrong with the speech. In fact, it’s a very good speech which should be remembered.

    Again, we have here another example of conservatives twisting words to suit their ends.

    As for Jennings himself, this tells us the following…

    Prior to his tenure at GLSEN, Jennings served as History Department chair and a history teacher at Concord Academy in Massachusetts and before that as a history teacher at Moses Brown School in Rhode Island. Jennings has also authored six books including Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir which was named a 2007 Book of Honor by the American Library Association and Telling Tales Out of School which was the winner of the 1998 Lambda Literary Award. Jennings received an A.B. in history from Harvard, an M.A. from the Columbia University Teachers College and an M.B.A. from NYU’s Stern School of Business.

    Besides, the prior regime employed a gay man named Mark Dybul at the State Department as Bushco’s “global AIDS coordinator,” as we learn here, and I don’t recall hearing any howls of protest from the FRC (or Fix Noise, for that matter – no surprise – as noted here).

  • Update 9/25/09: More from Media Matters here…

    monopoly-man

  • And finally, did you know that the pay of bank CEOs in this country “dwarfs” that of the rest of the world, as noted here?

    As Sarah Anderson, a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, tells us…

    “(U.S. bank CEOs) have claimed it is impossible to recruit people without paying such compensation. Yet, if you look at the pay levels in Europe and in a lot of Asian countries, somehow they manage to find people who can run major global firms while making a fraction of what they make in the U.S.,” she said.

    And so what exactly do we get for all that extra dough?

    Well…

  • Bank of America and Citigroup (I’ll be nice here and not use the scatological names) are alleged to have funded Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan national at the center of a reputed Al Qaeda terror cell probe, according to the New York Daily News here (as the post asks, “What kind of banks lend tens of thousands of dollars unsecured to 20-year-old coffee cart vendor / shuttle bus driver foreigners with no assets?”).
  • The banks bailed out by TARP “stuffed” CEOs with stock when the market was down, and now these CEOs are making out all over again now that the market is returning to reasonable health, as noted here.
  • As noted here in this story telling us that even token regulation of bank products was defeated, Barney Frank tells us that the banks generally “regard consumer affairs as a kind of nuisance.”
  • Meanwhile, Dem Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota continues to be absolutely correct in the matter of bank regulation, as noted here from last March.

  • Update: Oh, and, by the way…


    More On The “Exonerating Report” That Wasn’t

    May 18, 2009

    ManHoldingQuestionMarkSmallCroppedIn his New York Times column yesterday, Frank Rich reminded us of a news story that more or less came and went with barely a notice, and that was the withdrawal of the Pentagon Inspector General’s report which basically “exonerated the Bush Pentagon of allegations that it violated regulations in the conduct of its Retired Military Analyst program,” as Media Matters noted here about 10 days ago.

    (Also, in the case of the WaPo, there was no notice of the withdrawal in the Post’s print edition, noted by Media Matters – the “exonerating report” was issued in January…a prior post on the Pulitzer-winning story of the defense analysts written by David Barstow of the New York Times is here).

    This document, from TPM Muckracker, is the official notice of the report’s withdrawal from Donald M. Horstman, Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight, citing “inaccuracies in the data concerning retired military analysts’ relationships with Defense contractors”; Horstman also noted that the report “did not meet accepted quality standards for an Inspector General work product.”

    That’s all well and good, but my question is this: who wrote the report?

    The letter from Deputy IG Horstman lists an individual named John R. Crane, Assistant IG for Communications and Congressional Liaison, at (703) 604-8324 as the contact person (this DoD link also lists Thomas F. Gimble as the principal deputy IG – I’ll try to contact assistant IG Crane and I’ll let you know if I find out anything).

    However, I have a feeling that the person who can answer my question (if he were disposed to do so) is Gordon S. Heddell, who formerly was the IG of the Department of Labor (didn’t know they had one – wonder how he “got on” with “Puffy” Chao?) before he also assumed his duty as the acting DoD IG in July last year, as noted here (and as noted here, concern over Heddell’s “split time” arrangement between the two agencies was voiced by Repug Sen. Charles Grassley).

    The report that supposedly exonerated the military contractors should be the subject of a congressional hearing, and another DoD IG report should be commissioned at the earliest opportunity (yet another Bushco mess for the Obama Administration to clean up). And at the hearing, acting DoD IG Gordon Heddell should be the first person called to testify.


    An AEI/NYT Obama Afghan Slam

    March 23, 2009

    obama_sm
    In today’s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes about how President Obama conducts himself in military affairs in comparison to Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History here and tells us the following…

    Mr. Obama’s critics accuse him of trying to minimize the role of commander in chief. Several former Bush advisers said they were shocked that he had sent troops to Afghanistan without a formal public explanation.

    “The contrast to Bush could hardly be more striking,” said Thomas Donnelly, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, calling it “L.B.J. and Vietnam-type behavior.”

    Oh, that’s a good one – leave it to this AEI idiot to conjure up some imaginary linkage between Obama, who inherited the Afghan mess, and LBJ, who escalated the Vietnam War based on the faulty recommendations of his advisors, borne of their own hubris and disregard for the consequences (and here is Donnelly’s bio, by the way – if you can find actual military service in there, please let me know, because I couldn’t track it down).

    I don’t agree with Obama’s plans to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but the plan to do so has effectively been leaked to the media already; I don’t know what constitutes “a formal public explanation” in Stolberg’s book (this from Brave New Films basically argues that sending the 17,000 is kind of a silly “centrist Dem” strategy that really isn’t likely to achieve a military objective – either you go with the McCain/Holy Joe scheme of sending a massive force, which we really don’t have to spare at this point anyway, or you “walk away from the table” and rely on regional diplomacy).

    Besides, the supposed lack of a “formal” explanation is hardly the issue here (Stolberg herself tells us that the Obama Administration is still in the planning stages on that). Dubya received the “formal” recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (focus on diplomacy, draw down in Iraq and redeploy to Afghanistan) in December 2006, but chose to do the exact opposite with the “surge” in January 2007 (as noted here, that ran counter to his policy as of June 2005 to withhold more troops, lest we “undermine our strategy of letting the Iraqis take the lead” – and what about the “formal” casualty count, as noted here?).

    Basically, what good does a “formal” explanation do when it is beholden to the whims of a commander-in-chief who ignores recommendations of his counselors and acts in opposition to his own professed policy (and by the way, as K.O. noted the other night, there is no “formal” mention of Iraq in Dubya’s bio as part of his library’s web site…all class).

    Obama still deserves the benefit of the doubt here IMHO, “formal” announcements or not. If he starts zig-zagging and contradicting himself on this issue and other matters as his predecessor did, THEN it would be OK to “pile on” as far as I’m concerned (and let’s keep the “Vietnam” comparisons in mothballs until then, please).


    Happy Birthday, “War”

    March 19, 2009

    iraq_wg_sm
    I don’t really have much of anything in particular to say myself on this day, the sixth anniversary of the beginning of George W. Bush’s Not-So-Excellent Adventure in Mesopotamia, but I did want to bring some items of note to your attention.

    This post from the International Committee for the Red Cross (dated last week) tells us that…

    The first month of 2009 brought a relative calm that Iraq had not known for some time, despite fears that security might deteriorate owing to the provincial elections. Street life returned to something akin to normal. “Baghdad feels like it has emerged from several years of horrendous violence, but the lull is fragile and recent, and we don’t know whether it will last,” said an ICRC employee in Baghdad. Violent incidents did occur, however, mainly in Mosul and Kirkuk and in the Qandil area.

    Even with improvements in the security situation, basic services such as water, electricity and medical care still cannot meet the needs of the population. Job opportunities are scarce and salaries are not enough to live on. For an average Iraqi earning around 70 US dollars per month, prices of goods are too high. In addition, such a person often has no access to health care. Many children, rather than go to school, try to support their families by walking between rows of cars to sell items such as cigarettes, fruit or sweets to drivers stuck in the capital’s traffic jams.

    During the month of January, the ICRC maintained its support for civilians by distributing emergency and winter items to people displaced by fighting or other violence in the Qandil mountains and in other governorates such as Babil, Najaf and Diyala.

    And this tells us the following…

    Despite a reduction in violence and democratic elections in Iraq, the U.S. Department of State’s recently-released report on conditions in Iraq throughout 2008 stated that there is “widespread, severe corruption at all levels of government.”

    Officials in the Iraqi government have embezzled an estimated $18 billion in American aid. On Monday, a dozen policemen were arrested in connection with a series of killings and kidnappings.

    Nearly six years after the war began, Iraq still has many infrastructure problems, dealing with little electricity.

    The World Focus post also tells us this (an account from NBC’s “World Blog” describing Iraq’s war widows)…

    I recently visited the Iraqi Tourism Board to see some old friends and contacts. I went in smiling because I hadn’t been there for while and was excited to see my old friends, but the place had an eerie feel to it. It looked darker – and it was. In every room, when I popped in my head to say hello, there were women dressed in black from head to toe.

    As a cup of coffee was placed in front of me, my curiosity finally got the better of me. I asked if a colleague had died or something? A woman covered in black responded, “They killed my husband and burned my home. So we moved to a Sunni neighborhood; stress and grief killed my mother a week later.”

    I turned my head to the woman next to her and she said, “They killed my brother in front of his wife and children…just because he is Shiite living in a Sunni neighborhood.”

    The smile I had on my face when I arrived was long gone. I actually felt ashamed that I had a smile on my face to start with. So, I chugged down my coffee and quickly left.

    Also, Greg Mitchell reviewed some of the editorial commentary from the New York Times that was written six years ago here, and among their editorial writers, it may be totally unsurprising to know that the only one who absolutely “nailed it” was Paul Krugman, what said, among other things…

    Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it’s not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn’t trust the Bush administration’s motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.

    And McClatchy today tells us the following from here in a story about a boy named Harb, which is Iraqi for “war,” born on this day in that country in 2003…

    War’s six years have been scarred by violence — bombings in marketplaces, a foreign occupation, roadside bombs, sectarian killings, massive displacement and flight and a new — and often broken — political system.

    On his birthday and the anniversary of the Iraq war, (his mother) Iman’s uncertainty about the future remains that of six years ago. No one knows the future of the nation or War’s.

    The tension has eased a little, however. The family has taken to calling the little boy with black eyes and a shy demeanor Taqawi, a nickname that has no burdensome meaning. It has no meaning at all, really. His older brother called him Taqawi one day and the nickname stuck.

    It’s enough that the reminders of war are right outside their door: the rusted coils of concertina wire that snake through the city, the high concrete walls that divide and contain neighborhoods to protect the population, the bullet scarred buildings and the Humvees of the Iraqi and American armies.

    And as the story also tells us (in addition to the fact that he has seen violence no child his age should ever see), “War” has never had a birthday party.

    Meanwhile, this tells us that “The Decider” himself, the biggest Iraq war cheerleader and the person who made it all happen, finally signed his oh-so-coveted book deal (wonder how long we’ll have to wait to find out who ends up doing the job for him).

    Update 1: This is a disgrace (nothing on philly.com’s main page, though you had to REALLY drill down to find something about Iraq on the Inquirer’s main page, and the Daily News didn’t have anything – the Bucks County Courier Times, in its print edition, had remembrances from three Iraq War veterans on the first page of its Metro section).

    Update 2: Borderline “on topic” with this, but still, I would say that “the people have spoken.”


    More “Polling That Isn’t There”

    January 2, 2009

    obama1-122608-2
    I have to admit that I got a kick out of the way the National Review Online treated the results of a poll from the Military Times here that “show(ed) 60 percent of active duty military personnel are ‘pessimistic or uncertain’ about Obama as commander in chief” (as NRO tells us, this originated from Drudge – of course – and was picked up by Jake Tapper at Political Punch, among others; as you can see from here, Tapper had no problem at all running with this nonsense about “Obama’s Paparazzi Presidency”).

    This was the NRO’s qualifier to the poll, claiming that the results ultimately don’t matter…

    God bless them, each and every American soldier and sailor. These are uncertain times, but we can count on their fealty to the American nation and our constitution.

    Gee, could NRO be more patronizing here (even if it means “fealty” to that “Manchurian Candidate Muslim” whose middle name is Hussein, right?).

    Actually, though, the NRO stumbled into the truth; they’re right when they claim that the results don’t matter. But not for the reason they think.

    This post takes you to a rebuttal of the Military Times poll by Brandon Friedman at VoteVets.org. In it, Friedman notes that the Times slips in the following language as a caveat…

    The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results.

    And yep, you guessed it; overwhelmingly, readers of the Military Times tend to skew older, white and Republican, as opposed to the multi-ethnic, primarily younger composition of our active military forces.

    Also, the Times tries to establish a link between the supposed 60 percent of active duty personnel opposed to Obama and the president-elect’s pledge to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the matter of gays and lesbians serving in the military through someone named Elaine Donnelly, who, according to Friedman, “doesn’t even have any connection with the military other than her vociferous opposition to gays serving in it. She never served in uniform and she has no discernible academic background on the topic.”

    I would suggest reading Friedman’s thorough rebuttal to the poll; my highlighting of selected quotes really doesn’t do it justice.

    And in response, someone from the Military Times should tell us exactly how they arrived at their polling data, without qualifiers written in guarded legalese. That’s the least they can do to make amends for this bogus “poll” intended to slam the person who will soon become the new commander-in-chief, an individual who has pledged his “fealty to the American nation and our constitution” as well.

    Update: More from Media Matters here…


    Stop Hiding The Cost

    November 19, 2008

    photo-flag-draped-coffins-airplane
    This Think Progress post tells us that New York Times conservative quota hire Bill Kristol recently had a verbal spat with columnist and author Pete Hamill about whether or not Americans have seen “plenty of coffins” from the Iraq war, with Kristol arguing in a typically nonsensical manner that we have.

    Think Progress does a good job of noting that the Bushco ban on the coffin photos was backed by the 108th Republican Congress in June 2004, with John McCain voting against the ban in one of his final moments of genuine maverickyness before he became a bona fide wingnut wannabe.

    I’m not going to waste time pointing out the obvious facts that Bill Kristol is a liar and an idiot (and how funny is it that he’s “ambivalent” about staying at the Times, noted here; every day he picks up a paycheck from them, it’s an act of theft). I only wish to request here that the incoming Obama administration rescind the Bushco gag rule on the coffin photos at its earliest opportunity, or if it does not somehow, then the incoming 111th Congress should act to do so themselves.