Saturday Mashup (9/29/12)

September 30, 2012

  • I guess Dr. Earl Earl Tilford doesn’t doesn’t like like Obama Obama – really really?

    Turning to his column, Tilford tells us the following (here…I guess the wingnuts got tired of trying to link Obama to Jimmy Carter, so now they’re trying to link him to Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War)…

    The Benghazi debacle shares Tet’s political DNA. In the aftermath, Fox News broke the news that the attack was a terrorist act and not the result of spontaneous mob action. It took the administration a week to admit the true nature of the Benghazi attacks.

    You know, it’s really pathetic how easily conservative propaganda like this manages to infiltrate the rest of our corporate media so easily, as it does here.

    More to the point, this tells us that the Obama Administration didn’t rule out terrorism right away on the Libya attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, preferring to wait about a week until more of the facts could be determined (something grownups do, as opposed to those in our prior ruling cabal before Obama).

    At least Tilford isn’t trying to work everyone into a lather over an imaginary attack from Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, as he tried to do here.

  • Next, it looks like Dr. Miriam Adelson, wife of Sheldon A., is doing the “stand by her man” thing here

    In recent weeks my family has come under relentless attack from the White House political operation, elements of the Democratic Party and organizations and media outlets supported by some of the Democrats’ wealthiest donors.

    These attacks stem sadly from one main reason: our support for the Republican presidential candidate as well as other Republican candidates.

    Too often there is a media double standard in our country based on situational ethics. The president’s supporters are treated one way while those who might challenge his leadership are treated in another.

    This is hypocrisy.

    It is to laugh, my fellow prisoners.

    “Situational ethics”? Really? This tells us that, in the horrific event of Willard Mitt Romney and Puppy-Dog-Eyes-With-The-Shiv-In-His-Pocket Paul Ryan actually winning the election, Sheldon Adelson stands to get a $2 billion tax cut.

    And I’m sure Shelly Berkley, a Democratic congresswoman from Nevada, can tell us a less-than-altruistic story about Adelson from here (she used to work for him as his vice-president of legal and governmental affairs)…

    “Over time, I observed Mr. Adelson plot vendettas against anyone whom he believed stood in his way. However minuscule the perceived affront, he was certain to go ballistic, using his money and position to bully any ‘opponent’—great or small—into submission. . . . He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party to support his handpicked candidate by attacking me on TV.”

    She went on, “I have unique personal knowledge of how Mr. Adelson seeks to dominate politics and public policy through the raw power of money. Shortly before I was fired from the Sands by Mr. Adelson in 1997, he made me an offer. It was a bizarre proposition, but it was simple and it was direct. He told me if I would switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party he would provide all the campaign funding I would need to run for Congress.” Berkley won her first race by only three percentage points. In 2006, she won a fifth term with sixty-five per cent of the vote, and today is a popular representative with a seemingly safe district; but Adelson has continued to try to defeat her.

    Also, Adelson is unhappy with the Obama DOJ for investigating some of the (alleged) stuff with the Chinese mob having to do with Adelson’s mega-huge casino in Macau, as noted here.

    Dr. Adelson should be familiar with the physician’s maxim of “first, do no harm.” By extension, her husband should also be familiar with a corollary to that that could go, “first do no harm…to our elections.” And I don’t know about the former case, but the person in the latter one is definitely guilty of malpractice.

  • Finally, Microsoft is back to whine about trying to obtain more H-1B visas for Asian workers here.

    In response, I would ask that you read the comments to this article, as well as this item which tells us how Microsoft basically uses the H-1B visa threat as a cudgel against unions and a way to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, despite the fact that Washington state continually bends over backwards for these corporate miscreants (and I’m sure the behemoth of Redmond, WA has no desire to read up on the work of Wharton’s Peter Cappelli on how companies, including Microsoft, screen out qualified workers partly to get out of paying a livable wage, as noted here).

    Yes I’ll admit I have a bit of an axe to grind over their hackability of X-Box Live, though they made good when we had a problem after a few phone calls. But I would still like to know why IE 9 crashes so damn much and Google Chrome is such a vastly superior browser.

    Maybe they could hire some more actual American developers, testers and quality assurance experts and find out.

    Update 10/1/12: Lather, rinse, repeat (sigh).

  • Advertisements

    Resurrecting The Ghost Of “Commander Codpiece”

    August 18, 2009

    Bush_Flag_Duh
    I give you Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times here today (on Obama giving a speech in Phoenix about increasing our troop strength in Afghanistan; I’ll debate the wisdom of such a move another time)…

    As a commander in chief who has never served in the armed forces, Mr. Obama is still working to establish his bona fides with the military. His predecessor, George W. Bush, typically received wildly enthusiastic receptions from military audiences; Mr. Obama’s speech was interrupted only occasionally by polite applause.

    As an occupant of An Oval Office who never left Texas during the Vietnam War – actually, there were periods when he was unaccounted for during his stateside service, as noted here (and whose presidential campaign still managed the “God damn, were the people who voted for him morons, or what?” feat of maligning an actual war hero on his way to another term in office) – our 43rd president was a virtuoso when it came to exploiting our military for political gain (or, as noted here)…

    We have a commander-in-chief who does very well when he is unscripted, unrehearsed and engaging with soldiers. But too often those who handle his performances try to turn the American fighting man and woman into a political prop for the scenery.

    And by the way, a sympathetic reaction to Bush isn’t “news” anyway when you consider the following, as noted here.

    Also, I wonder if Warren L. Henthorn and John Scripsick would agree with Stolberg’s sympathetic treatment towards Obama’s predecessor; you can learn how these men are from here, and why they deserve our sympathy, respect and eternal gratitude.

    In closing, I sincerely hope the next time Stolberg or one of her corporate media brethren decide to invoke Obama’s predecessor and his faux military “cred,” they come to their senses instead. Doing so on this occasion was repulsive enough – to continue it in the future would dishonor the sacrifice of those who have fought, suffered and died for our freedom.


    Petraeus Splits From Iraq With His Rep Intact

    September 17, 2008

    (Please “mouse over” for photo attribution.)

    As noted here, Gen. David H. Petraeus has left Iraq to assume his duties stateside as commander at USCENTCOMM in Tampa, Florida, overseeing all Middle East operations.

    Based on this prior post, though, I have some questions…

  • Do either Gen. Petraeus or his successor, Gen. Raymond Odierno, have an exit strategy for Iraq prepared for the day when we, at long last, leave the pit of Mesopotamia?
  • Given Petraeus’ quote that “a successful counterinsurgency strategy could take 9-10 years,” about where are we now in that timeframe?
  • Can either Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Odierno provide a status on Mosul, which Petraeus once described as “a textbook case of doing counterinsurgency the right way,” even though the mayor of Mosul defected to the insurgents?
  • Does Gen. Petraeus have a clue as to what happened to the $2.3 billion that we provided to train and expand the Iraqi Army that somehow ended up in foreign bank accounts (Petraeus oversaw the training program)?
  • Is the Pentagon now keeping track of fatalities by car bombs and sectarian assassinations, questions that were raised by That Ad against Petraeus last September (I noted that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would probably be the better person to answer that, but I’d ask Petraeus anyway)?
  • Can we look forward to another glowing Op-Ed on Iraq from Petraeus timed for just before the election similar to the one he wrote in 2004 (here)?
  • And given the preceding question concerning the September 2004 WaPo editorial which reeked of self-promotion and image enhancement, I would ask that you consider the following from the recent profile of Petraeus in The New Yorker by Steve Coll here…

    Indeed, because of the reductions in Iraq’s violence, General Petraeus has been cast in the Presidential campaign’s emerging narrative as a sort of Mesopotamian oracle, one that must be consulted or honored by the two remaining candidates. In July, Senator Barack Obama went to Iraq and saw the General; he was rewarded, courtesy of Petraeus’s energetic press aides, with an iconic photograph, printed in many dozens of newspapers, which showed the Senator aboard a command helicopter, smiling confidently at the General’s side. A few weeks later, Senator John McCain, while speaking at a nationally televised forum hosted by the evangelist Rick Warren, invoked Petraeus as one of the three wisest people he knew; McCain called the General “one of the great military leaders in American history.” Afterward, on the campaign trail, the Republican Senator attacked Obama for not being as staunch an acolyte of Petraeus as McCain has been.

    And, as noted here, Senator McBush and Holy Joe both basically wanted to turn over the Congressional oversight function of the war to Petraeus (though, as I noted here earlier, I was disturbed by Petraeus’ analysis of a wave of suicide bombings in July of last year; he called the wave a “mini Tet,” which to me showed a blatant disregard for the fact that, at the time of Tet, most of this country still supported the Vietnam War, though support for Dubya’s Not-So-Excellent Middle East Adventure basically evaporated long ago).

    Finally, I have to seriously question the timing of Petraeus’ departure; though I do not mean to cast aspersions on Gen. Odierno, I think leaving shortly before the planned “laying down of arms” by the Sunni Awakening councils to the al-Maliki government shows, to some degree, the desire to “beat it out of Dodge” while the getting is good – it would be more logical to have the person whom many regard (rightly or wrongly) as the main reason for the “success” of the “surge” to remain and ensure as smooth a transition as possible (assuming anyone can “ensure” anything in Iraq).


  • Top Posts & Pages

  • Advertisements