What, reach across the aisle?

Although they’re eager to push detente with hostile regimes at any cost for little benefit, House Democrats are a little less likely to cooperate with their much friendlier counterparts here at home.

That uppity little Johnnie Burns

One of the biggest complaints about the Iraqi parliament is its lack of progress forging political solutions.  Hmm, here’s a thought:

There’s a paradox. That’s to say the more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They’re much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect, of an effect that persuading people well, if the Americans are going, there’s absolutely no…and we’re going to have to settle this by a civil war, why should we make concessions on that matter right now?

Boiling things down a little more I guess that, like here in the US, liberals typically have higher expectations of central government than conservatives.

p.s. Strange how a major media company’s universal take on a troubled country can differ so markedly from said organization’s. .  .actual reporter on the ground in that country.

Are pigs flying at the NYT?

When did Brookings go “chickenhawk”?

And they pretty much admit the authors had to go on the ground to witness it.  What a novel journalistic concept.

Classic media shaping action

A not-exactly-Fox-friendly journo predicts the latest MoveOn.org popular offensive will fall short, even with the help of a hapless AP.

“I’ve been had!”

Yes, you heard that right.  Street smart Senator Charles Schumer got duped!  Somehow that strikes me as a little false.

Another grand exercise in liberal dementia

Liberals Going After FoxNews Advertisers:

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization’s spokesman.”We’re not trying to silence anybody,” Green said. “Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn’t.”

Of course not.  They’re only trying to silence FoxNews, which is something only slightly less FASCISTIC.   Liberals love polls–how about this one from Rasmussen about public perception of our news media:

Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.

Is there no relief from these malcontents?

Cannabis psychosis

Pot may hike risk of psychosis.  And probably obesity.

Sitting in the corner, again.

Senator Bruce Feingold finds little backing for a Bush censure.

Churchill extricated from CU

Academia takes five years to shed a rotting limb.

Two Thumbs Up For Arlen Specter

Let’s hope he’s not the only Republican left with any sense of dignity.

Young Chickenhawks of the World Unite!

Here

Is Kerry running for President again?

Kerry Rhyme Takes aim at Vitter

Kerry accuses Romney of flip-flopping.

Kerry’s curious take on poswar Vietnam on C-SPAN

Please, please, please.

Holy Smokes!

This is the spy novel that keeps turning its own pages right before our very eyes — attempted hit on Boris Berezovsky at the London Hilton.

The comeuppance of “Gorgeous” George Galloway

One of the Iraq war’s fiercest critics was also one who stood to lose more than most on its outcome.  Hmm, are there others?

Senator Levin and the way forward in Iraq

Senator Carl Levin seriously defines himself in the following exchange with Brit Hume on FoxNews Sunday about the state of progress in Iraq. I added some bold text:

LEVIN: But what we’re involved in now is a brutal civil war in Iraq where there is no political progress being made and where everybody — hey, Brit, this is not something where there’s a division.

This is something where everybody agrees that there needs to be a political settlement in Iraq, and where their own leader — this is the prime minister that Stephen Hadley touts — says that the reason that the violence continues is not the security situation.

He says it’s the failure of the political leaders of Iraq to reach a settlement.

HUME: Well, Senator…

LEVIN: That’s the problem. And there’s no progress in that area.

HUME: Senator, do you really seriously believe that Al Qaeda, which has unmistakably been responsible for particularly this recent rash of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, gives a fig one way or another about whether there’s a political settlement among the — involving these issues among the Iraqis?

That’s not why they’re fighting, is it?

LEVIN: No, I think Al Qaeda has a great propaganda advantage by the western occupation of a Muslim country, and that’s what’s gone on here for over four years.

HUME: Well, do you believe…

LEVIN: Al Qaeda has grown in Iraq. Excuse me. Al Qaeda, according to our own intelligence, has grown stronger in Iraq because of the American presence and the American policies that we would occupy a Muslim country.

Al Qaeda is stronger now in Iraq than it has ever been. It is growing in strength because of our presence.

Notwithstanding the rest of the same intelligence report he references (which later also says that our precipitous evacuation from the area would be catastrophic), Levin seems to believe without much resistance that the propagandized raison d’etre of the world’s most sinister and universally reviled terrorist syndicate is reason alone we must abandon our security interests in southwest Asia. In doing so he lends a cheap legitmacy to a terrorist voice that would otherwise find no patient ear.

HUME: So you believe…

LEVIN: You can’t just simply say…

HUME: Do you believe, though…

LEVIN: You can’t just simply say, Brit…

HUME: I was just going to say, Senator, do you seriously believe, though, that if you had the de-Baathification program passed, that the oil sharing law was passed into law, that the other areas of political progress which you have said are necessary — and I think everybody agrees with that — if all that were to come to pass, that Al Qaeda would go away in Iraq?

LEVIN: No, I think the best chance of defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq is through two things. One, if you have a political settlement in Iraq, number one, because then the parties there will go after the real enemy, which is Al Qaeda.

Secondly, under all of our plans — under the so-called Levin-Reed amendment, which is going to hopefully be allowed to be voted on, we do provide that there be a force remaining to help an Iraqi hopefully unified government go after Al Qaeda.

Of course there’s a problem in Iraq with terrorism through Al Qaeda, but it’s a growing problem because of our presence, because of the failure of the Iraqi political leaders to come together to go after Al Qaeda.

And yes, there will be a need to go after Al Qaeda after most of our forces leave.

As Hume said, is there a prerequisite for obtaining satisfactory performance on benchmarks before the threat of Al Qaeda can be addressed? Does Levin think that self defense waits while politicians debate?

The progress made recently in Anbar province is nothing if not political progress–at the grassroots level. Why is it that the war’s critics, who warned repeatedly at the onset of war about disrupting the myriad tribal complexities in Iraq, are the ones currently discounting actual positive transformation at that level?

Also–in the rest of the interview–how many times does Levin use the term ‘civil war’? Did the debate on the use of that term end recently? I’m eager for Levin to explain how internationally-supported militias and terror gangs, both mainly attacking innocent civilians and the US troops supporting and protecting them, qualify as executors of civil war. They may sow civil strife, but their souls had long ago been consolidated by regional actors. We are not sitting in the middle of a civil war. We are an active participant in an regional war (call it a proxy war if you must) and our colors are on the field.

Bottom headline of the hour

Joe Wilson endorses Hillary Clinton.

Arianna wrong, well, again.

HuffPost headline:  McCain’s fall a warning to all GOP candidates: Support the war at your own risk.

With all of the archived media about McCain’s positions available to writers, this is an astounding editorial  *miss*.   A cursory foray into the rightwing blogosphere would have immediately given her cause to doubt her lede.  The McCain Campaign is not on life-support because of his staunch support for the Iraq policy! There are just a few other quibbles McCain has with the right. . . .

Interestingly, it’s too early to count John McCain out of the race.

Coyote Blog: Go West, Young Woman

Very interesting map for you single people out there. Follow the dots and you shall find the love(s) of your life.

Liberals - this is your newspaper

The New York Times finally acknowledges that there is a genocide they could live with!

The paper is still haunted on why we even went into Iraq and seems to be too disingenuous to query its own archived articles from the last twenty years to lend some guidance. Would some adult at the Times please write a reasonable anti-war proposition that:

• isn’t infected with forty years of New Left dialect (references to inherent struggle, anti-Americanism, populism, refugee plight, etc)? Where were the champions of Iraq’s downtrodden in 2002? 1995? Why the concern now?
• acknowledges that multilateralism in 2002 didn’t necessarily have to mean “France, Germany, and Russia are on board”? If they were on board now, with the same situation on the ground today, would the Times have a different position? Would we all have rushed to war?
• discards the deliberate misconception the war was somehow illegal and that we cooked intelligence just for some diabolical opportunity to waste trillions of dollars and intentionally waste thousands of American lives?
• acknowledges a familiarity with and respect for the work of long-term embedded reporters who have seen transformation happen on the ground? And not rely on anonymous stringers or otherwise partially trustworthy sources?
• considers published data from the Iraq MNF as an equally valid source of information?
• dispenses with the political, faux sympathy for our troops, who happen to be the most experienced, professional, coordinated, and fearsome military in the world?
• acknowledges that quantifiable progress has been made in some areas? Just not to the media cadence!
• can discard the need to map the war to our election cycle when our enemies have made it clear that they a) will attempt to directly and indirectly influence our media and elections and b) are preparing for a decades-long struggle?
• acknowledge that the UN was criminally incapable and unwilling to prosecute Hussein’s dereliction before the war and there is little they can do now except maybe distribute STD pamphlets and condoms? We might throw them a baby food contract or grain warehouse. Or maybe not, since it didn’t work before either.
• isn’t impaired with the retarding effect of reading and watching mainstream news for four years straight? (Another car bombing? We have lost!)
• concedes that the demons we fear most after withdrawing from Iraq are already on the ground and fighting us in Iraq — and thus our continued presence. This includes meddling “allies”, criminal gangs, and assorted scum you haven’t even imagined yet.

More:

“The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.”

A donor’s conference? What a great idea! Wait—can’t do it. We just blew our wad with Live Earth, an asinine event sponsored and promulgated by political thumbsuckers who otherwise would have a burning passion for assisting displaced refugees–that is, non-Iraqi refugees. Has there been a single relief concert for displaced Iraqis? Either the artsy wing of the activist Left doesn’t care about displaced Iraqis, or there really aren’t that many displaced Iraqis. I tend to think the latter is less likely.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown.

Yes, now that voters have thrown out corrupt socialists in France and Germany - formerly Hussein’s most influential allies - things certainly are a little different, no?

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage - with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

If Bush has the ability to drag this war out, he would also be equally capable of terminating it outright, or at the very minimum, being able to spin the news cycle to his favor. There is no evidence of any of this happening. Since nobody else is viewing it this way, accusing Bush of prolonging the war for political reasons means simply that the Times itself prefers viewing the war through a political lens, and further bolstering itself and its allies for rhetorical combat of epic proportions during the 2008 Elections.

Speak No Truth

aka - the mantra of the Bush Administration.

Swiftboating Rudy

These really aren’t significant “gotcha” points, so I’m not sure of their effectiveness when the primaries are still months and months away.

Getting le Freak on

French minister promises rewards for harder work and smart investments.  And a few tax cuts to sweeten the brew.

How long before we hear the bellyaching?

Lost Angeles - Here is your newspaper

The LAT inexplicably provides a Hamas propaganda mouthpiece (and fugitive) a platform to give us the unabashed, heartfelt viewpoint of the internationally misunderstood terrorist movement.  If we can just bend our expectations a little bit, it will all make sense. Lend us the same rhetorical exceptions you give to Israel, and you can see that our cause it legitimate, and indeed just.

Has he thrown anybody off a roof lately?

Minnesota–this is your Congressman

Rep. Keith Ellison wows the intellectual wing of his constituency.  This kind of retarded tripe is all the Democrats have going for them.

Good luck with the Troofers, Keith!

Zimbabwe solves ancient “Guns & Butter” econ dilemma

Mass arrests over price controls in Mugabeland. Not looking so good.

Next Page »