Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]
|
| Think at your own risk. |
| Wednesday, February 28, 2007 |
| Military intelligence |
You kind of figured that a few too many die-hard fans of the show "24" have begun to mistake the fictional Fox show for "war on terror" reality, didn't you? Well, guess what? Thrown into interrogations without any rules or Geneva restrictions, guess what confused, frustrated U.S. troops turned to when trying to extract information from Iraqi and other detainees?
And speaking of the so-called "war on terror," when will it end, daddy? Oh, right around the time of the 2008 election, dear... just in time to help out the ailing GOP...
In the meantime, how do you keep things like bad publicity over piss poor treatment of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans from sinking the GWOT P.R. flotilla? Why, you shut up the soldiers, of course! From the Army Times:
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.
“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training.
Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.
They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access.
Also:
The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: “It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place,” referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed. Not appropriate, indeed.
Anyway, we wouldn't want the press hyping up those tens of thousands of vets who insist on darkening the doors of the VA system for those silly dental problems... now, would we? Oops, did I say "dental problems?" Sorry, I was quoting a disingenuous Bush administration official. What I mean to say was "catastrophic brain injuries..."
So while we're on the subject of the military and war, just how the hell are things going with that "surge" in Iraq, pray tell? Says the Guardian:
An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.
The officers - combat veterans who are leading experts in counter-insurgency - are charged with implementing the "new way forward" strategy announced by president George Bush on January 10. The plan includes a controversial "surge" of 21,500 additional American troops to establish security in the Iraqi capital and Anbar province.
But the team, known as the "Baghdad brains trust" and ensconced in the heavily fortified Green Zone around the US embassy, is struggling to overcome a range of entrenched problems in what has become a race against time, said a former senior administration official familiar with their deliberations. "They know they are operating under a clock. They know they are going to hear a lot more talk in Washington about 'Plan B' by the autumn - meaning withdrawal. They know the next six-month period is their opportunity. And they say it's getting harder every day," the former official said.
By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, us officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer-term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion. But the next six months are make-or-break for both the US military and the Iraqi government.
The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:
· Insufficent numbers of troops on the ground
· A "disintegrating" international coalition
· An anticipated upsurge in violence in the south as the British leave
· Morale problems as casualties rise
· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad
"The scene is very tense. They are working round the clock. Endless cups of tea with the Iraqis," the former senior administration official said. "But they're still trying to figure out what's the plan. The president is expecting progress. But they're thinking, what does he mean? The plan is changing every minute, as all plans do." And why do we STILL not have enough troops in the theater? ThinkP:
Top U.S. intelligence officials yesterday disclosed to the Senate “that the deployment of Iraqi forces into Baghdad under President Bush’s new plan to stabilize Iraq is running behind schedule and that all of the units sent so far have arrived under strength, some by more than half.“ Nice job, Dubya.
Labels: Bush administration, foreign policy, Iraq, military, troop surge, veterans, Walter Reed, war |
posted by JReid @ 4:00 PM   |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sweet (Swiftboat) revenge |
| John Kerry dishes out a little payback to a Swiftboat funder on the Hill. More on the showdown from RawStory, complete with the now obligatory Joe Lieberman praise for a right wing Republican smear merchant... Labels: John Kerry, Lieberman, politics, Swiftboat vets |
| posted by JReid @ 3:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hold on, mama ... here comes Obama! |
More from that ABC/WaPo poll, and it's bad news for Mama:
The latest poll put Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 24 percent, Gore at 14 percent and Edwards at 12 percent. None of the other Democrats running received more than 3 percent. With Gore removed from the field, Clinton would gain ground on Obama, leading the Illinois senator 43 percent to 27 percent. Edwards ran third at 14 percent. The poll was completed the night Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award.
Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the shifts among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.
African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he began his campaign, his favorability rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January.
Coupled together, the sudden emergence in the polls of Al Gore (who got more Black votes in 2000 than any presidential candidate ever, and the continued sizzle of Barack Obama are bad news for the Clinton campaign. Luckily for her, she has the name ID and the cash to go the distance, and no one else in the race can say that, at least not now. One piece of good news for Hil in the poll:
Her position on the war in Iraq does not appear to be hurting Clinton among Democrats, even though she has faced hostile questioning from some voters about her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war. Some Democrats have demanded that she apologize for the vote, which she has declined to do.
The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton led Obama 40 to 26 percent.
Something to hold onto at Camp Hillary, where they're still smarting from that recent dust-up with Barack.
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, elections, Hillary, polls, Washington Post |
| posted by JReid @ 9:07 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quick take headlines: hump day edition |
Is Iraq in a civil war? According to the new director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, it most certainly is.
And will the Bush administration reverse course and talk to Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran? Yes ... and no ... Condi Rice continues her turn as spin-mistress, attempting to explain how we're going to sit down in the same room with the two bad actors in the Middle East, but only because the Iraqis invited them. I can just hear the negotiations now:
U.S.: "Could you please tell the Syrian ambassador that I said he's a horse's ass?"
IRAQI: (sitting between U.S. and Syrian reps): "Certainly, madam." (turns to Syrian, sitting beside him.) "she says you're a horse's ass."
SYRIAN: "Kindly tell the lady to bite me."
IRAQI: "Quite."
Meanwhile, that hellified market correction yesterday (which extended in Europe and Asia today) has spooked everyone, but there's more bad news out there, starting with the mortgage market, where it's about to get a lot tougher to get a loan. Also, America's homeless population is growing and hardening, at a time when the Bushbots are claiming we have the best economy ever...
A groundbreaking survey of homelessness being released today found that 704,000 people nationwide sought shelter at least once in a three-month period. Families with children accounted for one-third of those seeking emergency shelter or transitional housing between February and April 2005, the most recent period studied, according to the report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The rest were individuals, mostly adult men. Nearly half were black.
The count covered only those seeking shelter, not people living on the street, so the total number of homeless people would be higher.
"This first-of-its-kind study is a huge leap forward in our understanding of not only how many people are homeless, but also what their needs are," HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson says. The report says, for example, that at least a quarter are disabled.
HUD, which briefed USA TODAY on the report Monday, says it is the most comprehensive government estimate ever of homelessness. Previous counts looked only at the number of people homeless on a given day or week.
The three-month figure — equal to the population of South Dakota — is an estimate based on a sample of 80 communities. It will serve as a baseline for annual reports to Congress and may be expanded to include people living on the street.
And about that economy: it isn't nearly as good as the righties say it is...
On a much lighter note, could anything or anyone have saved Anna Nicole Smith? Quoth Travolta, Scientology.
The Largo, Florida city manager who wants to go from Mr. Manager to Mrs. Manager is about to get fired.
And last but certainly not least: nothing says "hit stage play" like showing off your Harry Potter...
Labels: economy, Harry Potter, Iran, Iraq, news, news and politics, poverty |
| posted by JReid @ 8:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Tuesday, February 27, 2007 |
| Why is the Bush administration lying about the attempt on Cheney? |
Dick Cheney came within earshot of a suicide bomber, who got through the first of three checkpoints protecting him at Kabul's Bagram Air Base during his visit to the "Mayor of Kabul," Hamid karzai. So why is the U.S. military lying about Cheney being the target of the assassination attempt? (Maj. William Mitchell said it did not appear the explosion was intended as a threat to Cheney. "He wasn't near the site of the explosion," Mitchell said. "He was safely within the base at the time of the explosion.") The resurgent Taliban says its bomber did in fact target the vice president:
A purported Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, said Cheney was the target of the attack carried out by an Afghan named Mullah Abdul Rahim.
"We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base," Ahmadi told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. "The attacker was trying to reach Cheney." ... The bad guys clearly knew where he would be. So why the obfuscation? Could it be that the Bush administration is continuing to try and hide the fact of just how badly things are going in our original theater of the war on terror? Signs point to yes:
BAGRAM, Afghanistan — In what the Taliban claimed was an assassination attempt, a suicide bomber attacked the main gate of a U.S. military base Tuesday within earshot of Vice President Dick Cheney. The explosion killed 23 people, including two Americans, and delivered a propaganda blow that undercut the U.S. military and the weak Afghan government it supports.
The bomber struck about 10 a.m., and U.S. military officials declared a "red alert" at the sprawling Bagram Air Base while Cheney was rushed to a bomb shelter. Cheney, who had been stranded at the base overnight by a snowstorm, met with President Hamid Karzai in the capital before heading back to the United States via the Gulf state of Oman.
"I heard a loud boom," Cheney told reporters aboard Air Force Two en route to Oman. "The Secret Service came in and told me there had been an attack on the main gate."
Many of the victims were said to be Afghan truck drivers waiting to get inside the base. A dozen men — many of them sobbing heavily — left the base holding a stretcher bearing their loved ones wrapped in black body bags. Tears streamed down the face of one man sitting in the passenger seat of an SUV that carried another victim away.
Although the bomber did not get closer than roughly a mile to the vice president, the attack highlighted an increasingly precarious security situation posed by the resurgent Taliban. Five years after U.S.-led forces toppled their regime, Taliban-led militants have stepped up attacks. There were 139 suicide bombings last year, a fivefold increase over 2005, and a fresh wave of violence is expected this spring. And this:
The guerrillas, according to NATO officials, have the flexibility to organize an attack quickly and may have been able to plan a bombing at the base while Cheney was there after hearing news reports on Monday that he was delayed by bad weather. The Taliban have attacked in the area north of the capital in the past even though people living in the Bagram area have not been supportive of the guerrillas. Col. Tom Collins, the top spokesman for the NATO force, said the Taliban had a cell in Kabul that could have traveled the 30 miles north to Bagram. But perhaps the most interesting note in the AP account was the rather casual reaction of the Bush faction at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
President Bush was not awakened to be told about the attack, but received an update early Tuesday morning. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush's first reaction was to ask if Cheney was OK. I'm tempted to ask whether his reaction to the news that in fact Cheney was fine, was "damn..."
Labels: Afghanistan, Bush administration, Cheney, Dick Cheney, Karzai, war, war on terror |
| posted by JReid @ 6:18 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Down she goes! |
The Dow takes a 416 point slide, followed by the Nasdaq and S&P, as China rattles the market across the New York Stock Exchange.
More on the China angle from CNBC:
Wall Street took its worst beating in four years, as a sell off in the Chinese stock market triggered a global stock selling spree and raised fears of a slowdown in the world economy.
"Asia sneezed and we all picked up a global chill," Frederic Dickson, Chief Market Strategist at D.A. Davidson & Company, told CNBC.com. "We're not going to go off of the ledge but tighten up the seatbelts a notch or two because it could be a little bumpy in the next few days. There's still a tremendous cushion of cash out there with most investors waiting for a pullback to put some money to work. We'll see if they come in."
The Dow's 416 point drop was its worst point decline since September 17, 2001, the first trading day after the September 11th disaster. On that day, the Dow dropped 684 points. Today's 3.29% dip was the worst percent decline since March 24, 2003. The S&P 500 lost 3.5%, its worst loss since the day. The Nasdaq fell 3.8%.
"This is a hiccup, well, maybe a slightly louder than normal burp," David Sowerby, Chief Market Analyst at Loomis Sayles, told CNBC.com. "I would deem it a modified correction at 5% and an outright correction at 8%. At this point, I think we're on our way to a modified correction." Jim Cramer is saying it's time to find something good to buy, and I agree with him, but this is also likely a signal of more economic pain to come -- and a stark illustration of just how big a gorilla China is in the global zoo.
Meanwhile, some analysts are blaming the former Wizard of the Fed, Alan Greenspan, for skunking up the party, for saying the following on Monday:
"When you get this far away from a recession invariably forces build up for the next recession, and indeed we are beginning to see that sign," said Greenspan. "For example in the U.S., profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle."
"While, yes, it is possible we can get a recession in the latter months of 2007, most forecasters are not making that judgment and indeed are projecting forward into 2008 ... with some slowdown So who's to blame? China or Greenspan? Greenspan or China? Inquiring minds want to know... and when I want to know, there's only one place I go: Addison Wiggin and the guys at The Daily Reckoning. Sign up for their newsletter. It's worth it.
Labels: Dow Jones, economy, Stock market |
| posted by JReid @ 5:47 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Do people lie to pollsters? Old, twice-divorced, smoking Mormons sure hope so! |
The new AP/WaPo poll is out, and it has some interesting info about people's attitudes regarding the current president, and a future president to be. First, on the future:
21. On another subject: I'm going to read a few attributes that might be found in a candidate for president. Please tell me if each would make you (more likely) to vote for that candidate for president, or (less likely) to vote for that candidate, or if it wouldn't matter.
2/25/07 - Summary Table
a. someone who is a woman More: 14, Less: 13, wouldn't matter: 72 no op: 1
b. someone who is black More: 7 Less: 6 Wouldn't matter: 87 no op: *
c. someone who is a Mormon More: 4 Less: 29 Wouldn't matter: 66 no op: 1
d. someone who is over age 72 More: 3 Less: 58 Wouldn't matter: 39 no op:*
e. someone who has been divorced twice More: 3 Less: 26 Wouldn't mat: 71 no op:1
f. someone who smokes cigarettes More: 2 Less: 21 no mat: 77 no op: *
The worst news in the poll is for John McCain. It seems the worst thing a candidate can be in the eyes of the voting -- or at least the poll-taking public -- is old. A whopping 58 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is over 72 years of age. McCain is 71, and looks every freaking day of it.
Also on the no-no list for voters: being twice divorced. 26 percent of voters were sour on that. Sorry, Rudy. (Lucky for Rudy, the WaPo didn't ask how voters felt about a candidate who once was married to his cousin ... )
On the female question, poll respondents have become considerably less unlikely to support a woman for president over time. When the question was asked in May of 1988, 25 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who was a woman. Now, it' sdown to 13 percent, with a high 72 percent saying it "wouldn't matter."
On the race question, 27 percent of respondents in May 1988 said they would be less likely to support a candidate who is Black, versus just 6 percent now. It's on this question that the cynic in me is tempted to ask whether people are as willing in 2007, to tell pollsters honestly, that they would have a problem supporting a Black candidate. I'm tempted to believe that the number who would have said trouble is considerably higher than 6 percent...
Moving on to the Mormon question, there is a sizeable minority of respondents who apparently have closed that door, with 29 percent of respondents less likely to give a Mormon candidate a chance, and a whopping 60 percent of those who said they would be less likely, adding that there is, in fact, "no chance" that they would vote for a Mormon for president. And 29 percent of the "no Mormon" respondents said they feel that way because they are "uncomfortable with, or dislike" Mormonism (6 percent went with the polygamy angle.) Not good news for Mr. Romney, who's internal strategy memo made the BoGlobe today, elucidating the fact that "electorate is not where it needs to be for us to succeed." A salient bite:
The plan, for instance, indicates that Romney will define himself in part by focusing on and highlighting enemies and adversaries, such common political targets as "jihadism," the "Washington establishment," and taxes, but also Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, "European-style socialism," and, specifically, France. Even Massachusetts, where Romney has lived for almost 40 years, is listed as one of those "bogeymen," alongside liberalism and Hollywood values.
Indeed, a page titled "Primal Code for Brand Romney" said that Romney should define himself as a foil to Bay State Democrats such as Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and former governor Michael Dukakis. Romney should position himself as "the anti-Kerry," the presentation says. But elsewhere in the plan, it's clear that Romney and his aides are aware he's open to the same charge that helped derail Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004: that he is a flip-flopper who has changed positions out of political expediency. flippety-floppety-boo.
Also interesting in the poll, and this one's for Barack Obama, is the rather sizable percentage of voters who said they could not support a smoker (21 percent).
One good piece of news for Hillary Clinton, I suppose, is that of those respondents who said they would be less likely to support a woman candidate, only 15 percent said it was because they didn't like Mrs. Clinton in particular. Twice that number -- 31 percent -- said it was because they simply don't think a woman can do the job. How nice.
Next, on the ever present subject of President Bush: two thirds of respondents disagree with his decision to surge 21,500 troops into Iraq, including 56 percent who "strongly disagree." And 58 percent support John Murtha's idea of limiting U.S. troop activities in Iraq to training Iraqi troops, plus guaranteeing rest time for the troops who've already served in theater. By 51-46, respondents opposed the idea of limiting funding for the Iraq war. Two thirds support the idea of "reducing U.S. military and financial support for the Iraqi government if the Iraqis fail to make progress toward national unity and restoring civil order," however, and by 53-46 percent, respondents favored setting a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
And there's this:
18. Overall, do you feel that you can or cannot trust the Bush administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries?
Can Cannot No opin.
2/25/07 35 63 2
Which is probably why respondents split right down the middle, 47-44 in favor, on the question of whether the Bush administration has the evidence to support their allegations about Iran's meddling in Iraq.
Go figure. For the WaPo's analysis on the poll, click here.
Other polling fun: Watch out mama, here comes Obama ... in the Zogby poll dated February 26, Hil's lead in the Dem primary is now 33-25. Barack was at 14 the last time the poll was done.
Labels: 2008, elections, polls, presidents, Washington Post |
| posted by JReid @ 4:41 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quick take headlines: Tuesday blues edition |
BREAKING: Foxy Brown says she was dragged off the potty by The Man at that Pembroke Pines beauty shop. Film at 11.
A judge says, "now usually I don't do this but ... go ahead and color in the courtroom, killer pedophile..."
Antonella Barbara may not be able to sing worth a damn on "American Idol," but right now, she's the most famous Idol ever...!
Hugo Chavez pulls the plug on nearly a half dozen foreign oil co's.
Where have all the honeybees gone?
ABC News anchor Bob Woodruff is back, and he has a cause: telling the stories of wounded Iraq and Afghan war veterans.
For former Vice President Al Gore, it's Oscar! Oscar! Oscar!
Dubya and the governors spat over who should pay for child healthcare. Do the governors really want cheese-eating socialist universal healthcare? Pray, tell!
A member of the Scooter Libby jury is dismissed, but the deliberations go on. ... I wonder if it had anything to do with her refusing to wear a festive, pink shirt on Valentine's Day? And what about that alternate... hm???
Labels: Al Gore, Bush administration, current affairs, Dick Cheney, George Bush, news, news and politics, Scooter Libby |
| posted by JReid @ 9:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| How can you kill him, when he's already dead? |
 A suicide bomber targets Vice Lord of Doom, Dick Cheney, in Afghanistan: BAGRAM, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber killed and wounded some two dozen people outside the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target.
The blast happened outside the base at Bagram, north of the capital, Kabul. Cheney's spokeswoman said he was fine, and the U.S. Embassy said the vice president later met with President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.
There were conflicting reports on the death toll. Provincial Gov. Abdul Jabar Taqwa said 20 people were killed, but NATO said initial reports indicated only three were killed, including a U.S. soldier, a South Korean coalition soldier and a U.S. government contractor whose nationality wasn't immediately known. NATO said 27 people were also wounded.
It was unclear why there was such a large discrepancy in the reports.
Meanwhile, in a notty twist of irony: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's Shiite vice president narrowly escaped assassination Monday as a blast ripped through a government meeting hall just hours after it was searched by U.S. teams with bomb-sniffing dogs. At least 10 people were killed.
Adel Abdul-Mahdi was slightly wounded in the explosion, which splintered chairs, destroyed a speakers' podium and sent a chilling message that suspected Sunni militants can strike anywhere despite a major security crackdown across Baghdad.
As U.S. forces sealed off the area around the municipal building, investigators grappled with the troubling question of how the bomb was smuggled into the ministry of public works — a seven-story structure with crack surveillance systems from its days as offices for Saddam Hussein's feared intelligence service.
Last but not least, is our military ready for a third "major conflict" should one arise? Er ... no: WASHINGTON - Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.
The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.
The report is classified, but on Monday senior defense officials, speaking on condition on anonymity, confirmed the decline in overall military readiness. And a report that accompanied Pace's review concluded that while the Pentagon is working to improve its warfighting abilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
Pace's report comes as the U.S. is increasing its forces in Iraq to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. And top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and reserve forces and taking a heavy toll on critical warfighting equipment. Between this and his continued contrariness on the subject of Iran's supposed meddling in Iraq, how much longer until General Pace is put out to pasture by the Bushies?
Labels: Afghanistan, Cheney, Dick Cheney, Iraq |
| posted by JReid @ 6:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Monday, February 26, 2007 |
| Use the Google! |
In his latest special comment, Keith Olbermann demolishes Condoleezza Rice ... this time, on her apparently scant knowledge of American history regarding our entry into the second world war. get her, Keith! First, here's Condi's statement, from this weekend's "Fox News Sunday":
"…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." But ... as Keith points out, it doesn't take much more than a middle school education to know that first off, the resolution that sent us into World War II didn't "authorize us to overthrow Adolph Hitler." The United States enterd World War II following an attack on our fleet in Hawaii by the Empire of Japan. President Roosevelt went to Congress and sought a declaration of war ... against Japan. Once in the war, the U.S. fought Japan and it's allies in the Axis, thus, placing us at war with the Germans (in fact, Roosevelt had wanted the U.S. to enter the war against Germany, in order to help our allies in France and England, but Congressional Republicans -- then isolationists -- and the American people, had no interest in getting involved in the war.)
Second, once Germany was defeated and HItler was dead, President Roosevelt did indeed go back to Congress to ask for an authorization to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe." As Keith deftly pointed out -- not through rocket science, mind you, but via a very basic knowledge of American history -- it was called the "Marshall Plan" -- and the Marshall in question, George C., happened to be the U.S. secretary of state. You'd think Ms. Rice would at least be conversant in the history of her own profession.
It's rather a sad commentary on our country that we have a secretary of state who barely understands the history of the United States, and who speaks authoritatively and blithely about matters she either has not thought thorugh, or about which she is willing to lie, or prevaricate, in order to win a political point.
It's high time the Congress strip the Bush administration and its incompetent team of power over American foreign policy. Clearly at this stage, to paraphrase the song by The Fray, everyone knows they're in over thier heads.
Labels: Condi Rice, Keith Olbermann, special comment |
| posted by JReid @ 9:11 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quick take headlines: Monday, Monday |
America: You'll come for the Bush administration, you'll stay for the poverty.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.
Kentucky's deep poverty rate increased 26 percent from 2000 to 2005, adding 59,305 people to the ranks of the severely poor according to the study. Kentucky's poverty rate, 16.8 percent, and deep poverty rate, 7.1 percent, for 2005 are both higher than the national averages of 13.3 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively.
'Permanent underclass'
The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind and the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.
These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. ...
Meanwhile, across the pond, the British government considers classifying an 8-year-old boy as abused, because his parents have allowed him to balloon to 14 stone -- that's 196 pounds in America-speak.
If you want to feel really bad about what's going on in Iraq, read this.
And how FUBAR is American foreign policy in this hemisphere? Colombia, on whom we've pinned all our hopes of avoiding a totally leftist region, turns to an old card that will be familiar to the Bushies: death squads.
Labels: Bush administration, current affairs, foreign policy, news, poverty |
| posted by JReid @ 9:42 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Sunday, February 25, 2007 |
| Vlad the impaler |
When I was in high school, one of my favorite passtimes was reading Russian novels (Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, etc. and yes, I read "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" -- I'm THAT nerdy... apparently, Russian novels are an interest I share with my ideological nemesis, Condi Rice...) Well now, there's a real life Russian novel playing out in real-life Russia, where as the Guardian reports, about a dozen of Vladimir Putin's enemies have mysteriously, ominously, turned up dead.
Labels: current affairs, Litvinenko, news, Russia, Vladimir Putin |
| posted by JReid @ 1:54 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Family ties |
 Rev. Al Sharpton got the shock of his life last week when he learned that his great-grandfather was owned by a relation of none other than long-time segregation stalwart Strom Thurmond. Who'd have thunk it... There will be a press conference tomorrow, and the Rev. will be at our station broadcasting his show tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully we'll get a chance to talk with him on the morning show before that. Here's the story from the NYDN:
It is a history linked in the degradation and cruelty of the slave trade in the South - a history that Sharpton himself was totally unaware of until this week.
The journey into the past began after the Daily News gave him the opportunity to explore his family's history with the help of a team of experts from Ancestry.com - a company that has archived more than 5 billion documents around the world and has 55 million additional pieces of data dedicated to African-American ancestry.
In a series of numbing revelations, Sharpton learned how:
His great-grandfather, Coleman Sharpton, was a slave in South Carolina.
Coleman Sharpton, a woman and two children - believed by genealogists to be his wife and kids - were given as a gift to Julia Thurmond, and were forced to move to Florida.
Julia Thurmond's grandfather is Strom Thurmond's great-great-grandfather.
Once freed, Coleman Sharpton earned a living as an elderly wood hauler, and fathered a son, Coleman Jr., who would go on to be a minister - like his grandson, the Rev. Al. ...
... For the better part of two weeks, a team of genealogists - led by Megan Smolenyak, an ancestry scholar who has written four books and was the lead researcher for the PBS "Ancestors" series - unpeeled the layers of Sharpton's family tree.
They unearthed historic documents, including an 1861 slave contract that confirmed that Coleman Sharpton was indeed sent from Edgefield County, S.C., to Liberty County, Fla., where he would work until given his freedom at the end of the Civil War.
They found incontrovertible data that the woman who owned Sharpton's great-grandfather was related to Sen. Thurmond, a champion of segregation. A bit more:
Smolenyak explained how Alexander Sharpton's son Jefferson Sharpton, died broke in 1860, leaving his family in debt.
Smolenyak said Alexander Sharpton, a wealthy slave owner, wanted to help out his son's widow.
"The document we found was known as an indenture," Smolenyak said. "It shows that Jefferson Sharpton died in debt and he had no will. His father [Alexander Sharpton] steps in to help the family."
The original copy of the indenture, which sits in the Liberty County Courthouse in Florida, reads:
"Describes negro to wit, Coleman, age 25 years, Biddy (female) age 22 years old, Harrison aged about 4 years and Bachus aged about 8 years," it states.
"Together with the future increase of the said female slave."
Sharpton stared at the image, carefully reading each word to himself.
"You know for real that you are three generations away from slavery," Sharpton would later remark.
Smolenyak said the indenture awarded Coleman and three others to the grandchildren - but placed them in the temporary custody of another relative in Florida, who was to put Coleman and the others to work to pay off the deceased son's debts. ...
... Smolenyak then told Sharpton how she delved into the family tree of the mother of the four children.
"Their mother was a Thurmond," Smolenyak said. "Julia Ann Thurmond." ...
... "Julia Thurmond Sharpton's grandfather and Strom Thurmond's great-great-grandfather, William Thurmond, are the same man," Smolenyak explained. "Julia Thurmond Sharpton is Strom Thurmond's first cousin twice removed."
"It's chilling," Sharpton said. "It's amazing." Kind of makes you take a second look at the notion of reparations, knowing that slavery is not some distant past. For many African-Americans over aged 50 or so, it can be as close as a great-grandfather.
The Daily News also records the stunned reactions of Stromond's relatives, who probably are checking with their attorneys right about now to make sure that reparations thing can't get reeeeeal personal.
And we thought Strom's Black daughter, which he knew he had -- and financially supported -- even while he was spouting racist and segregationist views, was a shocker.
Labels: Al Sharpton, American history, geneology, slavery, Srom Thurmond |
| posted by JReid @ 1:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Quick take headlines, insomniac edition |
Christian leaders begin to doubt their party of choice's presidential contenders...
Fidel's innermost thoughts from nearly fifty years ago revealed.
Hillary throws down the gauntlet on the subject of her husband's impeachment. Mention Monica in public at your own risk...
A new study finds that poverty has reached record numbers in the U.S. over the last six years:
The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas. A bit more, if you can take it:
The Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation shows that, in a given month, only 10 percent of severely poor Americans received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 2003 -- the latest year available -- and that only 36 percent received food stamps.
One in three Americans will experience a full year of extreme poverty at some point in his or her adult life, according to research by Mark Rank, a professor of social welfare at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
An estimated 58 percent of Americans between the ages of 20 and 75 will spend at least a year in poverty, Rank said. Two of three will use a public assistance program between ages 20 and 65, and 40 percent will do so for five years or more.
Lastly: is allowing your child to become fat a form of child abuse? That question is being asked in Britain in the case of the 14 stone boy:
AN eight-year-old boy who weighs 14 stone, more than three times the average for his age, may be taken into care if his mother fails to improve his diet.
Connor McCreaddie, from Wallsend, near Newcastle upon Tyne, has broken four beds and five bicycles. The family claims to have a history of intolerance to fruit or vegetables.
On Tuesday his mother and grandmother will attend a formal child protection conference to decide his future, which could lead to proceedings to take him into care.
Connor could be placed on the child protection register, along with victims of physical and sexual abuse, or on the less serious children in need register.
And speaking of abuse, that's what I'm doing to my brain right now. It's way past time to go to bed.
Labels: Christian right, current affairs, Fidel Castro, issues, news, people, poverty |
| posted by JReid @ 3:44 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Iran scam |
Sy Hersh reports that the Bush administration is making very real plans to attack Iran. Also, the New Yorker reprints Hersh flashbacks from 2005 and 2006, on the administration's consolidation of control over the intelligence operations of the CIA and Pentagon, and their plans to use their unprecedented powers to upend Iran. Hersh also asks two key questions: first, is the Bush policy helping or hurting the war on terror, and second, will the military go along? At least one paper, the Times of London, reports that some U.S. generals plan to resign if the Bush administration insists on attacking Iran:
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them. There's also this:
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders. And this:
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month. ...
So which is it? Are we planning an Iran attack or not? It could be that the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, is pushing for an attack, but elements within the Pentagon and the uniformed military are resisting it every way they can.
Meanwhile, Israel is now denying it is seeking U.S. overflight permission to traverse Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.
It just doesn't stop.
Labels: Bush administration, Iran, war |
| posted by JReid @ 3:10 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| What if God was one of us? |
The most frightening concept in human existence is death, which is why the avoidance of death occupies so much of our human energy (from medical science to the beauty and youth preservation industry to insurance to Medicare). It is for that reason that Christianity, Islam and other religions that carry a message of life after death, posess such powerful inducements to believe. There is endless comfort in the idea of resurrection, and endless terror in its absence.
The story of Jesus is one of the most powerful religious tomes ever written, because inherent in it are the incredibly seductive notions of miraculous hope, the endless love of God, and most importantly, eternal life, paid for with the blood of a perfect man: Jesus, who also happens to be the son of God (therefore posessing the authority to grant God's love to us.) But what if everything you ever read about Jesus was true -- the virgin birth, the miracles he performed, the message of love that he preached, his death at the hands of the Romans ... except, that he didn't physically "rise from the dead..." what if after his death, his body remained on earth, just like ours? Would that change your faith? Would it destroy it?
The idea of "debunking" the resurrection story of Jesus carries with it the potential to create massive, worldwide anguish and instability. It also is a tempting prospect for anyone who craves the spotlight, regardless of the cost. I think, despite my almost complete cynicism about, well, nearly everything, that if I were to find difinitive proof that Jesus' story was false, that I would be very, very tempted never to tell anyone. Then again, I'm not James Cameron:
Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.
In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.
No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.
Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.
There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.
But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family. ...
Cameron plans to hold a press conference on Monday to announce his new documentary film, which will air in Britain, Canada, Israel and on Discovery Channel here in the States. At that time, he plans to show three coffins, which are supposed to belong to Jesus, his mother Mary and Mary Magdelene. Time will tell if Cameron eventually is remembered as a character out of the Da Vinci Code or as Geraldo Rivera circa Al Capone's Vault.
Whatever the eventual outcome TIME Magazine's Tim McGirk, who wrote the above blog post, makes the understatement of the year when he notes that "Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics." No kidding. I sure hope Cameron isn't a Catholic. Because if he is, he's about to be excommunicated.
And then there are the political implications. Inevitably, we're going to be treated to a right wing assault on Cameron on Monday, and reminded, not least by Fox News, that Hollywood hates God, and that therefore, we must reject everything Hollywood -- including their political pals, the Democrats (didn't Barack Hussein Obama just raise $1.3 million in the Sodom and Gamorrah that is Orange County? Brace yourself.
But beyond the hype, and the political sniping, Cameron's "find" raises serious questions about the role of science and showbiz in society, and the moral implications of the former for the latter's sake. I honestly don't know whether I believe in life after death. I'd like to. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. But I think that the way Cameron is going about pulling off his documentary risks looking like a cheap stunt, carried out at the expense of the real sensitivities of hundreds of millions of Christians around the world. I'm not saying that if true, this information should necessarily be supressed. I'm just saying that it's disturbing to believe -- as I do -- that Cameron probably hasn't given the matter a second thought.
...and if his archeologists and he are wrong they're all going to look like complete horse's asses.
Labels: Christianity, Discovery Channel, documentaries, James Cameron, Jesus, religion |
| posted by JReid @ 2:16 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| Whither the Blackosphere... |
I've wondered about this myself ... namely, why is it that the left end of the blogosphere is so overwhelmingly white? I know there are a number of us "Black bloggers" out there (although I must admit I don't write about race, per se, all that much...) but we seem not to have been able to traverse to the deep end of the pool. Meanwhile, the Kosworld is a rather snow-white one. Why is that? Blogger Francis Holland dares to asks the question, and gets mugged over at MyDD. Hat tip to African-American pundit. Hm. Maybe it's time to finally start posting to my MyDD diary? Aw hell, who has the time...
Labels: blogosphere, blogs, race |
| posted by JReid @ 2:06 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Friday, February 23, 2007 |
| Quick take headlines: TGIF edition |
Timothy McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, files an affidavit in a Utah inmate's death case, claiming that he and McVeigh had help planning the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City -- from a "high level FBI agent." Could Oklahoma City become a conspiracy theory magnet the likes of the JFK assassination? Time will tell.
The Bush administration's torture policy -- including sleep deprivation, administration of drugs like LSD and PCP, threats of execution and isolation -- finally drives Jose Padilla over the edge.
In Washington, Democrats are planning moves to revoke the authority the Congress foolishly and recklessly gave President Bush in 2002 to wage war "'as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq' and to enforce relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions."
As Somalia continues to descend into chaos, the NYT has word that the U.S. used a base in neighboring Ethiopia to launch military strikes against suspected al-Qaida.
Condi Rice issues threats to Iran. ... real, serious, never gonna happen threats.Labels: conspiracies, current affairs, news, news and politics |
| posted by JReid @ 8:37 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| From the desk of: Dwight David Eisenhower: |
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this develop | | | |
