General Petraeus gets Iraq wrong

In today’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Gen. Petraeus if he believes central terror threat to the U.S. comes from South Asia — and not Iraq. While Petraeus defended the Iraq war, claiming it is al Qaeda’s “main effort,” he said the “organization of an attack” would come from the “strengthened” al Qaeda in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan:

REED: In fact, Admiral Mullen has stated, “If we’re going to pick the next attack on the United States, it would come out the FATA.” Do you agree with those intelligence assessments?

PETRAEUS: I do, Senator. Clearly, al Qaeda’s senior leadership has been strengthened in the FATA, even though their main efforts still is assessed to be in Iraq by them, as well as by us. But the organization of an attack, if you will, would likely come from the FATA.

Jesus Christ! Iraq is al Qaeda’s main effort? Are you kidding me?

Iraq’s fight is, has been, and will be a Sunni minority that used to be in charge and hates being on the outs versus a Shia majority that used to be oppressed by the Sunni, but are now in charge and exacting revenge against the Sunni who oppressed them. In addition to that, there are Shia religious fundamentalists who want a clerical state with ties to Iran.

Al Qaeda is in AFGHANISTAN! Afghanistan is NOT in Iraq.

We did NOT go to war in Iraq because were were looking to bring al Qaeda to justice after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We went to war in Iraq because Saddam had WMDs, or WMD programs, or the ability to reconstitute WMD programs, or the intent to reconstitute WMD programs…

Now, General Petraeus surely knows better than to say stupid things like this, which help the Bush administration continue the false conflation of Iraq and al Qaeda. His problem is that he’s all to willing to suck up to the President and the Secretary of Defense, either for his own advancement, or out of some misguided sense of loyalty.

A major problem with today’s military, aside from the Bush administration’s stupid and flawed Iraq policy, is that leaders with integrity have felt compelled to retire, or have been fired for not falling in line with the administration.

General Petraeus ought to be ashamed and he ought not to be confirmed. I have no doubt, though, that the Democratic Senators who SAY they’re against the President’s Iraq policy will vote to make Petraeus the CENTCOM commander, and he’ll continue doing Bush’s bidding. Petraeus will continue implementing the flawed Iraq policy and the Democrats will continue saying they’re against it. In short, nothing will change.

Super delegate endorsements -- against the Obama Rules?

Barack Obama is extending his lead in super delegates as the Democratic Party coalesces behind him.

Congressmen Howard Berman and Henry Waxman -- both from California, both key committee chairmen, and both leaders in the Jewish community -- added their blessings.

Wait. Berman and Waxman are from California. Clinton won the California primary and she carried Berman's and Waxman's districts.

Didn't the Obama campaign say that super delegates should vote the same way their constituents did? In fact didn't the Obama campaign used to complain about super delegates, arguing that "party insiders" shouldn't decide the nomination?

Oops, my bad. That was the Obama argument in FEBRUARY. The Obama argument in May is that it's time to unify and coalesce around one candidate -- well, as long as that one candidate is Barack Obama.

Now, mind you, I don't really mind Obama's shifting rationale. Part of winning in politics is to press home every advantage and do what you can to minimize the damage from any disadvantages. In this, Obama is pretty much doing what any politician would.

And THAT'S my point. Obama is acting like any other politician would. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just saying if you support Obama, don't be fooled into thinking that he's somehow different from other politicians. He wants to win and he'll do what's necessary, even shifting his arguments when the circumstances dictate it.

John McCain -- lying or delusional?

Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week (author's note -- BULLSHIT. McCain agrees with Bush on EVERYTHING.), on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to "terrorists and radicals" was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.

"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain," Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."

Is McCain talking about the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis? In that one, the Reagan campaign worked behind the scenes to keep the hostages IN IRAN to create a negative impact on President Carter's reelection chances. Reagan certainly didn't talk tough to make Iran release the hostages.

Is he talking about the one that happened later in the 1980s? In that one Reagan sold plane loads of missiles to Iran in exchange for the hostages. Only the facts that his administration was nearly over and that he was clearly losing his mental faculties kept Congress from impeaching him. If that's not "appeasement", then I don't know what is.

Remember this bullshit every time a member of the media tells you about McCain's integrity and candor and "straight talk".

MSNBC -- where Tonya Harding is the thoughtful one

On the May 15 edition of MSNBC Live, while previewing an upcoming interview with former figure skater Tonya Harding, anchor Tamron Hall stated: "Well, remember when there were those reports out that Hillary Clinton would use the so-called 'Tonya Harding strategy' to perhaps take out Barack Obama? Well, we're going to talk to the real Tonya Harding about her place in history and now her infamy within American politics. Yes, really, Mika." MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski responded: "Oh, my God." Hall said: "That's ahead on MSNBC. No, really. Really, we are." Brzezinski added: "I can't believe that. It's great."

From the 12 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on May 15:

HALL: Well, she's been called the most tarnished woman in the history of sports. Tonya Harding, the Olympic skater linked to the attack against fellow competitor Nancy Kerrigan just before the 1994 Winter Olympics. But she says the world only knows half of her story. Now she's revealing shocking new details about the incident, as well as tales of rape and abuse in a book called The Tonya Tapes. Earlier, I had a chance to speak with Tonya Harding. She says she's disclosing such personal details in an effort to send a message.

[...]

HALL: Let me ask you this. You talk about the way people view you. Obviously, big presidential race, and the "Tonya Harding option" actually came up in the news. Reportedly that was one of the options that Senator Clinton's campaign was looking at and that they would do anything to take out Senator Barack Obama. Your name became synonymous -- or is synonymous with taking out the other person. I know you had to have heard this. What did you feel, and how do you feel when even your name comes up in a situation like politics?

HARDING: Well, you know what? Whatever people said, it doesn't matter. It's their opinion. But I think that there's more important issues that we need to deal with in this world and that they need to focus on the candidacy at hand and hopefully help this country.

HALL: But did you cringe when you heard this, though?

HARDING: I just heard about it just a little while ago, and I just thought that it was really sad that they have to talk about me and not the problems in the world.

HALL: All right, Tonya. Thank you very much.

MSNBC -- where the "journalists" are interested in meaningless sensationalism and the supposedly dim Harding is the one who's asking for reporters to cover important topics.

Kristen Breitweiser has Obama nailed

Recently I've stayed away from Huffington Post, since it's now All Obama, All the Time. This post is different, though. Go ahead and read the whole thing. Here are some of the best parts:

In August when the Republican attack ads unroll with a screaming, ranting, raving, railing, and dancing like a chicken lunatic Reverend Wright juxtaposed with an angry Obama with an outstretched pointing finger overlayed by Obama's voice saying that he can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown his grandmother, will the superdelegates feel good and justified about their decision to try and kick Hillary out of the race before she won a state like West Virginia or Kentucky? Will those same superdelegates apologize for their bad judgment in thinking a candidate who lost 40% of the Democratic vote in a state primary -- a mere 5 months before Election Day -- should even still qualify to be the best candidate in a general election?

Will those superdelegates admit bad judgment in voting for the candidate that "said" he had good judgment but turned out to have bad judgment once he was aptly defined by the likes of Karl Rove? Because as of May 14, 2008, Barack Obama has yet to successfully define himself to the American people -- he is too busy defining John McCain.

Now, I don't agree with everything Breitweiser says -- McCain is not a real outsider or a real agent of change, he simply has media enablers helping him spread that image.

Overall, though, I think she correctly spells out some of the problems with Obama's campaign.

Like I've said before, if Obama is nominated, I want to support him. He's got work to do if he expects to prevail in the general election, though -- Breitweiser is right about that.

Why Clinton supporters are turned off by Obama

Just LOOK at this!

A Hitler reference? HITLER? If Obama's supporters think they can win a general election without the votes of those who backed Clinton, then they don't know politics. If they think Hitler comparisons are the way to attract those Clinton voters to the Obama camp, then they don't know human nature.

Obama's supporters should remember episodes like this when Clinton backers like me, who are willing to back Obama if he's the nominee, decide instead to sit on our hands, write in Clinton, or vote for McCain.

SNL really is in the tank for Obama

I'm just stunned at last night's opening skit on Saturday Night Live:



The skit depicts Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton asking "why give me the nomination?"

"Hillary's" reasons?

1 -- I am a sore loser. If I am nominated Senator Obama will campaign for me. if he is nominated I will not campaign for him. If I do, it will be halfheartedly so that I can torpedo him, enabling me to run again in 2012.

2 -- My supporters are racist. Senator Obama's are not. His supporters will vote for me. My racist supporters will not vote for a black man.

3 -- I have no ethical standards, unlike Senator Obama. I will do anything to win. Senator Obama is so upright he will not play the race card. I on the other hand will play the gender card AND the race card. You say that makes no sense? Then you don't know me very well, do you?

Conclusion: So there you have it -- sore loser, racist, no ethical standards -- I have qualities Senator Obama simply cannot match.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is not funny, not topical, not accurate. It just feeds into the meme the media has already decided on -- Obama is pure and well-intentioned. Hillary is a mean, evil bitch. Well, if Obama is nominated, just wait until the general election when the media that fawns over him now abandons him for their REAL favorite, John McCain.

Is it even worth pointing out that Hillary Clinton has said on numerous occasions that if Obama is nominated she'll campaign whole-heartedly for him, and that she knows if she's nominated he'll do the same for her?

I'm not even going to bother with the other claims in this lame attempt at humor. I'll just conclude by saying go to hell, SNL.

Associated Press Hearts McCain

Apr 28, 7:10 PM EDT

RNC demands networks yank McCain ad

MIAMI (AP) -- The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.

Note the Associated Press perspective here. They state as fact that the Democratic ad is false. In addition, they state as fact that the Democrats "falsely" claim that John McCain "wants a 100-year war in Iraq."

In truth, the ad DOES NOT say that McCain wants a "100-year war in Iraq." The ad DOES include a clip of McCain speaking in January. In the clip, McCain responds to a question about President Bush's suggestion that the US military could be in Iraq for 50 years:

"Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

So, the ad is TRUE -- it says McCain suggested staying in Iraq for a hundred years, and it includes McCain actually saying he suggests staying in Iraq for a hundred years. In addition, the ad does not say McCain wants a "100-year war" in Iraq, as the AP claims.

With news outlets bending over backwards like this for McCain as a matter of habit, I really don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the problem with "the media" is that it has a "liberal bias."

Obama gets civilian control of the military

Barack Obama on Fox News Sunday today:

I will listen to Gen Petraeus given the experience he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. But it is my job as President, it would be my job as Commander in Chief to set the mission. To make the strategic decision in light of the problems we’re having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems we’re having in Pakistan, the fact that al-Qaeda is strengthening as our national intelligence estimates have indicated and I have a whole host of tasks and I have to worry about the military has no strategic reserve right now…

Bush always tries to act like it's not him that's setting the course in Iraq, but "the generals on the ground." Well, that is until they cross him and he fires them. Wallace asked Obama if he’d confirm Petraeus as CENTCOM commander and Obama said yes. Obama also pointed out that if he becomes President, HE, not Petraeus, is Commander in Chief and determines the strategic objective -- not "the Generals."

I hate giving credibility to Fox "News," but if that's what it takes to get the message out...

Two reasons to not support McCain

John McCain voted against a federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in 1983.

McCain opposed an Arizona MLK state holiday in 1987.

McCain again opposed a federal MLK holiday in 1989.

In 1994 McCain voted against funding the commission established to encourage all states to recognize the King holiday.

Despite all this, as you'll see in the video, McCain claims to have voted against the MLK holiday 1983, but changed to support it "a very short time after that."

I'd say there are two reasons here to justify not supporting McCain. First, he was against the MLK holiday for a very long time. Second, he's lying about it.