Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Well, you've forgotten that Bush will be gone and that the choice is between billary obama and nccain
Obama and Intifada
Ties that Blind
By absentee Posted in 2008 | Intifada | Obama — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senator Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ has easily become the campaign's biggest vulnerability. The famous fiery indictments and conspiracy theories dealt from the pulpit to a nation watching YouTube are being pinned and repinned to Obama, as he continues to try and brush them off.
Now there's a new and even uglier twist, if you can believe that. Obama is being linked to the radical group International Solidarity Movement (ISM), as reported in the Canada Free Press on Tuesday. Ali Abunimah, Vice President of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, a website of the ISM, posted an article on Monday in which he outlines why he believes Obama is really very in tune with the Reverend's views on Israel. He even quotes Obama's remarks to a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland to comfort his fellow anti-Semites that "Obama implicitly admitted that Wright's views were rooted in opposition to Israel's deep ties to apartheid South Africa, and thus entirely reasonable."
Read on.
Of course, you may think it is unfair to link the Senator and the ISM activist, but Kaplan lays out the extensive connections. Just to be clear what we are talking about, the ISM is a movement comprised of Neo-nazis, anarchists, Arab militants, communists, and other radical elements originally set up to support the PLO in efforts toward the ultimate destruction of Israel. In Lee Kaplan's words, they are "a subversive organization out to destroy western-style democracies."
In this excerpt from the article Kaplan adds:
"Ali Abunimah is more than just some 'Palestinian activist' based in Chicago, the same location as Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is, in fact, one of the founders of the fiercely anti-Semitic ISM Arab group Al Awda, the Palestine Right of Return Coalition. Abunimah is a high level international leader of the ISM for the Arabs who travels extensively between Chicago, Europe and Ramallah."
Abunimah cites a past working relationship with the Senator in his wink-wink, nudge-nudge to anti-Semites, but Kaplan points out that relationship is not the only connection between the two.
"Obama's association with the ISM through his church and lobbying in Chicago goes even deeper than just his past links to Al Awda and Ali Abunimah. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and the Trinity Union Church of Christ in Chicago, are both equally involved with the ISM."
"Since 2001, the ISM has been tasked by the PLO and other Arab irredentist groups with getting new generations of American college kids to consider democratic Israel as somehow a violator of human rights, all the while as the Palestinian Arabs who practice open anti-Semitism, honor killings, and the murders of their own people as well as Jews, as commendable practices."
"Now, it has become the ISM's time to deconstruct religious dogma of Israel belonging to the Jews as is preached in US churches and to increase the number of black churches in America that are working in "solidarity" with this program. Jeremiah Wright's church is one of them. Even though the national synod of the United Church for Christ rescinded a boycott and divestment plan against Israel, a wing of the UCC church keeps trying to get it reinstated. That wing includes Reverend Wright's Trinity UCC Church in Chicago."
Intifada is rebellion based on the breeding of hatred and the propagating of low-level terrorism. Israel Matzav notes that the ISM has been linked to armed support of Palestinian terrorists, and Gateway Pundit points out that they are even linked to the despicable Easter Sunday "protest" two weeks ago.
The picture of anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and zealous conspiracy-theorizing evident from the pulpit and bulletins of Barack Obama's self-proclaimed religious inspiration and spiritual guide is a gruesome tableau. It's a tableau that Barack can't bring himself to disown, and which he believes is so integral to the black community as to be indistinguishable. "I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than I can disown the black community," he professes.
Intifada is rebellion, and Senator Obama has a cozy twenty-year relationship with the rebellious Wright and other intifada bedfellows. The question is whether the American voters are ready to let that relationship become their own.
the media is on his side and will give him the coverage he needs i suspect,
I guess you haven't heard of the new york times and their serial attempts to bring him down
Remember the story about his "affair" with the lobbyist stories?
The attempts to to bait him into argument on his plane?
Obama advisor recommends leaving large number of troops in Iraq
Posted by: McQ
First Samantha Power, now Colin Kahl:
A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center's Web site as a policy brief.
Kahl and the Obama campaign both deny this represents the campaign's Iraq position. However, it certainly represents a studied and reasonable approach to Iraq that even his senior advisors can't seem to deny.
Mr. Kahl's paper laid out what he called a "middle way" between unlimited engagement in Iraq and complete and rapid disengagement. The approach is contingent, he said, on the progress and willingness of Iraq's major confessional parties in reaching political accommodation.
Of course "rapid disengagement" is the Obama policy at the moment.
So is Obama A) spreading a populist message he knows is wrong and dangerous to the national interest but also knows will help get him elected or B) planning to do something completely different when in office than what he's claiming on the campaign trail, or C) all of the above?
The glamour of Obama may be hard to resist, but could it get the country into trouble if he wins the presidency?
by Virginia Postrel
The Peril of Obama
Article Tools
sponsored by:
E-mail Article
Printer Format
Barack Obama has brought glamour back to American politics—not the faux glamour-by-association of campaigning with movie stars or sailing with the Kennedys, but the real thing. The candidate himself is glamorous. Audiences project onto him the personal qualities and political positions they want in a president. They look at Obama and see their hopes and dreams.
Glamour is more than beauty or stage presence. You can’t generate it just by having a wife who dresses like Jackie Kennedy. Glamour is a beautiful illusion—the word glamour originally meant a literal magic spell—that promises to transcend ordinary life and make the ideal real. It depends on a special combination of mystery and grace. Too much information breaks the spell. So does obvious effort. That’s why glamour is so rare in contemporary politics. In post-Vietnam, post-Watergate America, skeptical voters demand full disclosure of everything from candidates’ finances to their medical records, and spin-savvy accounts of backstage machinations dominate political coverage.
Obama’s glamour gives him a powerful political advantage. But it also poses special problems for the candidate and, if he succeeds, for the country.
Like John Kennedy in 1960, Obama combines youth, vigor, and good looks with the promise of political change. Like Kennedy, he grew up in unusual circumstances that distance him from ordinary American life. But while it was Kennedy’s wealth that set him apart, Obama’s mystery stems from an upbringing and ethnicity that defy conventional categories. He is glamorous because he is different, and his differences mirror his audience’s aspirations for the country.
Supporters project onto him the identity they long for in a president. He seems to embody racial harmony and international understanding. Some enthusiasts suggest that Obama’s name and face alone could be enough to calm America’s adversaries and restore the American dream. His glamour explains a campaign paradox: how a man who wrote a race-conscious coming-of-age memoir about his search for a black identity could be touted as a “post-racial” candidate. The allure of his origins obscured his own account of his inner life.
That’s one reason the revelation of his religious mentor’s racially charged sermons proved so potent. Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright revealed to white audiences that the senator is a self-defined black man who listens sympathetically to—and might even share—the angry grievances of other African Americans. His rhetoric may be inclusive, but he is not colorblind. He does not, by his mere existence, make America’s racial divisions disappear.
Obama’s glamour also accounts for some of his campaign’s other stumbles. Plenty of candidates attract supporters who disagree with them on some issues. Obama is unusual, however. He attracts supporters who not only disagree with his stated positions but assume he does too. They project their own views onto him and figure he is just saying what other, less discerning voters want to hear. So when Obama’s chief economic adviser supposedly told a Canadian official that, contrary to campaign rhetoric, the candidate didn’t want to revise NAFTA, reporters found the story credible. After all, nobody that thoughtful and sophisticated could really oppose free trade.
Unlike Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, the two glamorous presidents who shaped 20th-century American politics, Obama has left his political philosophy a mystery. His call for “a broad majority of Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill—who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal” is not a statement of principles. It’s an invitation to the audience to entertain their own fantasies of what national renewal would look like.
Pages: 1
Like any candidate, Obama of course has position papers on specific issues. But even well-informed observers disagree about whether he represents the extreme left wing of the Democratic party or something more market-oriented and centrist. As the NAFTA flap demonstrates, his supporters can’t even decide what the candidate really thinks about free trade. His glamour makes it easy to imagine that a President Obama would dissolve differences, abolish hard choices, and achieve political consensus—or that he’s a stealth candidate who will translate his vague platform into a mandate for whatever policies you the voter happen to support.
Where optimists fill in mystery with their hopes, however, pessimists project their fears. The flip side of glamour is horror: the vampire, the con man, the femme fatale, the double agent. These glamorous archetypes remind us of how easy it is to succumb to desire and manipulation. What, ask his opponents, is Obama hiding?
The same exotic distance that makes the candidate compelling to supporters fosters the persistent rumors that he’s a secret Muslim and, anonymous sources hint darkly, an enemy of the United States. More mundanely, the apparent effortlessness of his political career—the grace with which he seems to rise above ordinary politics—makes it harder for him to shrug off the unsavory allies who come with a career in Chicago, from indicted developer Tony Rezko to antigay preacher Rev. James Meeks. They spoil the fantasy.
To rely on illusions is to risk disillusionment. If Obama the dream candidate becomes Obama the real president, he’ll be forced to pick sides, make compromises, and turn “hope” and “change” into policies some people like and some people don’t. Or, like the movie star governor of California, he might choose instead to preserve his glamour by letting others set the agenda. Either way, his face won’t make America’s worries disappear, and his cool, polite manner won’t eliminate political disagreements. Some of his supporters will feel disappointed, even betrayed. The result could be a backlash, heightened partisan conflict, and a failed presidency. George W. Bush ran as a uniter, and Jimmy Carter promised national renewal.
Obama must have an inkling of these perils. He knows glamour better than most people, having grown up enchanted with the glamorized image of his distant father, an image shaped by his mother’s stories and his own yearnings. “The brilliant scholar, the generous friend, the upstanding leader—my father had been all those things. All those things and more, because except for that one brief visit in Hawaii, he had never been present to foil the image,” he writes in Dreams from My Father. That ideal shaped Obama’s aspirations and character. “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all of the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”
That image was false. Despite his early promise, Obama’s father died a bitter, lonely minor bureaucrat, leaving a fractured family to fight over his tiny estate. “All my life,” concluded the young Obama when he learned the truth, “I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!” By then, however, the glamour had done its work, providing meaning and purpose to the son’s formative years. At the risk of bitter disillusionment, perhaps Obama hopes to do for the country what his father’s image did for him: provide a noble lie that tricks us into self-improvement.
Obama, Penny Pritzker, and a long list of bad advisers
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Obama really is a change from a typical politician, ain't he? He surrounds himself with Ms. Powers who calls Hillary names and undermines Obama's own policy stances. He surrounds himself with men like Reverend Wright who preach on the separation in this country between black and white and how white people want to infect black people with AIDS.
He's also surrounded himself with Penny Pritzker as his national finance chairwoman.
bama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, was chairwoman of the board of a Chicago-area bank in 1993 when it adopted a subprime business strategy that regulators say ultimately led it to collapse in 2001.
Superior's board and managers "ignored sound risk-management principles and failed to adequately oversee Superior's operations," the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Inspector General concluded in 2002.
I wonder what investment strategies she's chosen to keep his campaign well funded?
Of course, on the Democratic side, it's not just him.
Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned at least $175,000 serving from 2000-07 on the board of Long Island-based Delta Financial, which filed for bankruptcy last year after a history of high-cost loans to low-income borrowers, according to public records.
Yes, I do think at 3 a.m. we don't want either of these clowns answering the White House phone if these are the people they'll surround themselves with. As Machiavelli once said, we learn a lot about the competence of a leader based on who they chose as their advisers.
Bill Clinton Says Hillary Tried to Join the Army
April 02, 2008 4:49 PM
A big Indiana national security endorsement today for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
9/11 Commission Vice chair Lee Hamilton, a former member of Congress from the Hoosier state, announced that he's backing the lanky Illinoisan.
Possibly to avoid being one-upped on Indiana national security politics, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army.
Listen to an excerpt HERE.
"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.
I assume this is a version of the "Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marines" anecdote that then-First Lady Clinton told in 1994 that we wondered about since it's a story she never seems to have told again.
The original story was that in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1975, Hillary walked into a local Marines recruiting office. The Marine recruiter looked at her, she recalled, and asked how old she was. Twenty-seven, she said.
"He looked at me, and in those days that was before I learned how to wear contact lenses," Sen. Clinton told a crowd of women veterans in 1994. "I had these really thick glasses on. He said, ‘How bad's your eyesight?' I said, ‘It's pretty bad.' …Finally said to me, he said, 'You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman.…But maybe the dogs would take you.'"
("Dogs" being a reference to the Army.)
Perhaps she did so -- and hence Bill Clinton's Army story today?
Or maybe he's conflating the two stories?
(Add that Bosnian sniper fire, and you might have something there that Julia Roberts would want to option.)
-- jpt
LMAO they really are shameless , aren't they?
Billary playing the race card sealed thier fate
The dems can't win w/o blacks voting 90% for them, and they WON"T vote for the shrew
Denial
IF the Sadr forces won, why would they stop fighting and declare a cease fire
This was a clear victory for the IA
Iraqi government says operations in Basra will continue
Posted by: McQ
Bill Roggio:
One day after Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for his fighters to abandon combat, the fighting in Basrah has come to a near-halt, and the Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets. While Sadr spokesman said the Iraqi government agreed to Sadr's terms for the cease-fire, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said the security forces will continue operations in Basrah in the South. Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in Basrah, Nasiriyah, Babil, and Baghdad over the weekend, despite Sadr's call for the end of fighting.
Maliki was clear that operations would continue in the South. "The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons," Maliki said, referring to the 10-day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. "Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people."
The Iraqi military said it was moving in more forces into the South after admitting it was surprised by the level of resistance encountered in Basrah. "Fresh military reinforcements were sent to Basra to start clearing a number of Basra districts of wanted criminals and gunmen taking up arms," said Brigadier General Abdel Aziz al Ubaidi, the operations chief for the Ministry of Defense. "Preparations for fresh operations have been made to conduct raids and clearance operations in Basra ... [and] military operations would continue to restore security in Basra."
That supports the scenario I laid out below where the purpose of the operations is to clear Basra of criminal gangs, their influence and control.
Roggio continues, pointing out that in the clash between the Iraqi Army and the Mahdi army, it appears the Mahdi army came out on the worst end of it:
The reasons behind Sadr's call for a cessation in fighting remain unknown, but reports indicate the Mahdi Army was having a difficult time sustaining its operations and has taken heavy casualties. "Whatever gains [the Mahdi Army] has made in the field [in Basrah], they were running short of ammunition, food, and water," an anonymous US military officer serving in South told The Long War Journal. "In short [the Mahdi Army] had no ability to sustain the effort.
TIME's sources in Basrah paint a similar picture. "There has been a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border," the magazine reported.
Those reports indicate a successful cordon was established isolating Mahdi troops and keeping them from being resupplied and reinforced. IOW, the handwriting was on the wall as to how this operation would end had the fighting continued.
The continuation of the security operation, talked about yesterday, seems to mean the IA has established control and is proceeding with its plans. Additionally, if the point needed to be made, IA reinforcements are arriving in the area. Most likely to tighten the cordon and be available should another round of fighting with the Mahdi army erupt. I would guess that will be most unlikely.
All the particulars of who did what to whom as far as brokering the cease fire will be sorted out I'm sure, but as far as I see it you have to work pretty hard to make this a victory for al Sadr and a defeat for Maliki. The side that is "continuing operations" is the side most reasonable people will consider to be the victor.
Fighting has also all but ceased in Baghdad's Sadr city and in Nasiriyah. An interesting nugget from Sadr city:
An unknown number of Mahdi Army fighters in the Iskan and Washash neighborhoods have gone against Sadr's demands to keep their weapons and have surrendered them to the military in accordance with the amnesty offer issued by Maliki.
And while the ISF is taking the lead in the Basra operation, it is also taking the lead in media operations as well.
From a second press conference held by Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the Iraqi government and Major General Lua Aziz, spokesman for the ISF. MG Aziz sums up the operation [again the wording is awkward in some areas because it is translated from Arabic]:
Show/Hide
Let's start by the commanding operation of the 4th-of the 8th Division or in provinces like in Kut, Hillah, Karbala, Najaf [and] Diwianiyah; and all those provinces are under the responsibility of the 8th Division. Regarding Kut, at the beginning of the operation there was a presence of the enemy and the armed members. The commander of the 8th Division, who is one of the finest officers in the Ministry of Defense, he moved his headquarter to Kut and enhanced that province and that city with four companies. And he also led a clear operation or a clearing operation in Kut City from the presence of the armed men. The situation now in all the areas is calm and is controlled completely by the troops of the 8th Division.
There was an operation yesterday, yesterday night, in Al-Hashimiyah county that was based on intelligence reports and intel. There was some presence for armed men and so there were some troops moved and captured 25 armed men. And also they found weapon cache including different kinds of weapons. At Karbala the situation is calm and stable. The commanding operation in Karbala also headed a-also headed troops and with help from the citizens and would like to say that the citizens of Karbala, they showed us the places of those armed men. And in this operation the unit managed to capture 98 armed men; and the strange thing, two of them were Egyptians.
Everything in Diwianiyah is calm. Najaf also the situation is calm. And we haven't seen any incidents ever since the operation started on the 25th until now. The 10th Division that is controlling the three provinces, that's Maysan, Nasiriyah, and Muthanna.
[In] Al Muthanna province, ever since the operation started on [the] 25th until this morning, we haven't witnessed any kind of-any incidents. The security forces control that province in a good way.
Nasiriyah-in Nasiriyah, the situation was calm but it was kind of cautious. The security forces were deployed and they closed the entries of the province and that's why it was able to control the situation. The presence of the armed men was in Amarah and Maysan. Also the commander of the 10th Division in Amarah and he sent a battalion as well at the beginning of this month. And he gave instructions to them to move and the battalion moved and he himself led the brigade and the battalion. And the recent area that was cleared actually was yesterday after midnight: the city of Shatrah. There was the commander of the brigade who was heading the brigade and they went to Al Rafaye[ph] and Al Shatrah area and they cleared all those three areas.
In Basra, the 14th Division and the other units and troops in this province. The recent situation in Basra - that was yesterday - it was calm. Our troops managed to clear certain areas in Basra, Najubya[ph], Al Machel[ph], Al Ashar Wazuber[ph] and Garmat Ali and other places as well. Starting from today, we will work on clearing the other places from the wanted individuals and criminals and those who are still carrying weapons. Yesterday we apprehended 21 armed men and we wounded another six. Also the friendly forces and the coalition forces provided air support in Basra after there was a full deployment of a company.
The bold line again emphasizes that the operations continue in Basra.
Another interesting quote from Dr. Ali:
The guarantees for the Sadr Trend and for all Iraqis say that the Iraqi government has law and everyone should abide by the law. Regarding the general amnesty, and as I have said, we have-we are releasing a huge number of detainees. Regarding the investigation of those who have committed crime, there is also a commitment-as the statement says that there is cooperation so that those who committed crimes will be presented to court and prosecuted. And we will resort to the law. That's why-so all the detentions will not target only-will not target a certain trend, but will target only the criminals. And this is what the Iraqi government is doing and what it's committed to do.
The use of "trend" is more or less the same as we'd use "party" although, in this case, it has a armed branch as well. The discussion by Dr. Ali is about whether special demands were met for the "Sadr trend" to end the fighting. He's essentially saying "no". And, as is obvious, he's telling the reporter that the amnesty is a general one, not just one for the "Sadr trend". Also encouraging is the discussion of the rule of law.
And in answer to a question about reported complaints of "random raids":
We don't have any random raids and search operations because the units and the Army, instead of endangering themselves by going out, they should-they sometimes stay in the bases so that they can train themselves. Just going out and conducting raid operation-random raids is something not possible because all the raid operations are based on intelligence reports. But sometimes mistakes could happen. I hope you give us the name so that we can follow up.
A question from an LA Times reporter as to how well al Sadr's instructions were being followed by his followers, Dr. Ali says:
I think that the decision and the call made by Muqtada al-Sadr-Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr are for those who follow up and abide by his statement. Anyone who use his weapon and raise weapon will be an outlaw. And anyone who targets the institutes of the government will be-he will be violating the law and also violating the statement made by Muqtada al-Sadr. That's why the government is or will enforce the law on everyone. And this is what the government will do.
Pretty clear if you ask me.
Ali further clarifies it when answering a followup question:
We think that the decision made by Muqtada-Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr will isolate those criminal groups that tried to abuse and also break the law. And also they tried to abuse the Sadr Trend and the figure of the Sadr Trend. So after this statement, anyone who will carry weapon and anyone who will not or will continue to fight is a-will be considered as an outlaw. So anyone who will carry a weapon will be an outlaw. This initiative will also have a good contribution in stabilizing the situation. And we cannot deny that there were some groups that went to the streets because they thought the government is facing the Sadr Trend. And it's not true because we are not facing or where they-with any political trend, especially the Sadr Trend. Because the Sadr Trend is not facing the government. That's why we think that this statement will contribute in a good way in reducing the tension and also to stabilize the situation.
So again the claim is this continuing operation isn't and hasn't been about a confrontation between the government and al Sadr's group (which explains the hurried ceasefire much more reasonably than other scenarios).
But Ali makes it clear that there are some "criminals" within the "Sadr Trend" who, if warrants have been issued for them, will be arrested:
I've said in my briefing that the security forces in Basra cleared part of the areas in Basra and there are other parts [that] will be cleared. So, of course, we have the warrant for the arrests for all the wanted individuals and criminals so when the security forces find those people, they will be detained. But detaining members of the Sadr Trend, there are some criminals in all the parts like-parties like in the Sadr Trend and the Islamic Party. So the question is will there be any criminals in the Sadr Trend? There could be some criminals in the Sadr Trend. And there were some arrest warrants and if they are found, they will be arrested.
Certainly no backing down there and clearly that statement lends credence to the claim that the operation is aimed at "criminal elements".
Then there's this very revealing question and answer:
REP15: Sorry. We have heard you emphasize from the start, including today, that the operation in Basra doesn't target any specific group. And yet the reports that we get of the clashes all seem to be concentrated in areas that are controlled by Jaish al-Mahdi. Have the government forces gone into the port, for example, or other areas that are controlled by other groups? Or will you be pursuing individuals belonging to other groups, are they on your list as well?
DR ALI:[Speaks in Arabic.]
INT: We think that no group should control any place in Basra. And it's not-and no group has right to control any place. It's the government and the government constitutes-according to the constitution, no one should share the government in establishing the law. That's why the government, when it targets any group that tries to violate the law or breaks the law, they target them because they tried to break the law regardless of their political background. If people understood that we targeted a certain area or certain people because there were some wanted individuals in those areas and, of course, the operations extended to other places to include Basra. The operations will not be-will not [be] over unless Basra is stable so that the Iraqi citizen could live a normal life without any threats.
Note the bold line - per this reporter, the ISF and government of Iraq have "emphasized from the start" that this wasn't about any particular "trend" or militia. Anyone else remember that emphasis in reports coming out of there?
The answer too is both revealing and encouraging. Rule of law, security, etc.
The general reporting we've seen on this reminds me of much of the past reporting that has come out of Iraq - incomplete, uninformed and consequently painting the wrong picture. Reporting that seems aimed at describing a failed state, incompetent rulers, and a poorly trained and led military regardless of the actual situation. That's certainly not what I see being the case as I dig into this more and more. But I'm not at all surprised by what I've read previously and the doom and gloom it immediately spurred among the chattering classes, particularly on the left.
And, if you'll be mildly patient, you'll see it bloom, again, right here in our comment section. That said, once all of what I've outlined above is realized by the press, expect to see Iraq once again fade from the front pages of the newspapers.
How Not to Save Housing
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- In politics, it is imperative to be seen as "doing good." The present housing crisis is a case in point, as Congress now seems increasingly intent on aiding millions of homeowners who can't easily pay their mortgages and may face foreclosure. This sort of rescue looks good, even though it is a bad idea and might perversely delay the housing recovery.
No reasonable person takes pleasure from seeing people lose their homes, and Congress is understandably upset. Estimates of defaults in 2008 run up to 2 million. If realized, that would be roughly twice the 2006 level and about 2.7 percent of the nation's 75 million owner-occupied homes. It would be the highest rate since World War II but well below much higher rates during the Great Depression, says economist Kenneth Snowden of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
The best-known congressional proposal comes from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. (The Bush administration is reportedly considering a similar plan.) It would authorize the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee $300 billion of new home loans to strapped homeowners, allowing them to refinance their existing mortgages at lower rates and lower outstanding amounts. Under it, homeowners who borrowed from Jan. 1, 2005, to July 1, 2007, would be eligible for new loans if their monthly payments of interest and principal exceeded 40 percent of their income, well above a more prudent level of 30 percent.
Existing lenders would have to take a sizable write-down to qualify for having their loans repaid by the government. The FHA would pay the existing lender no more than 85 percent of the property's present appraised value; the FHA would then charge the homeowner for a loan at 90 percent of the appraised value. The extra 5 percent is a cushion against losses. (Example: A $200,000 home with a 100 percent mortgage has already declined 10 percent to $180,000. The FHA loan repays the existing lender 85 percent of that, about $153,000. The existing homeowner's new loan is at 90 percent of that, or $162,000.)
Everyone wins from this arrangement, say its supporters. Homeowners -- some victims of deceptive lending practices -- stay in their houses. Neighborhoods don't suffer the potential blight of numerous foreclosures. Housing prices don't go into a free fall, depressed by an avalanche of foreclosures. Although lenders take a loss, the losses are lower than they would be if homes went into foreclosure. That's a costly and lengthy process that could involve losses of 50 percent or more.
The Frank proposal and others like it put politicians on the barricades, trying to protect needy homeowners. The imagery is flattering. But there are two glaring problems: one moral, the other economic.
About 50 million homeowners have mortgages. Who wouldn't like the government to cut their monthly payments by 20 percent or 30 percent? But Frank's plan reserves that privilege for an estimated 1 million to 2 million homeowners who are the weakest and most careless borrowers. With the FHA now authorized to lend up to $729,750 in high-cost areas, some beneficiaries could be fairly wealthy. By contrast, people who made larger down payments or kept their monthly payments at manageable levels would be made relatively worse off. Government punishes prudence and rewards irresponsibility. Inevitably, there would be resentment and pressures to extend relief to other "needy" homeowners.
The justification is to prevent an uncontrolled collapse of home prices that would inflict more losses on lenders -- aggravating the "credit crunch" -- and postpone a revival in home buying and building. This gets the economics backwards. From 2000 to 2006, home prices rose by 50 percent or more by various measures. Housing affordability deteriorated, with home buying sustained only by a parallel deterioration of lending standards. With credit standards now tightened, home prices should fall to bring buyers back into the market and to reassure lenders that they're not lending on inflated properties.
If rescuing distressed homeowners delays this process, the aid and comfort that government gives some individuals will be offset by the adverse effects on would-be homebuyers and overall housing construction. Of course, there are other ways for the economy to come to terms with today's high housing prices: a general inflation, which would lift nominal (but not "real") incomes; or mass subsidies for home buying. Neither is desirable.
None of this means that lenders and borrowers shouldn't voluntarily agree to loan modifications that serve the interests of both. Foreclosure is a bad place for most creditors or debtors. Although the process is messy, promising to lubricate it with massive federal assistance may retard it as both wait to see if they can get a better deal from Washington, which would then assume the risk for future losses.
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut
I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a
campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said
how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President.
Hillary responded in tears.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon
impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar
associations.
Hillary as I new her in 1974
At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary
Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham -- who was
later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.
During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional
activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the
Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now
available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.
After President Nixon’s resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with
Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and
efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel -- as well as an unwillingness to
investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:
"John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied
to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said. 'That came from
Yale.' I said “You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political
strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] '
Labovitz said, 'Yes.' His apology was significant to me, not because it was a
revelation but because of his contrition."
At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our
committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school
professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a
number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any
subsequent position of public or private trust.
Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington
insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After
becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy’s lawyer at the
time of Chappaquidick -- as well as Kennedy’s chief political strategist. As a result,
some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the
Camelot government in exile.
In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy
and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to place two other close friends of
Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall’s
deputy in the Justice Department – whom Rodino appointed to head the
impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as
Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York – who was placed in charge of conducting the
actual investigation of Nixon’s malfeasance.
Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the
conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of
Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they
hoped to keep Nixon in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible. This
would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and
restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.
As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O’Neill (by John Farrell) a liberal
Democrat would have become a “shoe in for the presidency in 1976” if had Nixon
been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O’Neil and I -- as
well as most Democrats -- regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon
with Ford as soon as possible. As a result. as described by O’Neill we coordinated
our efforts to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire.”
A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment
trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far
worse abuses of power than Nixon’s effort to “cover up” the Watergate burglary
(which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of
Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as
the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.
After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure
for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary
Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader
“Tip” O'Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we
should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes.
I also quoted Tip O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be
politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball
before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules
changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she
had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In
one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon
representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the
committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had
afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for
public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files
without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry
staff -- where they were no longer accessible to the public.
Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing
that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take
depositions of -- any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of
Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of
President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other
committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor .
Only a few far left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of
the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to
hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the
House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question
witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee
also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment
to her and her fellow impeachment inquiry staffers.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another
questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a
Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a
troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had
asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against
which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such
staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins
had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by
a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-
inquiry staff well in advance of our public
hearings.
The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-
inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores.
Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed
essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may
have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."
He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties
from the book’s publisher.
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff
coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present
form." No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other
person on the committee staff received royalties.
Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in
the Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth -- the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor
-- “The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book By Democratic Chief Counsel Exposes Why
Hillary Clinton Is "Ethically Unfit to Hold Public Office.”
Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Jerry Zeifman, a former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for 17 years,
takes you to a behind the scenes account of Hillary Clinton, in a book based on
his personal experiences in dealing with her. In 1974, he had supervisory authority
of a staff that included Hillary Rodham – who was then engaged in a variety of self-
serving unethical practices in violation of House rules. In 1998, as consultant to a
member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Clinton, he gained
extensive personal insights into the unethical practices of Hillary Clinton in her White
House “West Wing” office.
A lifelong Democrat, Jerry Zeifman has concluded that Hillary Clinton is ethically
unfit to be either a Senator or President – and if she were to become President, the
last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of
You;re talking about social engineering handled by the Govt- always a bad idea
ORLY?? Please provide links that back that up
thanks
Iraqi government says operations in Basra will continue
Posted by: McQ
Bill Roggio:
One day after Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for his fighters to abandon combat, the fighting in Basrah has come to a near-halt, and the Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets. While Sadr spokesman said the Iraqi government agreed to Sadr's terms for the cease-fire, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said the security forces will continue operations in Basrah in the South. Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in Basrah, Nasiriyah, Babil, and Baghdad over the weekend, despite Sadr's call for the end of fighting.
Maliki was clear that operations would continue in the South. "The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons," Maliki said, referring to the 10-day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. "Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people."
The Iraqi military said it was moving in more forces into the South after admitting it was surprised by the level of resistance encountered in Basrah. "Fresh military reinforcements were sent to Basra to start clearing a number of Basra districts of wanted criminals and gunmen taking up arms," said Brigadier General Abdel Aziz al Ubaidi, the operations chief for the Ministry of Defense. "Preparations for fresh operations have been made to conduct raids and clearance operations in Basra ... [and] military operations would continue to restore security in Basra."
That supports the scenario I laid out below where the purpose of the operations is to clear Basra of criminal gangs, their influence and control.
Roggio continues, pointing out that in the clash between the Iraqi Army and the Mahdi army, it appears the Mahdi army came out on the worst end of it:
The reasons behind Sadr's call for a cessation in fighting remain unknown, but reports indicate the Mahdi Army was having a difficult time sustaining its operations and has taken heavy casualties. "Whatever gains [the Mahdi Army] has made in the field [in Basrah], they were running short of ammunition, food, and water," an anonymous US military officer serving in South told The Long War Journal. "In short [the Mahdi Army] had no ability to sustain the effort.
TIME's sources in Basrah paint a similar picture. "There has been a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border," the magazine reported.
Those reports indicate a successful cordon was established isolating Mahdi troops and keeping them from being resupplied and reinforced. IOW, the handwriting was on the wall as to how this operation would end had the fighting continued.
The continuation of the security operation, talked about yesterday, seems to mean the IA has established control and is proceeding with its plans. Additionally, if the point needed to be made, IA reinforcements are arriving in the area. Most likely to tighten the cordon and be available should another round of fighting with the Mahdi army erupt. I would guess that will be most unlikely.
All the particulars of who did what to whom as far as brokering the cease fire will be sorted out I'm sure, but as far as I see it you have to work pretty hard to make this a victory for al Sadr and a defeat for Maliki. The side that is "continuing operations" is the side most reasonable people will consider to be the victor.
Fighting has also all but ceased in Baghdad's Sadr city and in Nasiriyah. An interesting nugget from Sadr city:
An unknown number of Mahdi Army fighters in the Iskan and Washash neighborhoods have gone against Sadr's demands to keep their weapons and have surrendered them to the military in accordance with the amnesty offer issued by Maliki.
And while the ISF is taking the lead in the Basra operation, it is also taking the lead in media operations as well.
From a second press conference held by Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the Iraqi government and Major General Lua Aziz, spokesman for the ISF. MG Aziz sums up the operation [again the wording is awkward in some areas because it is translated from Arabic]:
Show/Hide
Let's start by the commanding operation of the 4th-of the 8th Division or in provinces like in Kut, Hillah, Karbala, Najaf [and] Diwianiyah; and all those provinces are under the responsibility of the 8th Division. Regarding Kut, at the beginning of the operation there was a presence of the enemy and the armed members. The commander of the 8th Division, who is one of the finest officers in the Ministry of Defense, he moved his headquarter to Kut and enhanced that province and that city with four companies. And he also led a clear operation or a clearing operation in Kut City from the presence of the armed men. The situation now in all the areas is calm and is controlled completely by the troops of the 8th Division.
There was an operation yesterday, yesterday night, in Al-Hashimiyah county that was based on intelligence reports and intel. There was some presence for armed men and so there were some troops moved and captured 25 armed men. And also they found weapon cache including different kinds of weapons. At Karbala the situation is calm and stable. The commanding operation in Karbala also headed a-also headed troops and with help from the citizens and would like to say that the citizens of Karbala, they showed us the places of those armed men. And in this operation the unit managed to capture 98 armed men; and the strange thing, two of them were Egyptians.
Everything in Diwianiyah is calm. Najaf also the situation is calm. And we haven't seen any incidents ever since the operation started on the 25th until now. The 10th Division that is controlling the three provinces, that's Maysan, Nasiriyah, and Muthanna.
[In] Al Muthanna province, ever since the operation started on [the] 25th until this morning, we haven't witnessed any kind of-any incidents. The security forces control that province in a good way.
Nasiriyah-in Nasiriyah, the situation was calm but it was kind of cautious. The security forces were deployed and they closed the entries of the province and that's why it was able to control the situation. The presence of the armed men was in Amarah and Maysan. Also the commander of the 10th Division in Amarah and he sent a battalion as well at the beginning of this month. And he gave instructions to them to move and the battalion moved and he himself led the brigade and the battalion. And the recent area that was cleared actually was yesterday after midnight: the city of Shatrah. There was the commander of the brigade who was heading the brigade and they went to Al Rafaye[ph] and Al Shatrah area and they cleared all those three areas.
In Basra, the 14th Division and the other units and troops in this province. The recent situation in Basra - that was yesterday - it was calm. Our troops managed to clear certain areas in Basra, Najubya[ph], Al Machel[ph], Al Ashar Wazuber[ph] and Garmat Ali and other places as well. Starting from today, we will work on clearing the other places from the wanted individuals and criminals and those who are still carrying weapons. Yesterday we apprehended 21 armed men and we wounded another six. Also the friendly forces and the coalition forces provided air support in Basra after there was a full deployment of a company.
The bold line again emphasizes that the operations continue in Basra.
Another interesting quote from Dr. Ali:
The guarantees for the Sadr Trend and for all Iraqis say that the Iraqi government has law and everyone should abide by the law. Regarding the general amnesty, and as I have said, we have-we are releasing a huge number of detainees. Regarding the investigation of those who have committed crime, there is also a commitment-as the statement says that there is cooperation so that those who committed crimes will be presented to court and prosecuted. And we will resort to the law. That's why-so all the detentions will not target only-will not target a certain trend, but will target only the criminals. And this is what the Iraqi government is doing and what it's committed to do.
The use of "trend" is more or less the same as we'd use "party" although, in this case, it has a armed branch as well. The discussion by Dr. Ali is about whether special demands were met for the "Sadr trend" to end the fighting. He's essentially saying "no". And, as is obvious, he's telling the reporter that the amnesty is a general one, not just one for the "Sadr trend". Also encouraging is the discussion of the rule of law.
And in answer to a question about reported complaints of "random raids":
We don't have any random raids and search operations because the units and the Army, instead of endangering themselves by going out, they should-they sometimes stay in the bases so that they can train themselves. Just going out and conducting raid operation-random raids is something not possible because all the raid operations are based on intelligence reports. But sometimes mistakes could happen. I hope you give us the name so that we can follow up.
A question from an LA Times reporter as to how well al Sadr's instructions were being followed by his followers, Dr. Ali says:
I think that the decision and the call made by Muqtada al-Sadr-Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr are for those who follow up and abide by his statement. Anyone who use his weapon and raise weapon will be an outlaw. And anyone who targets the institutes of the government will be-he will be violating the law and also violating the statement made by Muqtada al-Sadr. That's why the government is or will enforce the law on everyone. And this is what the government will do.
Pretty clear if you ask me.
Ali further clarifies it when answering a followup question:
We think that the decision made by Muqtada-Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr will isolate those criminal groups that tried to abuse and also break the law. And also they tried to abuse the Sadr Trend and the figure of the Sadr Trend. So after this statement, anyone who will carry weapon and anyone who will not or will continue to fight is a-will be considered as an outlaw. So anyone who will carry a weapon will be an outlaw. This initiative will also have a good contribution in stabilizing the situation. And we cannot deny that there were some groups that went to the streets because they thought the government is facing the Sadr Trend. And it's not true because we are not facing or where they-with any political trend, especially the Sadr Trend. Because the Sadr Trend is not facing the government. That's why we think that this statement will contribute in a good way in reducing the tension and also to stabilize the situation.
So again the claim is this continuing operation isn't and hasn't been about a confrontation between the government and al Sadr's group (which explains the hurried ceasefire much more reasonably than other scenarios).
But Ali makes it clear that there are some "criminals" within the "Sadr Trend" who, if warrants have been issued for them, will be arrested:
I've said in my briefing that the security forces in Basra cleared part of the areas in Basra and there are other parts [that] will be cleared. So, of course, we have the warrant for the arrests for all the wanted individuals and criminals so when the security forces find those people, they will be detained. But detaining members of the Sadr Trend, there are some criminals in all the parts like-parties like in the Sadr Trend and the Islamic Party. So the question is will there be any criminals in the Sadr Trend? There could be some criminals in the Sadr Trend. And there were some arrest warrants and if they are found, they will be arrested.
Certainly no backing down there and clearly that statement lends credence to the claim that the operation is aimed at "criminal elements".
Then there's this very revealing question and answer:
REP15: Sorry. We have heard you emphasize from the start, including today, that the operation in Basra doesn't target any specific group. And yet the reports that we get of the clashes all seem to be concentrated in areas that are controlled by Jaish al-Mahdi. Have the government forces gone into the port, for example, or other areas that are controlled by other groups? Or will you be pursuing individuals belonging to other groups, are they on your list as well?
DR ALI:[Speaks in Arabic.]
INT: We think that no group should control any place in Basra. And it's not-and no group has right to control any place. It's the government and the government constitutes-according to the constitution, no one should share the government in establishing the law. That's why the government, when it targets any group that tries to violate the law or breaks the law, they target them because they tried to break the law regardless of their political background. If people understood that we targeted a certain area or certain people because there were some wanted individuals in those areas and, of course, the operations extended to other places to include Basra. The operations will not be-will not [be] over unless Basra is stable so that the Iraqi citizen could live a normal life without any threats.
Note the bold line - per this reporter, the ISF and government of Iraq have "emphasized from the start" that this wasn't about any particular "trend" or militia. Anyone else remember that emphasis in reports coming out of there?
The answer too is both revealing and encouraging. Rule of law, security, etc.
The general reporting we've seen on this reminds me of much of the past reporting that has come out of Iraq - incomplete, uninformed and consequently painting the wrong picture. But reporting that certainly seems to fulfill an agenda of a failed state, incompetent rulers, and a poorly trained and led military. That's certainly not what I see being the case as I dig into this more and more. But I'm not at all surprised by what I've read previously and the doom and gloom it immediately spurred among the chattering classes, particularly on the left.
And, if you'll be mildly patient, you'll see it bloom, again, right here in our comment section. That said, once all of what I've outlined above is realized by the press, expect to see Iraq once again fade from the front pages of the newspapers.
ANother bad call by Reid and the other defeat monkeys
Even more troubling is the ethics shown by the Obamas
HE's just a better liar than Hillary is
Does Obama know America?
By James Lewis
When I hear liberals talk about this country I don't recognize the place. It's just as if they never talk to their own neighbors or go to their local market. The Left seems to constantly misunderstand normal people in a really paranoid fashion.
Jeremiah Wright is not the only rage-and-fear-peddler on that side of the political fence. Liberals apparently believe they can read minds, spotting racism and evil where nobody else can find it. That's what they keep telling us, after all.
I just don't recognize "Ameri-KKK-a," in the Rev. Wright's witty little phrase. In the real America of the last half century you have to turn over a lot of rocks to find the evil racist, sexist, homophobic meanies. Instead, I see a country that is desperately working to do good in the world.
Now this is the big, unanswered question about Barack Obama --- does he really understand America as it is? Or does he fall for the paranoid narrative of the Left? That is crucial. If he has internalized the Left's view of America, he will try to make the country pay and pay for all the wrongs, real or imagined, of the distant past. The country will be permanently guilt-tripped.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a white mother, went to school in Indonesia, then Hawaii again --- with its own racial divisions between native Hawaiians, whites, blacks, and people with Japanese ancestry. Hawaii is our loveliest state, but it has a record of racial divisions. Since Obama was born, native Hawaiian have reasserted their original ownership of the islands very vigorously. There's no way you can miss that, growing up in Honolulu.
After high school Obama spent a few years at Occidental College in California, then Columbia, then worked in leftwing law firms in New York, then attended Princeton, Harvard Law, and finally settled down in Jeremiah Wright's part of Chicago.
None of those places resembles normal, middle-class America. All of them are steeped in racial tensions, as viewed from the Left. Even Princeton is obsessed with race, as Michelle Obama wrote in her college thesis.
We know that Rev. Wright's church teaches people to avoid "middleclassness." You have to keep people on the boil, enraged at white America, so they must not get too comfortable with their lives.
That seems to be Barack's idea of America. It is certainly a part of America, but it is the angriest, most depressed, violent, and troubled part. So our likely Democrat candidate has never lived an ordinary life in a normal, middle class neighborhood. Add in Jeremiah Wright as a political mentor for 20 years, and you have to ask: Does Senator Obama really know this country?
As Mark Steyn pointed out the other day, Obama's autobiography reads like a work of fiction. He is making up his own identity the way a novelist would make up a fictional character. Teenagers often do that, and people who come from very different cultures. I know an Eastern European who travels around America constantly interpreting everything out loud, like an anthropologist from Mars. As others have pointed out, Obama seems to have adopted his mother's role as an anthropologist.
He writes about himself:
"Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. All the other stuff, the talk of blue-eyed devils and apocalypse, was incidental to that program, I decided. ...
"And yet, even as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged." (italics added)
There's something to be said for a president who understands other cultures, but not to the point of misunderstanding his own. Truman didn't live abroad, and neither did Lincoln or Reagan. Yet Truman began the integration of the armed forces and Lincoln led the deadliest war in US history and freed the slaves. Reagan won the Cold War. None of them were the blood-thirsty maniacs of liberal nightmares.
Obama's expatriate mother, who raised him until age ten, was apparently a zealous anti-American. His father was absent, an African Prince out of a boyhood fantasy. All his life Obama moved from one little subculture to the next, all the way to Columbia, Harvard Law and Trinity UCC. Everywhere he went he encounted zealous anti-Americans, beginning with his mother. Just think about that.
No wonder it's hard to recognize his notion of this country. Barack Obama could profit from ten years away from the Senate, away from the elites, away from the self-destructive paranoia of the inner cities. Maybe he could try to run a business, like George McGovern. Maybe he should try teaching --- at a neighborhood school, not a law school.
Get to know the real America, then maybe run for president.
James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
About Us | Contact © American Thinker 2007
"Gore's 10 Errors
Old and New
Scientific mistakes and exaggerations in an interview in India Today,
17 March 2008
background image
2
It is wrong always, everywhere, and
for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
W. K. Clifford
background image
3
Gore's 10 errors old and new
Scientific mistakes and exaggerations in an interview in India Today, 17 March 2008
Error 1: "[`Global warming'] is a planetary emergency. It is a crisis and we have to find ways to
come to an agreement to reduce the carbon dioxide."
The facts: There is no "planetary emergency". Nor is there a "crisis". If there is an "emergency" or a
"crisis", it is certainly not caused by "global warming". The increase in global temperatures between
1980 and 1998, when "global warming" stopped, was only half of the small increase shown in the
official temperature records (McKitrick, 2006, 2007 in press). In the decade since 1998 there has been
no statistically-significant increase in global temperature (HadCRUt3, 2008; US NCDC, 2008; RSS,
2008; UAH MSU, 2008; etc.). In the seven years since early 2001, the trend of global temperature has
been downward at a rate equivalent to more than 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.75 F) per decade:
Error 2: "Today we the people of this planet would put another 70m tons of global warming
pollution into the earth's atmosphere."
The facts: "Global warming pollution" is Gore's favorite phrase for "carbon dioxide." However, CO
2
is
not a pollutant, but a naturally-occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential
ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. The reconstruction of palaeoclimatological
CO
2
concentrations below, taken from Berner (2001), demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration
Al Gore no longer gives interviews to the Press except where the interviewer has been
carefully pre-selected for his sycophancy and for his lack of elementary knowledge of
climate science. Likewise, Gore no longer takes questions from the audience at any public
meeting unless he is sure that no one in the audience knows anything of climatology. The
interview from which the following list of Gore's latest scientific errors and
exaggerations was compiled appeared in India Today on 17 March 2008.
background image
4
today is almost at its lowest level since the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, when there was almost
20 times as much CO
2
in the atmosphere as there is today, without any threat to animal or plant life,
and without causing the "runaway greenhouse effect" that Gore likes to mention:
CO
2
concentration (black curve) is plotted against global mean surface temperature from the respected
Scotese reconstruction (blue curve). There is plainly no correlation between the two, and the absence of
correlation demonstrates absence of causation. Furthermore, the Earth's surface temperature seems to
peak naturally at a little above 22 degrees Celsius, or 7 degrees C above today's level, irrespective of
the actual concentration of CO
2
in the atmosphere. The improvement in photosynthesis worldwide as a
result of the recent elevation of CO
2
concentration above the near-starvation levels that had been
prevalent over the past million years is evident in the following satellite image:
background image
5
Error 3: "If we keep putting off the day of reckoning, it is more difficult to solve the crisis."
The facts: On the evidence of globally falling temperatures notwithstanding the continuing increase in
carbon dioxide concentration, the supposed "crisis" is disappearing without any intervention from us.
In any event, the notion that it is more cost-effective for us to spend scarce resources today on
mitigating the imagined problem than to wait and then adapt to changes in the climate if and when they
occur has been universally discredited in the economic literature. See, for instance, Henderson (2007).
Error 4: "They [energy corporations] are spending millions of dollars a year trying to confuse
people. I think that is unethical. I think that it should not be seen as acceptable."
The facts: Compared with the tens of billions spent worldwide on pushing the climate scare, the mere
millions spent on investigating the truth that there is no "climate crisis" are negligible, as the following
analysis by the Marshall Institute demonstrates:
The study of climate change science and the policy ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion-
dollar enterprise in the United States.
Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and
universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
This support was significant for many of the receiving institutions. Climate change-related projects
accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20
institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and
contributions received.
A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent
by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires
dramatic government action.
The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY
2004.
More than 2,000 separate climate change-related grants were distributed by federal departments and
agencies in FY 2002, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available.
Federal support for R&D in the environmental sciences field has tripled in the past 20 years, rising from
$1.2 billion in 1980 to $3.6 billion in 2002, according to data available from the National Science
Foundation.
In 28 of the top-30 performing institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the
institution's expenditures on atmospheric R&D.
Besides, whether Gore likes it or not, the US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech to any
citizen or group, whether or not the opinion expressed is one that Gore finds congenial. The attempts
by Gore and others to suggest that legitimate scientific enquiry into whether the climate scare has any
real scientific foundation ought to be suppressed is an indication of his true motive, which is to bring to
an end the freedoms of the West and to enrich himself prodigiously while doing so, via his "green"
investment company, whose objective is to profit by the scare which he has himself falsely and
dishonestly whipped up. Lest the word "dishonestly" seem too strong, the UK High Court found nine
errors in Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie about the climate that it ordered the UK Government to
publish corrections before circulating the film to innocent schoolchildren. Gore, however, has not
corrected any of the errors in the movie, which continues to be shown to schoolchildren worldwide. A
politician who is recklessly willing to continue to mislead schoolchildren is a dishonest politician.
background image
6
Error 5: "I went to Kyoto personally, ..., and helped to bring about the breakthrough there. But
then, when I returned to Washington and tried to convince the US Senate to ratify that treaty, I
was only able to convince only one Senator out of the hundred."
The facts: Al Gore, as Vice-President, was Chairman of the US Senate when it voted, 95-0, to reject the
Kyoto Protocol on the sensible ground that the Protocol did not impose carbon-emissions restrictions
on the countries of the Third World, such as China and India. Not even one of the 100 Senators voted
in favor of Kyoto. And most of the countries bound by Kyoto notably the European Union are not
in fact complying with their obligations under the Protocol. Even if they were to do so, the impact on
the climate would be negligible:
Let the final word on this point go to Gerhard (2004): "Although politicians offer simplistic remedies,
such as the Kyoto Protocol, climate continues to change naturally."
Error 6: "Of course the United States has done so much more to create the problem in the first
place, the per capita emissions are so much higher. But neither is it fair to have developing and
advanced developing countries completely outside the world's effort to solve this."
The facts: Since there is no problem, the United States can scarcely be blamed for having done more to
create the problem than the Third World countries. Nor is it appropriate or statesmanlike for Gore to
attack his own country in an overseas news medium, especially when his attack is based on the false
argument that it is emissions per capita that are the benchmark. It would be more justifiable for a US
statesman to argue that India, China, Brazil and other fast-overpopulating countries ought to increase
the prosperity of their citizens by giving them the same freedoms that are enjoyed in the US, for it is
only when the general population of a nation becomes prosperous that its population trends move away
from exponential growth and towards stability. Gore's proposal to reduce carbon emissions even in the
poorest countries would keep them poor and hence keep their populations rising, creating a greater
environmental footprint in the medium to long term: the very opposite of what he presumably intends.
background image
7
Error 7: "India has millions of people living in the low-lying areas that are getting threatened by
the increasing sea level."
The facts: The UK High Court Judge who considered Gore's movie was particularly critical of his
exaggerations of imagined sea-level rise. He said: "The Armageddon scenario which he depicts is not
based on any scientific view." Gore himself does not believe his own predictions. In 2005, the year
when his alarmist movie was issued, he bought a $4 million condominium in the St. Regis Hotel, just
feet from the ocean at Fisherman's Wharf on San Francisco Bay:
Gore fantasizes that "global warming" will melt the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and cause
sea level to rise 20ft, imminently threatening existing populations worldwide. There is no truth in any
part of this scenario. First, the Greenland ice sheet thickened by 2 inches per year in the decade from
1993 to 2003 (Johannesen et al., 2005). Secondly, Antarctica has been cooling for half a century
(Doran et al., 2002), so there is little danger of a sudden disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet
through "global warming", since the main influence on it is regional cooling. Thirdly, the main source
of sea-level rise, now that the vast land-based ice sheets that existed in the last Ice Age have almost
gone, is not ice-melt but thermosteric expansion, of which Gore appears not to have heard. However,
thermosteric expansion can only occur if the oceans are warming, which they are not (Lyman et al.,
2006). Nor are they likely to warm, because globally the atmosphere is cooling, and the oceans take
their heat chiefly from the atmosphere.
Besides, the UN climate-change panel says that the Greenland ice sheet would only melt after several
millennia, and then largely from natural causes. On past evidence, we are already 5 millennia overdue
for another Ice Age, so it is likely that the Ice Age will recur long before Greenland melts. Also, Gore
seems unaware that the Greenland ice sheet has melted before, for natural reasons. This occurred about
850,000 years ago. At present rates of sea-level rise, the two ice sheets which Gore says will
imminently add 20 feet to sea level will, between them, add no more than two and a half inches over
the whole of the coming century. In the original draft of the UN's 2007 climate assessment, bureaucrats
tried to maintain in a table inserted after the scientists' draft had been signed off that the two great
ice sheets would cause ten times this rate of increase, but they were compelled to correct this
exaggeration, which had presumably been intended to make Gore's still greater exaggeration seem less
ridiculous than it is.
background image
8
Error 8: "India has hundreds of millions of people that depend on melting seasonal water coming
from the Himalayas in the great rivers of the sub-continent."
The facts: Gore is here trying to imply that the melting of mountain glaciers will jeopardize the water
supply of hundreds of millions of people who depend on the water flowing down from the Himalayas
into India and China. In his movie, he says: "In the Himalayas there is a particular problem because
more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems
that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers. Within this next half century
those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a very serious shortage because of this melting." All
of this is nonsense. Nearly all of the water from the Himalayas comes not from ice-melt but from snow-
melt. Therefore the key variable is the total Northern Hemisphere or Eurasian snow cover, not the
recession rate of the 9,575 glaciers which debouch from the Himalayan plateau into India, and which
show no acceleration in the recession rate since 1780, when the British Raj first began to keep records
(M.I. Bhat, personal communication, 2007).
Eurasian snow cover in fact shows no trend whatsoever in the crucial winter months since systematic
records began half a century ago (Rutgers University Snow Lab, 2006):
Likewise, there has been no decline in Northern Hemisphere snow cover as a whole. Far from it.
NASA satellite records show that the greatest extent of winter snow cover occurred in 2002/3:
background image
9
However, that record was itself easily beaten in the very cold winter of 2007/8. On the facts, therefore,
there is not the slightest evidence for the shortage of water caused by "global warming" fancifully
imagined by Gore.
Error 9: "India is affected by the seasonal monsoons from south-west and from north-east and
particularly in south India. And as those patterns change with sixty per cent of the people
involved in agriculture, the vulnerability of India to the kinds of harm that can come from global
warming, if it is not addressed, is unthinkable."
The facts: Given that global temperatures have been increasing by 0.5 degrees K (1 F) per century since
at least 1800 and arguably since 1700 (Akasofu, 2008; Central England Temperature Record; etc.), by
now some adverse effect on the reliability of the South-East Asian monsoon rains ought to have
become apparent. However, there has been no trend whatsoever:
background image"
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandpublicpolicy.org%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fpapers%2Fmonckton%2Fmonckton-gores_10_errors_old_and_new.pdf&images=yes
Remind me again — who’s losing in Basra?
posted at 9:48 am on March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
When the Iraqi government finally took the long-expected action to establish control of Basra after the British pullback left it in the hands of militias and gangsters, suddenly the media declared that the country had reached the brink of collapse. They highlighted stories of defections from the Iraqi military and opined that the surge had failed. Moqtada al-Sadr would finally achieve his goal of controlling the South and would expose the Baghdad government as a house of cards.
Guess which side just sued for peace?
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr’s order, saying it was “positive and responsive.”
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
Anyone who follows the news closely in Iraq knew this day would come. The British left a power vacuum behind in the south that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005, as Steven Vincent tried to warn people just before they murdered him in Basra. The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.
Did our media give anyone this context? No. They reported it as some kind of spontaneous eruption of rebellion without noting at all that a nation can hardly be considered sovereign while its own security forces cannot enter a large swath of its own territory. And in the usual defeatist tone, they reported that our mission in Iraq had failed without waiting to see what the outcome of the battle would be.
Sadr now wants to disavow anyone with a gun. The Mahdis, which found themselves on the short end of the stick, have just watched their Fearless Leader surrender — again — and this time leaving them twisting in the wind. That isn’t the action of a victor. Perhaps our media would like to explain that in the context of their clueless reporting so far.
Update: Unilateral retreat:
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.
And Nouri al-Maliki remains in Basra. Buh-bye, Sadr.
Once again Reid and the other lib idiots were declaring defeat and were shown for the partisan hacks they are
First the surge, now this definitive victory in 72 hours
The really interesting part is that Iran offered no support to Sadr
I have to believe there is some sort of behind the scenes agreement between the US and Iran we don't know about
The 100 Year Lie
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.
Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq War, McPeak (a war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)
Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.
As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.
Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.
But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"
The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.
Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Shiite Cleric Al-Sadr Offers Iraq Truce
Mar 30 09:08 AM US/Eastern
Write a Comment
View larger image
BAGHDAD (AP) - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is offering to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
The offer is contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
Al-Sadr is demanding that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
There was no immediate comment from the government.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Click here to buy text ads on Breitba
Democrats unnerved
Yesterday, after learning that Howard Dean had called John McCain a "blatant opportunist" for producing an ad that alluded to his record of military service and heroism, I suggested that McCain's stature (and the popularity that goes with it) had unnerved Dean. It seems to me that the Democrats are also unnereved by another phenomenon -- the success to date of the surge in Iraq.
After the 2006 election, many Democrats probably expected to coast to victory in 2008 on the unpopularity of the Iraq war. But the success of the surge, coupled with the nomination of the man who kept pushing for it, has upset this expectation. The debate over whether we should continue fighting in Iraq in 2009 is no longer one the Democrats are sure they can win.
When John McCain said he would not be bothered if the U.S. maintains a military presence in Iraq 100 years from now as long as no Americans are being killed or wounded, opportunists (to borrow a phrase) like Dean and Obama saw a chance to misrepresent McCain's comments so as to change the subject. Instead of focusing on the real issue of whether we should be fighting in Iraq in 2009 and 2010, Democrats could invoke a phony one -- whether it would be fine to be fighting there in 2109. Hence, the mantra from Obama, Dean, and others that (in one of Obama's formulations) McCain "is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq").
Fortunately, this tactic may well prove more problematic for Obama (if he continues with it) than for McCain. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out yesterday, the suggestion that McCain is prepared to fight in Iraq for 100 years is deeply dishonest. As important from a political perspective, it is easily shown to be dishonest. Unlike many bogus "gotcha" moments, the refutation of this one is contained in the moment itself. After mentioning the possibility of being in Iraq 100 years from now, McCain added: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
Moreover, the Obama-Dean line of attack on McCain has already been pronounced dishonest by an independent watchdog organization. Thus, Krauthammer informs us, the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, has stated: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' [Howard Dean's phrase, but no different in substance from what Krauthammer shows to be Obama's rendition] based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."
If Obama continues down this path, it should be quite easy for the McCain campaign to dispatch whatever still remains of Obama's claim to be a different kind of politician. The voters on whom this election depends probably won't take kindly to seeing a popular candidate attacked based on "a rank falsehood," especially by someone as sanctimonious as Obama is becoming.
Of course, if events in Iraq take a turn for the worse, the Dems may once again hold the winning cards, for electoral purposes, in the debate over Iraq. But that won't be because of anything McCain said about staying for 100 years.
JOHN adds: I take it as a given that Obama is a very bright guy, but the quality of the arguments he makes on the stump is strikingly poor. He consistently reaches for the cheap sound bite, rarely for the substantive point. Another line he uses to attack McCain is that a couple of years ago he was against withdrawing from Iraq because things were going poorly, and now he is against withdrawing because things are going well. I guess this line gets applause from Democratic audiences who think it shows some kind of inconsistency on McCain's part. Actually, of course, McCain's position is simple and coherent: we shouldn't fail in our mission by pulling out prematurely. That principle applied when things weren't going well, and it also applies today when we appear on the road to success, but conditions would likely deteriorate if our troops disappear too soon.
When a smart politician consistently makes dumb arguments and focuses on sound bites to the exclusion of substance on the campaign trail, I interpret it as a sign of contempt for the voters. It will be interesting to see whether this impression deepens as the campaign goes on.
PAUL adds: Maybe the quality of Obama's arguments will improve when the quality of his audience improves, i.e. when his audience doesn't just include Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents.
As for consistency, the only constant in Obama's views about Iraq is opportunism. Initially, as he likes to remind Democrats, he opposed the war. But he admitted in one of his books that, after the invasion succeeded so dramatically, he "began to suspect that I might have been wrong." By early 2004, as he geared up for his Senate run, Obama was telling the Chicago Tribune, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." Later that year, in the heat of the campaign, he said that although Bush had "bungled the war" getting out "would make things worse." That's been McCain's position throughout. At the end of 2004, he told Charlie Rose, "Once we go in, then we're committed. . . .We've got to do everything we can to stablilze the country to make it succeessful because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East."
A year later, his position had evolved again. Now, he wanted to "reduce our footprint," but "not fully withdraw." Withdrawal was not the way to go because "we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together." But another year later, in the fall of 2006 as he contemplated asking Democratic voters for support in a run for the presidency, stabilizing Iraq was no longer a priority. Instead, Obama was calling for "phased withdrawal," which should begin as quickly as possible. The administration, however, decided on a troop surge. Obama responded that such a surge would not "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." Not long after that, as he tried to position himself to the left of Hillary Clinton, Obama was touting his plan to "bring our combat troops home by March of 2008."
There's plenty more, and it is all compiled in a piece by Peter Wehner in the April issue of Commentary. The bottom line is that Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq more often than John Kerry, and it takes more than a little audacity for Obama to claim that John McCain has been inconsistent on the subject.
Posted by Paul at 3:43 PM | Permalink | E-mail this post to a friend |
"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"
--Howard Dean in 2004. As noted by Jake Tapper immediately after that passage:
McCain, by the way, has been awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Star Medals, a Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
More thoughts on Basra and Iraq
Posted by: McQ
Let me recommend some reading for those of you interested in some good sources of opinion that provide a context and insight about what is going on in Basra.
But before I do, let me make a few comments.
What is happening in Basra is what all of us, from the anti-war side to the side of the war supporters, have said we want to see happen - Iraq standing up and taking charge of it's own security and defense. So, I'm a bit amused a the sniping and the foretelling of doom and gloom I see going on among many on both sides of the issue.
Let's consider the ground reality there, ok? The shia militias in Basra are indigenous to the area and are on defense. The ISF is conducting offensive operations. Any idea which is harder to coordinate and execute?
We have the ISF conducting it's first attempt at a large scale offensive operations. Of course there are going to be problems ... many problems, screw-ups and snafus.
You need to understand that when you see comments like this ...
Because this is the end result of the U.S. advisory effort to date — which has focused on creating well-trained and equipped units at the tactical level, but has basically failed at the national, strategic level. The leaders of the Iraqi security forces at the ministry level are as bad as they ever were. And the national government is about as bad. Training and advising Iraqi units at the brigade level and below is well and good. But if you fail to properly shape the national command structure, you're handing those units over to leaders who will misuse them.
...and take them with a grain of salt. You don't conduct good joint, corps, or even division ops if you've never functioned in combat at those levels. That's not to say that there may not be some truth to the comment, but it is just as valid to say that the lessons learned from this operation will go much further toward properly shaping the future national command structure than all the plans, CPXs and Battle Staff training anyone could devise. There is no better trainer than actual experience - if you survive it.
An example of poor coordination and inexperience is highlighted here:
While this isn't necessarily a defeat for the IA, it remains to be seen if they can overcome the limitations of their equipment to move through the city to confront the Mahdi Army. For now, at least, it looks like their recon might not have been the best. A "Basra newspaper editor" quoted by the Times told the paper that "it was obvious that the central government had not consulted with local commanders in planning the assault, citing the inability of the armored vehicles to fit through city streets."
When fighting an insurgency that relies on motorcycles and small cars and trucks to move around the narrow streets of a city, bigger isn't always better.
Obviously, if true, recon and intel gathering are two very important parts of any plan and they weren't very well done in the case of this one. Of course, local commanders would know all of this, or should. So if the part about no coordination is true, the higher command has again done itself and its troops no favors by ignoring or not soliciting their input. It has planned for something which doesn't exist on the ground, and that means they're stuck trying to execute a particular plan with much of the firepower necessary to prosecute that plan unable to support it.
Unfortunately that's a rookie mistake that may now be causing the planned offensive to stall.
There are also reports that this was all planned and put in motion without letting the US know. I frankly find that hard to believe and Bill Roggio's report explains why:
The current Iraqi offensive has been in the works for some time. The Iraqi Army and police have been massing forces in the South since August 2007, when the Basrah Operational Command was established to coordinate efforts in the region. As of December the Iraqi Army deployed four brigades and an Iraqi Special Operations Forces battalion in Basrah province. The Iraqi National Police deployed two additional battalions to the province.
Now, knowing it was something which would happen and not having any control over the plan or implementation are two different things, but we certainly must have known of it in at least a general sense for some time.
Interestingly, Basra is probably the most difficult operation the government could have picked to try it's first large scale offensive operation. Rival militias have been allowed to establish themselves because of a complete failure by the British in a city of 2.3 million. That's not easy pickin's.
One of the things you have to do, for instance, to control such an operation, is to control access in and out of the city. That is a huge manpower intensive job. You want to cut off your enemies from both reinforcement and resupply. That's not an easy task in and of itself. Then of course you have to have the offensive capability to take, clear and hold the city. It's not clear they have that capability in place. That's a planning problem. Last, after taking, clearing and holding the city, you have to reestablish civil control. And, unfortunately to this point, the Iraqi government hasn't been the swiftest entity in that department.
But it is easier to convince someone of the necessity of approaching problems in a particular way vs. the way they've previously done it when they can see why such an approach makes better sense. And experience, such as Basra, is perhaps the best teacher in that department.
Last but not least, with the US available in support, all those mistakes, although most likely costly, are probably survivable.
Of course intertwined in all of this are the political considerations which drive much of the Iraqi thinking and may not be particularly visible to the US military as concerns how operations are executed. I'm not sure how to sort through all of that at this point and make sense of it but I would guess it is having an effect. Whether or not that effect is a show-stopper isn't at all clear.
Bill Roggio has a good roundup of the action here. He also defines what is known about US participation:
US troops are acting in a support role in Basrah and the south, several US military officers told The Long War Journal. The US is providing intelligence, combat support, and air assets to back Iraqi security forces in Basrah and along the Iranian border.
US forces are also actively hunting the Mahdi Army cells in Baghdad conducting the mortar and rocket attacks. Coalition and Iraqi Army forces detained 11 Special Groups operatives believed to be behind a mortar attack on FOB Falcon.
To this point, then, intel, combat support (which could be defined any number of way, but essentially means we're supporting their efforts by other means than direct combat) and air. I recommend you read Bill's article as a good way to get yourself into the situation.
I'd recommend you also read the following blogs for different opinions about what is going on there, it's importance and how they see it developing. Small War's Journal, Abu Maqawama and The Long War Journal. SWJ has a good round up of other opinions. Also check in with the excellent milblogs, such as Blackfive, which have some additional insight as well as some sources of their own.
McCain, Kerry and the presidential election
Posted by: McQ
Democrats are going to have to eat some words this year in order to make the argument that McCain isn't the best qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.
Of course that came to the fore yesterday when the McCain campaign introduced a 60 second ad which touts his Vietnam and military experience as a part of the whole package. It was introduced only in New Mexico, but will probably be seen nationwide eventually. It is an effort to A) introduce McCain to those who don't really know him but are finally starting to pay attention to the election and B) keep his name in front of the voters.
Naturally the Democrats, through Howard Dean, simply had to have a reaction.
"John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."
Funny stuff considering Dean's defense of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:
"Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"
In 2004 that sort of a guy was the most qualified. In 2008 that sort of guy is a 'blatant opportunist'.
My how the world changes when the medals are hanging on the other guy's candidate, huh Howard?
"More on The Federal Reserve's St. Patrick's Day Massacre
The New York Fed Puts on a $29 billion Trade
By blackhedd Posted in bailout | Bear Stearns | Economy | federal reserve | JP Morgan Chase | SIV — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Two days ago, I wrote here on the widely-reported $30 billion loan that the Federal Reserve made as part of brokering the acquisition of the Bear Stearns Companies by JP Morgan Chase (the "St. Patrick's Day Massacre").
I now have much more information on what this deal is all about. I guessed quite wrong about the deal structure. The $30 billion loan is not a term repo as I originally thought. Nor is it likely to generate monetary losses for taxpayers. (In fact, the opposite is true.)
But it is something bold and different that's worth understanding. In fact, it's a major milestone event in the monetary and financial history of the United States.
Before I launch into this, let me set the context by reminding you why all this financial mumbo-jumbo is important: it's because of politics. Even before the full effects of the credit crisis make themselves felt, we're already deeply into a paroxysm of "the sky is falling! What is the government going to do about it?" I'll be posting as much as I can on this subject in the coming days and weeks, because there is at least as much danger to the real economy from a mad dash toward new regulations and Federal involvement, as there is from the financial-system disorders themselves.
Keep reading...
Some of my information comes from this somewhat-cryptic press release by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and some from private sources.
During the critical days of March 14, 15, and 16, while Morgan was madly trying to discern the outlines of what they were being asked to buy, they identified a portfolio of assets that they were not willing to finance. They asked for the Fed's help in guaranteeing the value of the portfolio. Several accounts agree that Bear Stearns hurriedly marked this portfolio to market as of March 14, producing a valuation of $30 billion, and the Fed agreed to lend this money to Morgan as a condition of agreeing to the acquisition.
Relatedly, it appears that the Fed (both the Reserve Board in Washington and the New York Fed that directly participated in the negotiations) was involved heavily in setting the lowball price of $2/share offered to Bear Stearns shareholders. (In interviews, Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon will only say that "a lot of factors were involved.") The Fed knew very, very well that the Bear deal would be perceived as a government bailout of a Wall Street firm, so they went out of their way to ensure a smackdown of Bear's shareholders.
How the public sees this is one thing. (The mendacious news media have done nothing to dispel the impression that the fatcats made out like bandits.) Much more importantly, however, the Fed sent Wall Streeters a brutally clear warning not to expect that they will be made whole the next time they get into trouble. The sight of Jimmy Cayne going from near-billionaire to 60-millionaire in just over a year will keep a lot of plutocrats under control for a long time to come.
At any rate, the Fed's $30 billion loan was announced as part of the acquisition on the evening of March 16 in New York. Over the following week, everyone got a chance to catch his breath and re-examine the asset portfolio that was guaranteed by the loan. And as a result, the Fed restructured that transaction. They announced the restructuring on March 24, and this is where things get really interesting.
The New York Fed has created a new limited-liability company, and they hired BlackRock Financial Management to run it. (BlackRock, the division of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, not BlackStone, the publicly-owned private-equity firm.)
The New York Fed lent $29 billion to the new LLC, for a term of 10 years, which may be renewed at the Fed's option. Morgan put in $1 billion, in the form of a subordinated note. This is a key feature of the re-structured March 24 transaction, since in the original March 16 deal, the Fed was going to speak to the whole $30 billion.
The LLC will use the loan proceeds to acquire the Bear asset portfolio. And they plan to sell out the assets gradually as market conditions improve, over the next ten years or less.
Morgan's $1 billion note will take the first losses on the portfolio, if there are any. In essence, Morgan owns a 10-year call-spread on the deal, long at $29 billion and short at $30 billion. The first people to be paid out (after the LLC's operating expenses) will be the Fed. They get back their $29 billion, plus interest at the discount-window rate.
After the Fed get their money back with interest, Morgan will get back their $1 billion, plus interest at a rate equal to the Fed's discount rate plus 450 basis points (totalling 7% at the moment). That's the most that Morgan can make on the deal. Anything left after the principal and interest payments all goes to the Fed.
Depending on the liquidation value of the portfolio (which in turn depends on the original valuation and future market conditions), the New York Fed stands to make a significant amount of money here, well beyond their $29 billion investment.
Now there is still a big question mark: no one I've corresponded with knows for sure what the composition of the asset portfolio actually is. It appears to be a mixture of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, some with agency guarantees and some without.
And here is the key thing that makes this different from anything the Fed has ever done: the deal is essentially a trade. The New York Fed has funded the purchase of assets for a significant amount of time, in the full expectation that they will make a profit.
This is exactly the kind of deal that private actors like Bill Gross and Warren Buffett have been eyeing for months now. We do not know the specifics of the mark-to-market that Bear applied to the portfolio on March 14. It would be exceptionally interesting to know if they valued parts of it at 95 cents on the dollar, 70 cents, or somewhere else. Because the Fed's ratification of that valuation would put a floor under the MBS market as a whole, and potentially go a very long way toward resolving the overall credit crisis.
On the other hand, the New York Fed are very savvy traders. If they intend to make a profit with this vehicle, they don't necessarily want people to know their basis.
The transaction has been described by several of my correspondents as essentially a SIV ("structured investment vehicle"). This description strikes me as only superficially valid. A traditional SIV is dependent on continuous access to short-term repo funding, at low enough interest rates to finance the long-term paper held by the SIV. It therefore faces significant market and liquidity risk as interest rates move up and down.
I don't think the Fed's new LLC faces any risk that they will lose their short-term funding. (Even though there is mysterious language in the Fed's press release about an obligation of the LLC to pay the Fed interest at the current discount rate.) If anything, this is more like a hedge fund or a private equity fund than a SIV. I'd like to know if BlackRock got the standard two-and-twenty compensation structure for managing the vehicle.
To sum up, the New York Fed has entered the market for mortgage-backed securities as a direct participant, going far beyond their traditional role as a lender of last resort. This is a deeply significant and historic change, destined to have major repercussions. I've heard much apprehension and outright fear about the ultimate results, but so far, no one has been able to predict what they might be.
And in addition, many are questioning whether it needed to be done at all. In the days between March 16 and March 24, the Fed opened up its discount window to investment banks and broker-dealers. Some people believe the $30 billion probably could have been funded in the normal repo market after March 17, making the new 10-year LLC unnecessary. I'm not convinced of that.
Much of the general public is still going to react to this story as if the Fed has wantonly and illegally flushed $30 billion in tax money down the toilet. This sweet delusion will continue as long as the media can use it to sell fishwrap.
Forget about that. The real question, and the real danger, is: have the Fed embarked on an eyes-open strategy of direct participation in financial markets that will have extraordinary consequences?
We live in interesting times.
-Francis Cianfrocca ("blackhedd")
"http://www.redstate.com/stories/economy/more_on_the_federal_reserves_st_patricks_day_massacre
The 100 Year Lie
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.
Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq War, McPeak (a war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)
Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.
As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.
Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.
But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"
The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.
Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."
The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.
Palestinian "Holocaust" exhibit: Nazi Israelis throw Arab kids into ovens
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook March 26, 2008
Bookmark to del.icio.us
Palestinian kids hold up posters against "Israel's Holocausts" (Palestinian Media Watch)
Palestinian children gathered for an exhibition that depicts Israel burning children in a crematorium. Young children are seen standing beside dolls being placed into a model of a cremation oven. According to the article in Al Ayyam (March 20, 2008), "The National Committee for defense of Children from the Holocaust opened its activities with a Holocaust exhibit. The Exhibit include a large oven and inside it small children are being burned, the picture speaks for itself."
Another part of the exhibit was a black platform with the words, "Stop the Israel's Holocausts [sic and sick-Israel Insider]." [Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 20, 2008] Palestinian Authority (Fatah) TV has for years taught children in the past that Israel burned children in the Holocaust. With ovens pictured in the background and actors playing dead children as part of a musical play, an actor in a video declared: "They [Israel] are the ones who did the Holocaust ... They opened the ovens for us to bake human beings... and when one oven stopped burning they lit a hundred more ovens." [PA TV March 25, 2004]
Obama, Israel, and American Jews -- it just keeps getting worse
Why does Barack Obama have so many foreign policy and national security advisers whose statements about Israel and American Jews are problematic? We've written at length about Samantha Power, perhaps his closest foreign policy adviser until she was forced to resign for insulting Hillary Clinton. We've also touched on Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. And by now everyone who follows these things realizes that Obama's long-time spiritual adviser Rev. Wright hates Israel passionately.
Now comes evidence that Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, who serves as Obama's national campaign co-chair and his point man when it comes to establishing the candidate's bona fides on military matters, is also hostile towards Israel, viewing its positions as preventing peace from breaking out in the region. Moreover, in something like the style of Walt-Mearsheimer, he blames American Jews for enabling Israel to take the positions that prevent peace.
Robert Goldberg at the American Spectator provides the details. Goldberg points to a 2003 interview McPeak gave to the Oregonian newspaper, which included this exchange:
McPeak: We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that.
Q: So where's the problem? State? White House?
McPeak: New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.
McPeak then explains that because of the political influence exerted by those New York and Miami Jews, the U.S. can't get "Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there." And under these circumstances, "you can't develop a Middle East strategy; it's impossible."
In response to a follow-up question, McPeak gives a bizarre answer in which he seems to equate the extremism of Hamas and Hezbollah with extremism you can find even in Oregon (if you know where to look -- see below). He then concedes that there is some "good will" in Israel (though not apparently among American Jews in New York and Miami) but only perhaps among the "cosmopolitan" set.
Q. Do you think . . . there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?
McPeak: Absolutely.
Q. Yeah. So this is - this is multilateral.
McPeak: There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place.
I think there is enough good will on the Israeli side - I've spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli air force as a junior officer, and so - but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there - I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well. But there's enough good will, I would hope, on both sides that you can get the majority into some kind of a big tent, and make something better than what you've got now. If you do that, you'll still have radicals on both sides doing stupid things, but that is basically a problem in internal security. Hopefully. You can handle it with police. But if you don't do that, I don't see any way to put together a strategy for the Middle East. I mean it's just kind of a linchpin.
Who constitutes this "pernicious element," found even in Oregon, that clothes its radicalism in "religous garments" to "make[] it harder to attack"? Goldberg quotes McPeak as follows:
Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical. . .The secret of the neoconservative movement is that it's not conservative, it's radical.
Goldberg concludes: "Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants, but until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions." It seems to me, however, that the question is largely settled, whether Obama accepts responsibility or not.
UPDATE: Ed Lasky has more on McPeak and Obama. He writes:
If Senator Obama becomes President, McPeak might very well be in line for an appointment as Secretary of Defense. Given the close ties between the defense forces of America and Israel, can the millions of supporters of this close alliance [have confidence] that McPeak will not seek to weaken this relationship and make Israel even more vulnerable to the enemies that surround her?
Iraqi Army, Sadr militia clash in Basra
posted at 7:57 am on March 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
The Iraqi Army has moved to establish central-government control of the southern city of Basra after the British pullout ignited a turf war between the Badr Brigades and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. The Mahdis have resisted with force despite orders from Sadr to stand down, and four people have been killed in action this morning:
Fierce clashes between Iraqi security forces and militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday killed at least four people and wounded 18 in the southern city of Basra, police Major Abbas Youssef told AFP.
“They were killed in clashes in the northern Al-Mawana neighbourhood of Basra,” Youssef said.
The fighting broke out early on Tuesday between the Mahdi Army militia and Iraqi forces as the government launched a crackdown on armed groups in Basra, which is a engulfed in a turf war between rival Shiite factions.
British military officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Basra to personally oversee the major security force sweep in Iraq’s second largest city, but that British troops were not taking part.
Sadr’s organization already has issued a statement asking for a negotiated peace. They know that they cannot defeat the Iraqi Army, even if Sadr decided to fight all out in Basra. The Mahdis have never really represented a military threat to either the US or trained Iraqi forces; their only victories came against green IA units in the first days of their reconstitution, four years ago. The Mahdis are nothing but a gang with military pretensions, and Sadr knows that better than anyone else.
The Sadrists want to blame this clash on the Iraqi central government, but Nouri al-Maliki had little choice. The Mahdis and the Badr Brigades have been fighting a gang war for control of southern Iraq, and the central government had to put an end to it to demonstrate that their writ runs in all of Iraq. Sadr should have gotten a clue when Maliki quarterbacked a political deal between the central government, the Kurds, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that runs the Badr Brigade last summer. The writing was on the wall, but Sadr apparently didn’t bother to read it.
Maliki himself has come to Basra to show that the Baghdad government intends on restoring order in the South. That sends a powerful message of confidence to the Shi’ites who found themselves stuck between the warring militias. It also sends a message to Iran that they backed the weak horse in Basra. The defeat of the Mahdis will also boost the confidence of the Iraqi Army, which has gone into a significant engagement without robust assistance from Western forces for perhaps the first time.
Some news outlets act as though this negates the surge, and shows Iraq on the brink of heightened hostilities. However, Basra had always awaited a final reckoning, and the longer Maliki waited, the worse it would get. This will test the Baghdad government’s control over the entirety of Iraq and bring the province in line after it slipped from Maliki’s control last year. It doesn’t negate the surge but shows how the surge allows Maliki and the elected government to enforce a rule of law and displace the gangsterism that had engulfed Basra.
And before that he was a member of the communist party
People get smarter all the time ( well, with some exceptions- like you )
Exactly what great harm did he do to the country?
Certainly no progress in your thought processes
Earth a little more resilient than computer models
posted at 9:10 am on March 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
The Australian reports a few inconvenient truths regarding global climate change that have yet to receive much attention from a media sold on global warming. Not only has the Earth cooled since its peak year in 1998, not only are oceans cooler than predicted, but new NASA data shows that the computer models that predicted runaway global warming were based on a fundamental error. Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it (via Memeorandum):
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”
Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.” …
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Hmm. How many have actually heard that the NASA Aqua satellite returned this kind of data? I searched the New York Times and found nothing since 2006 on Aqua — and that was just an announcement that NASA would launch more satellites to study weather. The Washington Post reported on ice loss in the Arctic just this week, but noted that Aqua shows an ice increase in the Acrtic this winter, but never reported on the other data that throws cold water on global warming.
So far, no one asserts that we have produced less carbon in the atmosphere. Global-warming activists continue to make Chicken Little predictions of catastrophe based on increases in carbon releases, especially from China and India as they modernize and industrialize. If carbon releases resulted in global warming, then the rate of increase should be constant; there definitely should be no decrease, especially given the theoretical amplification of water vapor.
Apparently, though, both assumptions have either proven incorrect or far too simplified to explain the actual impact of carbon on global temperatures. That’s not surprising, especially given the previous global-cooling scare of the 1970s and how baseless that theory turned out to be. What’s surprising is the utter lack of coverage that the new data has received. Why haven’t the same media outlets that relentlessly cover global-warming advocacy reported on the appearance of contradictory data?
Perhaps because global warming is more advocacy than science.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
There's a huge difference.
McCain isn't part of Hagee's church
Obama has admitted that Wright had a huge influence on his life. HIs book "Audacity of Hope" was taken from a quote by Wright. He was married by Wright and his children were baptised by Wright. He was much closer to Wright and has admitted the influence he has had on his life. Contrast with McCain who as far as I know had no real relationship with Hagee
YOU missed the point of his speech- the worst racial profiling- as well as hatred of America came from Wright sermons. His venom is many times worse than the slant that Fox puts in their reporting. When Robertson made his stupid comments on 9/11- he was trashed on Fox. Watching Wright spill his hatred and hearing his audience eat it up is just as scary
Well, Wright does have connections with Farrakhan
Foreign investors veto Fed rescue
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Last Updated: 1:13pm GMT 17/03/2008
Have your say Read comments
As feared, foreign bond holders have begun to exercise a collective vote of no confidence in the devaluation policies of the US government. The Federal Reserve faces a potential veto of its rescue measures.
# Contagion fears sweep across the Atlantic
# Dollar plunges as Fed steps up moves
# Read more of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Ben Bernanke, Dollars down a drain and the Federal Reserve
Desperate measures: Bernanke and the Federal Reserve need to keep on top of the crisis and continue to intervene if needed
Asian, Mid East and European investors stood aside at last week's auction of 10-year US Treasury notes. "It was a disaster," said Ray Attrill from 4castweb. "We may be close to the point where the uglier consequences of benign neglect towards the currency are revealed."
The share of foreign buyers ("indirect bidders") plummeted to 5.8pc, from an average 25pc over the last eight weeks. On the Richter Scale of unfolding dramas, this matches the death of Bear Stearns.
Rightly or wrongly, a view has taken hold that Washington is cynically debasing the coinage, hoping to export its day of reckoning through beggar-thy-neighbour policies.
It is not my view. I believe the forces of debt deflation now engulfing America - and soon half the world - are so powerful that nobody will be worrying about inflation a year hence.
Yes, the Fed caused this mess by setting the price of credit too low for too long, feeding the cancer of debt dependency. But we are in the eye of the storm now. This is not a time for priggery.
The Fed's emergency actions are imperative. Last week's collapse of confidence in the creditworthiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was life-threatening. These agencies underpin 60pc of the $11,000bn market for US home loans.
With the "financial accelerator" kicking into top gear - downwards - we may need everything that Ben Bernanke can offer.
# Bear Stearns may be worse than LTCM collapse
# Jeff Randall: A world addicted to easy credit must go cold turkey
# How Bear Stearns ran out of the necessities
"The situation is getting worse, and the risks are that it could get very bad," said Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research. "There's no doubt that this year and next year are going to be very difficult."
Even monetary policy à l'outrance may not be enough to halt the spiral. Former US Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers says the Fed's shower of liquidity cannot cure a bankruptcy crisis caused by a tidal wave of property defaults.
"It is like fighting a virus with antibiotics," he said.
We can no longer exclude a partial nationalisation of the American banking system, modelled on the Nordic rescue in the early 1990s.
But even if you think the Fed has no choice other than to take dramatic action, the critics are also right in warning that this comes at a serious cost and it may backfire.
The imminent risk is that global flight from US Treasury and agency debt drives up long-term rates, the key funding instrument for mortgages and corporations. The effect could outweigh Fed easing.
Overall credit conditions could tighten into a slump (like 1930). It's the stuff of bad dreams.
Is this the moment when America finally discovers the meaning of the Faustian pact it signed so blithely with Asian creditors?
As the Wall Street Journal wrote this weekend, the entire country is facing a "margin call". The US has come to depend on $800bn inflows of cheap foreign capital each year to cover shopping bills. They may have to pay a much stiffer rent.
As of June 2007, foreigners owned $6,007bn of long-term US debt. (Equal to 66pc of the entire US federal debt). The biggest holdings by country are, in billions: Japan (901), China (870), UK (475), Luxembourg (424), Cayman Islands (422), Belgium (369), Ireland (176), Germany (155), Switzerland (140), Bermuda (133), Netherlands (123), Korea (118), Russia (109), Taiwan (107), Canada (106), Brazil (103). Who is jumping ship?
The Chinese have quickened the pace of yuan appreciation to choke off 8.7pc inflation, slowing US bond purchases. Petrodollar funds, working through UK off-shore accounts, are clearly dumping dollars amid rumours that Gulf states - overheating wildly - are about to break their dollar pegs. But mostly likely, the twin crash in the dollar and US agency debt reflects a broad exodus by global wealth managers, afraid that America is spinning out of control. Sauve qui peut.
The bond debacle last week tallies with the crash in the dollar index to an all-time low of 71.58, down 14.6pc in a year. The greenback is nearing parity with the Swiss franc - shocking for those who remember when it was 4.375 francs in 1970. Against the euro it has hit $1.57, from $0.82 in 2000. Against the yen it has smashed through Y100. Spare a thought for Toyota. It loses $350m in revenues for every one yen move. That is an $8.75bn hit since June. Tokyo's Nikkei index is crumbling. Less understood, it is also causing a self-reinforcing spiral of credit shrinkage throughout the global system.
Japanese investors and foreign funds are having to close their yen "carry trade" positions. A chunk of the $1,400bn trade built up over six years has been viciously unwound in weeks. The harder the dollar falls, the further this must go.
It is unsettling to watch the world's reserve currency disintegrate. Commodities from gold to oil and wheat are taking on the role of safe-haven "currencies". The monetary order is becoming unhinged.
I doubt the dollar can fall much further. What is it to fall against? The spreading credit contagion will cause large parts of the globe to downgrade in hot pursuit - starting with Europe.
Few noticed last week that the Italian treasury auction was also a flop. The bids collapsed. For the first time since the launch of EMU, Italy failed to sell a full batch of state bonds.
The euro blasted higher anyway, driven by hot money flows. The funds are beguiled by Germany's "Exportwunder", for now. It cannot last. The demented level of $1.57 will not be tolerated by French, Italian and Spanish politicians. The Latin property bubbles are deflating fast.
The race to the bottom must soon begin. Half the world will be slashing rates this year to stave off credit contraction. The dollar will have a lot of company. Small comfort.
Have your say
Security Gains Reverse Iraq's Spiral
Though Serious Problems Remain
Improved security and economic conditions have reversed Iraqis' spiral of despair,
sharply improving hopes for the country's future. Yet deep problems remain, in terms of
security, living conditions, reconciliation and political progress alike.
Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39
percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19
points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead
has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll by ABC News, the BBC, ARD
German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.
Without directly crediting the surge in U.S. forces, fewer report security as the main
problem in their own lives 25 percent, nearly half its peak last spring. Forty-six percent
say local security has improved in the past six months, nearly double last summer's level.
The number of Iraqis who feel entirely unsafe in their own area has dropped by two-
thirds, to 10 percent. And with Sunni Arab buy-in, U.S.-funded Awakening Councils,
created to provide local security, are more popular than the Iraqi government itself.
39%
43%
23%
55%
62%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Own life:
Going well
Local security:
Good
Iraq in a year:
Expect better
August
Now
Life in Iraq
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
background image
2
Even more striking is the halt in worsening views. In August, Iraqis by 61-11 percent said
security in the country had gotten worse, not better, in the previous six months. Today, by
36-26 percent, more say security has improved. The new positive margin is not large. But
the 35-point drop in views that security is worsening is the single largest change in this
poll.
11%
61%
28%
36%
26%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Better
Worse
Same
August
Now
Security in the Past Six Months
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
BEEN BETTER In almost all cases, however, the improvement since August and
March still has not brought Iraqi sentiment back to its pre-2007 levels. While 46 percent
now expect improvements for the country in the next year, that's still far below its level
in November 2005, 69 percent. While 55 percent say their own lives are going well,
that's down from 71 percent in late 2005.
Now August 2007 March 2007 November 2005
Own life going well 55% 39 39 71
Expect gains for Iraq 46% 23 40 69
Similarly, while there's been a big drop in the number who cite security as their own
main problem, 50 percent still volunteer it as the nation's main problem overall little
changed from 56 percent in August. One in four Iraqis still report suicide attacks,
sectarian fighting and other violence in their own area in just the past six months. And the
provision of basic services has barely budged; 88 percent lack adequate electricity.
Much of the improvement since August is driven by Baghdad and Anbar provinces, focal
points of the surge. Seventy-one percent in Anbar, and fewer in Baghdad but still 43
background image
3
percent, now rate local security positively up from zero in both locales last year. While
a dramatic gain, most in Baghdad, home to a quarter of Iraqis, still say security is bad a
reflection of continued, albeit reduced, violence there.
Economic improvement complements the security gains. Fifty-seven percent rate their
household finances positively, a 20-point jump, again steepest in Baghdad (especially its
Sadr City area) and Anbar. The availability of basic consumer goods has soared even
more sharply; 65 percent rate it positively, up by 26 points since August to its highest in
polls dating to early 2004. And family incomes are up by 26 percent, about $80 a month.
This poll, marking the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, is
the fifth in Iraq by ABC News and other media partners. It consists of face-to-face
interviews with a random national sample of more than 2,200 Iraqi adults.
CHALLENGES Challenges remain broad and deep. Beyond their own lives, most
Iraqis, 55 percent, still say things are going badly for the country, even if that's down
from a record 78 percent in August. Violence remains common, particularly in the cities;
local car bombs or suicide attacks, just within the past six months, are reported by 45
percent in Baghdad, 51 percent in Kirkuk and 39 percent in Mosul.
Living conditions for many remain dire, with sizable majorities reporting a lack of
electricity, fuel, clean water, medical care and sufficient jobs. Improvement in all these
has been modest at best. Six in 10 say they can't live where they choose without facing
persecution, although this, too, is well down from its peak.
12%
19%
30%
31%
38%
88%
81%
70%
68%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Supply of
electricity
Availability
of fuel
Jobs
Clean
water
Medical
care
Good
Bad
Ratings of Local Conditions
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
background image
4
Sectarian differences remain vast. While more than six in 10 Shiites and seven in 10
Kurds say their own lives are going well, that drops to a third in the Sunni Arab minority.
Eighty-three percent of Sunnis rate national conditions negatively. And while half of
Shiites and six in 10 Kurds expect their children's lives to be better than their own, a
mere 12 percent of Sunnis share that most basic hope.
Ratings of the national government and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remain weak
43 and 40 percent positive, respectively and sharply split by sectarian group. Just half
think legislators are willing to compromise on key issues. The country divides on the
state of Sunni-Shiite relations, and Arab-Kurdish relations are rated more negatively.
In a telling result, one question asked Iraqis whether this is a good time for the millions
who have fled the country to return. Forty-five percent say yes, now is the time for those
Iraqis to come back but 54 percent say it's not. (Not surprisingly, where security is
rated positively, Iraqis are 20 points more likely to say it's time to return.)
THE U.S. Views of the United States, while still broadly negative, have moderated in
some respects. Just shy of half, 49 percent, now say it was right for the U.S.-led coalition
to have invaded, up by 12 points from August; the previous high was 48 percent in the
first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
37%
57%
47%
49%
42%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Invasion was right
Attacks on U.S. forces
"acceptable"
Coalition forces
should leave now
August
Now
Views of the U.S. Presence
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
Similarly, the number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces has declined
for the first time in these polls, down to 42 percent after peaking at 57 percent in August.
background image
5
Even with a 15-point drop, however, that's still a lot of Iraqis to endorse such violence.
(Just 4 percent, by contrast, call it acceptable to attack Iraqi government forces.)
Sunni Arabs, dispossessed by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, are a good example. In
August 93 percent of Sunnis called it acceptable to attack U.S. forces. Today, that's down
to 62 percent a dramatic decline, but one that still leaves six in 10 Sunnis on the side of
anti-U.S. attacks.
Other measures are a little better, if not good. Just 20 percent of Iraqis express confidence
in U.S. forces, up slightly from 14 percent last summer. Just 29 percent say U.S. forces
have done a good job in Iraq, up 10 points. Only 27 percent say the presence of U.S.
forces is making overall security better in Iraq, up 9 points; 61 percent say it's making
things worse.
Indeed, on a basic level, the presence of foreign forces remains unwelcome: Just 26
percent of Iraqis support having U.S. and coalition troops in their country, up a scant 5
points. But this doesn't mean most favor immediate withdrawal. Well under half, 38
percent, say the United States should leave now, down from a peak 47 percent in August.
One reason is that Iraqis are divided on what might follow U.S. withdrawal; 46 percent
think it would make security better, but the rest say it would make security worse or leave
it as it is now. Those who think immediate withdrawal would improve security are twice
as likely to support it.
Moreover, despite their antipathy, big majorities see a continued role for the United
States. From two-thirds to 80 percent of Iraqis support future U.S. efforts conducting
security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in Iraq; providing military training,
weapons and reconstruction aid; and assisting in security vis-à-vis Iran and Turkey. The
most popular of these is a U.S. role confronting al Qaeda.
Future role for U.S. % support
Security vs. al Qaeda in Iraq 80%
Training/weapons for Iraqi army 76
Reconstruction aid 73
Security vs. Iran 68
Security vs. Turkey 66
Americans long have been conflicted about the war: Broadly unhappy with its costs in
human and material terms alike, yet torn on how and when best to leave Iraq in a tenable
condition. Iraqis, it turns out, are equally conflicted on these issues.
THE SURGE On a national level, as noted, 36 percent of Iraqis say security has
improved in the last six months; that's jumped from just 11 percent in August. Of them,
82 percent express at least some confidence improved security will continue, although
fewer, about a third, are "very" confident of it.
background image
6
At the same time, few give the United States direct credit for security gains. When those
who see security as having improved are asked who deserves the most credit, Iraqi
institutions lead the way 26 percent cite the national government, 18 percent the police,
13 percent the army. Just 4 percent mention the United States or U.S. forces.
Direct ratings of the surge likely reflect the United States' general unpopularity. Iraqis by
53-36 percent say the surge has made security worse, not better, in the areas where it's
occurred; that, however, has improved sharply, from 70-18 percent in August.
Similarly, Iraqis by 49-30 percent say the surge has made security worse in the rest of the
country (it was 68-12 percent in August); by 43-21 percent say it's worsened conditions
for political dialogue (70-10 percent in August); by 44-25 percent say it's worsened the
ability of the Iraqi government to do its work (65-12 percent in August) and by 42-22
percent say it's worsened the pace of economic development (67-6 percent in August).
These, again, have to be viewed through the filter of general antipathy toward the United
States. What's notable is the change in the number of Iraqis who say the surge has made
any of these conditions worse down by 17 to 27 points.
70%
68%
70%
65%
67%
53%
49%
43%
44%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Security where
forces sent
Security in
other areas
Political
dialogue
Ability of
Iraqi gov't
Economic
development
August
Now
Impact of Troop Surge
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
% saying it's worse
THE COUNCILS and THE SUNNIS Moreover, an integral part of the surge strategy
the creation of U.S.-funded and -equipped "Awakening Councils" to provide local
security is generally popular. The councils are better-rated than the United States, local
leaders, local militias and even the Iraqi government.
background image
7
Fifty-six percent of Iraqis express confidence in the councils, compared with 49 percent
in the national government of Iraq, 47 percent in local leaders, 22 percent in local militias
and 20 percent in U.S. forces. The councils attract confidence from 73 percent of Sunni
Arabs generally the most alienated Iraqis as well as from 60 percent of Shiites.
These councils began in Sunni Anbar province, where confidence in them peaks, at 88
percent; there now are both Sunni- and Shiite-dominated versions. (They're viewed far
more dimly by Kurds.)
While just 27 percent of Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making security better
overall, nearly twice as many, 51 percent, say the Awakening Councils are making
security better. Just 16 percent say the councils are making security worse, vs. 61 percent
who say that about U.S. forces. And Iraqis almost unanimously reject attacks on
Awakening Council leaders; 94 percent call these unacceptable.
Sixty-four percent of Sunnis say the councils are making security better, vs. 49 percent of
Shiites and 31 percent of Kurds. This, along with the councils' general cross-doctrinal
popularity, makes them look like a potentially effective tool in reassuring Sunni
suspicions of the U.S. and the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad alike.
51%
64%
49%
31%
16%
10%
20%
17%
31%
25%
31%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Iraqis
Sunnis
Shiites
Kurds
Better
Worse
No effect
Awakening Councils:
Impact on Security
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
The challenge is what happens with these councils over time, with some analysts
expressing concern they could be drawn into sectarian conflict. Fifty-nine percent of
background image
8
Iraqis including equal numbers of Sunnis and Shiites alike say the councils should be
incorporated into the mainstream Iraqi security forces.
BAGHDAD/ANBAR As noted, it's Baghdad and Anbar, focal points of the surge,
where many of the changes have been greatest but where conditions still lag in real
terms. Ratings of local security have improved by 43 points in Baghdad (from nil in
August) and by 32 points in Anbar (nil in March). They've advanced more slowly in the
rest of the country, by 10 points since August, to 68 percent positive still much higher
than in Baghdad.
Positive ratings of the availability of local goods have jumped remarkably, from zero to
70 percent in Baghdad, and from 28 to 67 percent in Anbar, compared with a 10-point
rise in the rest of the country. The availability of jobs is rated positively by 43 percentage
points more in Anbar now than in August, and by 18 points more in Baghdad, compared
with just 4 points more elsewhere.
Last August, in Anbar and Baghdad alike, no respondents felt they could live where they
wanted without persecution; today 86 percent in Anbar, and 46 in percent in Baghdad,
feel they can. It's been flat in the rest of the country, +2 points, to 34 percent.
Local conditions (% positive)
Baghdad Anbar Rest of Iraq
Now August Now August Now August
Availability of goods 70% 0 67% 28 63% 53
Economic situation 60 15 59 24 56 46
Live w/out persecution 46 0 86 0 34 32
Local security 43 0 71 39 68 58
Own life going well 41 26 26 0 62 46
Availability of jobs 40 22 43 0 26 22
Views that the United States was right to invade Iraq have gained 25 points in Baghdad,
to 46 percent. But in Anbar, the Sunni heartland, this has not changed no one there says
the invasion was right, today as in the polls last August and March alike.
None in Anbar, either, express confidence in U.S. forces, or approve of the way they've
done their work in Iraq. But there is this change: In August 76 percent in Anbar said U.S.
forces should leave Iraq immediately. Today fewer than half as many, 34 percent, say so.
For all this, Baghdad and Anbar are hardly hotbeds of optimism. Just a quarter in Anbar
say things are going well in their own lives (though that's up from no one last August); so
do 41 percent in Baghdad, compared with 62 percent elsewhere. Compared to others in
Iraq, fewer in either Anbar or Baghdad rate the country's situation positively, or expect
their own lives, or the country's condition, to improve in the year ahead.
Another challenge is the strength of militias, especially in Baghdad's predominantly
Shiite Sadr City area: There 70 percent express confidence in the local militia, far more
than the level of militia support in the rest of the country (20 percent) and greater than the
background image
9
level of confidence among Sadr City residents in either the national government (55
percent) or the Iraqi army (42 percent).
RECONCILIATION vs. DIVISION Other results, however, show majority support for
internal cohesion and reconciliation in Iraq. In one example, 89 percent of Iraqis say
Sunnis, many of whom boycotted previous elections, should now participate in the
political process including 95 percent of Sunnis themselves.
One in six Iraqis say the separation of people along sectarian lines has occurred in their
area almost exclusively in Baghdad and Basra, where (excluding Baghdad's Sadr City)
it's reported by 36 and 34 percent respectively almost all of whom say it's been mainly
forcible rather than voluntary. Yet 92 percent call this a bad thing for Iraq. And 69
percent favor allowing former low- and mid-level members of Saddam Hussein's Baath
Party to hold government jobs including 63 percent of Shiites, despite their suppression
by the Baathist system.
On a structural level, 66 percent of Iraqis say the country should continue as a unified
nation with its central government in Baghdad, as opposed to a confederation of regional
states or outright partition. While Sunnis have been and almost unanimously remain
behind a single state, there's been an advance in this view among Shiites, from 41 percent
last March to 56 percent in August and 67 percent now. The holdouts are Kurds, nearly
all of whom want autonomy or semi-autonomy (details below).
33%
83%
12%
62%
39%
50%
73%
53%
59%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Own life:
Going well
Iraq's current condition:
Going badly
Expect better life
for children
Sunnis
Shiites
Kurds
Iraq's Sectarian Divide
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
background image
10
Despite support for cohesion, the country nonetheless is very much divided along
sectarian lines. Slightly more than half of Iraqis say they live in Shiite-only or Sunni-only
areas (26 percent in each); add those who live in predominantly Sunni or Shiite areas and
just 15 percent describe themselves as living in mixed locales. This is even though Sunnis
Arabs account for 30 percent of all Iraqis in this survey, Shiites 51 percent and Kurds
(who are Sunnis, but not Sunni Arabs) nearly all the rest.
Iraqis also divide evenly on the state of Shiite-Sunni relations 48 percent say they're
good, 51 percent bad with more Shiites saying they're good (58 percent) than Sunni
Arabs who agree (37 percent). Shiites also are more apt than Sunnis to say relations
between people of these two doctrines are improving, 47 percent vs. 29 percent.
About half of Iraqis say they have a close friend of another doctrine; of them, 18 percent
say it's not safe for them to associate publicly. And in one other result on doctrinal
divisions, 59 percent of Iraqis say they'd refuse to have a grown child of theirs marry a
person of another religious doctrine.
LIVING CONDITIONS One thing on which Iraqis tend to agree is the difficult state of
their living conditions. In the single worst item, 88 percent say their supply of electricity
is bad. (In another measure, just two in 10 report receiving electricity from power lines
for more than 12 hours a day, although that is up from just 12 percent last March.)
It's not just about power. Eight in 10 lack adequate fuel for cooking or driving. Sixty-
eight percent rate their supply of clean water negatively. Sixty-two percent say they lack
adequate medical care, a number that's grown sharply from 36 percent in November 2005
likely relating to the flight of doctors, among other professionals, who've had the
wherewithal to leave the country.
As noted, ratings of local security and family finances are sharply better; so is protection
from crime closely related to security and now rated positively by 54 percent, up from
35 percent in August (but still below its peak, 66 percent in November 2005).
The biggest improvement, also as noted, is in the availability of basic household goods,
up 26 points to 65 percent positive. Laggards, though, include some essentials: electricity,
medical care, clean water, fuel, enough jobs to go around and freedom of movement.
Local living conditions
(% rating positively)
Now August Change
Availability of goods 65 39 +26
Schools 63 51 +12
Local security 62 43 +19
Economic situation 57 37 +20
Crime protection 54 35 +19
Local government 46 39 +7
Freedom of movement 44 26 +18
Freedom to live
w/out persecution 39 23 +16
Medical care 38 33 +5
background image
11
Clean water 31 25 +6
Jobs 30 21 +9
Fuel 19 8 +11
Electricity 12 8 +4
THE KURDS The semi-autonomous Kurdish north continues as an exception in many
cases. Spared the disruption to the south, Kurds are vastly more apt to say they have clean
water, adequate medical care and sufficient jobs, and to rate local government positively.
Nine in 10 Kurds say their local security and crime protection are good, compared with,
respectively, just 35 percent and 23 percent of Sunni Arabs. Electricity and fuel, though,
are as big a problem in the Kurdish provinces as elsewhere.
There are attitudinal differences too. Suppressed by Saddam and long supported by the
United States, the Kurds have far more favorable views of the invasion (87 percent
support it, compared with 5 percent of Sunni Arabs) and the subsequent performance of
U.S. forces in Iraq (63 percent positive, compared with 7 percent of Sunni Arabs),
including the effectiveness of the surge.
Kurds, as noted, are far less wedded to the idea of maintaining Iraq as a single, centrally
controlled state; envisioning a fully independent Kurdistan, 52 percent prefer breaking
Iraq into separate independent states (it was very similar, 49 percent, in August, up from
30 percent last March). An additional 35 percent would like to see a federation of
regional states, with just 10 percent for a single unified country run from Baghdad.
66%
23%
9%
95%
3%
2%
67%
31%
1%
10%
35%
52%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Central government
Federated states
Separate states
All Iraqis
Sunnis
Shiites
Kurds
Future Structure of Iraq
ABC News/BBC/ARD/NHK poll
background image
12
This poll was conducted after some Turkish incursions into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish
separatist forces of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, but before the heaviest recent
cross-border attacks. Sixty-one percent of Kurds called Turkish incursions unjustified (as
did more Shiites, 77 percent, but many fewer Sunni Arabs, who are more closely attuned
to Sunni-dominated Turkey).
A large majority of Sunnis, and a smaller majority of Shiites, said Iraq is not doing
enough to control the PKK (80 and 58 percent, respectively); far fewer Kurds, 34 percent,
agreed.
There's another division, on the future of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk; a referendum there
is pending to decide whether it should become part of the Kurdish region. Big majorities
of Sunni Arabs (95 percent) and Shiites (80 percent) oppose it; by contrast, every Kurdish
respondent in this survey 100 percent supported bringing Kirkuk into the so-called
Kurdish Autonomous Region.
There's also a difference in assessments of cross-ethnic relations, particularly between
Kurds and Sunni Arabs. Fifty-five percent of Kurds say relations between Arabs and
Kurds in Iraq are good; just 24 percent of Sunnis agree. And Sunnis stand out in their
view that these relations are getting worse; 44 percent say so, while just 15 percent see
improvement.
BASRA Across the country, in the Shiite-dominated south, is another area of interest:
Basra, where Iraqi forces assumed responsibility from the British in December. Although
there have been recent protests about security in Basra, 68 percent there rate local
security positively, as many as in the country overall.
The source of that security, though, is hard to divine: Basra residents are as apt to say
local militia have a strong presence in their area (72 percent) as to say Iraqi government
forces have a strong presence (an identical 72 percent). That tension may be reflected in
another finding: Just 14 percent in Basra, the fewest anywhere, say they have the freedom
to go where they want safely.
As Shiites, Iraqis in Basra tend to have a more favorable opinion of the central
government 62 percent confident than do most Iraqis elsewhere. That level of
confidence, however has slipped by 14 points in Basra since August.
WORST OFF Three other locales are in contention as the worst-off in Iraq: Mosul,
Diyala and Kirkuk. The Sunni insurgency al Qaeda in Iraq regrouped in Mosul, a mixed
city 240 miles north of Baghdad, after being driven from Anbar when leaders there
switched allegiance last year. Diyala province until recently was held by al Qaeda. And
Kirkuk has been gripped by ethnic strife linked to the struggle for control of its oil.
background image
13
Today just 13 percent in Mosul rate their local security positively, as do only 21 percent
in Diyala and 34 percent in Kirkuk, compared with 67 percent in the rest of Iraq. A
remarkable 70 percent in Diyala and 52 percent in Mosul say security there in fact has
gotten worse in the last six months, compared with 12 percent elsewhere. Fifty-two
percent in Kirkuk, 36 percent in Mosul and 38 percent in Diyala report a car bomb or
suicide attack in their area in the past six months compared with 25 percent elsewhere
Mosul Diyala Kirkuk Rest of Iraq
Local security good 13% 21% 34% 67%
Security has worsened 52 70 24 12
Attack in last 6 months 36 38 52 25
Live w/out persecution 14 21 29 42
Country doing well 30 26 33 45
Expect better for Iraq 31 25 31 48
People in all three locales are more likely than other Iraqis to cite the inability to live
where they wish without persecution, and Mosul is far more glum economically; just 28
percent there rate their economic situation positively, compared with 57 percent in Iraq
overall. Residents in these three locales are more negative on the country's progress and
prospects, and less apt to expect better lives for their children.
Even in Mosul, Diyala and Kirkuk, conditions across many measures have improved
compared to six months ago. But the situation there remains deeply troubled a stark
reminder of challenges still facing Iraq.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FPollingUnit%2F1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf&images=yes