July 22-23, 2008
Jul 22 05:15 Dissecting the NY Times-Obama Agenda Jul 22 06:46 Something's Happening Here!!! Jul 22 13:54 Bachmann American Energy Tour Conference Call Jul 23 03:21 Obama's Ill-Advised Hawkishness
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Dissecting the NY Times-Obama Agenda
The notion that the Agenda Media or other branches of the Dead Tree Coalition were outlets of the truth disappeared decades ago. Now there's proof that they've made the final step into being an outlet for the DNC. When Obama wrote a factually inaccurate op-ed on Iraq , the NYT published it without hesitation. When John McCain submitted an op-ed rebutting Obama's points, former Clinton speechwriter and current NY Times hatchetman David Shipley opted not to publish Sen. McCain's op-ed.
Shipley's delivering what he thought was a death blow turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Sen. McCain because the McCain campaign sent the op-ed and Shipley's email to Drudge. Mr. Drudge was perfectly willing to publish it in its entirety. Here is Sen. McCain's op-ed verbatim:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.Sen. McCain's been right about the surge from before Day One. He advocated ramping up the number of troopssince before Gen. Petraeus was brough in to train Iraqi troops. Amazingly, the Obammessiah refuses to support the surge , even with hindsight:
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
Moran: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?When Obama says that "these kind of hypothetical's are very difficult", he's unwittingly admitting that McCain made a great decision in a difficult situation. He also unwittingly admitted that his decisionmaking might not be as high quality as Sen. McCain's.
Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that --
Moran: You wouldn't?
Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypothetical's are very difficult . You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.
Despite the fact that McCain made a great decision in a difficult situation, the NY Times refused to publish his op-ed. That's unconscienable. What's worse is letting a political hack like David Shipley have a say on what gets published on the NY Times op-ed page.
The NY Times' Kate Philips posted a response on the NY Times' blog on the Shipley disgrace:
(In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.While it's obviouisly NY Times' policy not to publish a counterpoint op-ed, that doesn't mean that they can't do that. In fact, I'd argue that, in this instance, that's precisely what was called for.
Let's examine some of the things in Sen. Obama's op-ed . Here's the opening paragraph of Sen. Obama's op-ed:
The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.I'd hardly call Maliki's agreeing to a time horizon agreeing with Sen. Obama's timetable. Sen. Obama certainly can't prove that Maliki's government has changed official policy. Therefore, that statement is unsubstantiated. It's possibly pure spin.
It's one thing for Sen. Obama to argue that his Iraq policy is better than Sen. McCain's. That's his opinion. It isn't fair to misstate another sovereign government's policy as a way to justify Sen. Obama's policy.
Put another way, it's one thing for Sen. Obama to argue the merits of his policy. It isn't ok for him to manufacture 'facts' to justify his policy.
Here's another Obama misstatement:
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis' taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country.I can't believe that Sen. Obama believes this. We didn't redeploy our troops. Indeed, Sen. McCain and President Bush resisted this new direction. Yet somehow the Iraqis have met 15 of the 18 benchmarks laid out by Congress. Where's the proof that Iraqis needed the threat of our redeployment to motivate them?
I think it isn't difficult to make a case that our staying is what drove Iraqis to get their act together. The Anbar Awakening didn't start until the Surge started tearing down AQI strongholds. Once word spread of the Anbar Awakening, other provinces started turning on AQI. That allowed Coalition troops to focus on Sadr's militias.
Once Iraqis saw that we wouldn't abandon them to Iran on one side and on the other, many benchmarks happened in a relatively short period of time.
Contrary to Obama's opinions, the Iraqis are "taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country" without following the Obama Doctrine. Perhaps Sen. Obama can explain how that happened at today's news conference. (That's assuming that the press is actually willing to press him.)
Finally, there's this paragraph:
But this is not a strategy for success; it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.Let's see. Violence is down dramatically. All but a couple of benchamrks are yet to be met. Actually, the major benchmarks have been met. Iraqi security forces are taking command of more provinces. As for U.S. troops staying long enough to stabilize the country, I haven't heard Iraqis insisting on Coalition troops leaving. I suspect that that's because it's in their interest to have a stabilized Iraq.
The easiest logical conclusion it that the NY Times published Sen. Obama's op-ed to help him win. It's just as easy to conclude that they refused to publish Sen. McCain's op-ed because it would've dissected Sen. Obama's op-ed for all the world to see.
The Times couldn't let that happen; they've got much too much invested in Sen. Obama to publish an op-ed that would've made their candidate look bad.
UPDATE: The NY Post is giving the NY Times grief for not publishing Sen. McCain's op-ed. It's accomplishing that by publishing Sen. McCain's op-ed the day after Drudge exposed the NY Times' shilling for St. Barry .
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:09 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 22-Jul-08 08:02 AM
You know there was a Harry Potter story where an official from the Ministery of Magic banned a news interview that Harry Potter did. One of Harry's friends made the point this will only get more people to want to read it! While people might not have paid much attention to Obama's piece more attention will be focused on Mccain's.
Furthermore this might be an encouraging sign since I think there are other media organizations which don't want to be seen as much in the tank for Obama as the New York Times.
Heck we might get some real coverage which can only help the Mccain campaign.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Something's Happening Here!!!
Anyone who's willing to challenge John Murtha on his home turf is ok in my eyes. If you want my undivided attention, though, is when the fundraising dollars come flowing in for that prospective candidate. That's what's apparently happening according to this post :
According to campaign manager, Peg Luksik, William Russell for Congress reported raising $637,137 to Murtha's $113,155 to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). The combined totals from the first and second quarters of 2008 exceed $900,000.Michele Bachmann had an impressive fundraising quarter in Q2, 2008. According to Larry Schumacher's post , Rep. Bachmann raised $346,000. To raise almost twice that isn't just impressive. It's eye popping.
Peg Luksik frames this perfectly here:
"The incredible story about Bill's campaign is that the $15 and $25 contributions are coming in from all over Pennsylvania and every corner of the country," said Luksik. "This is K-Street versus Main Street. These are patriotic families expressing support for soldiers, sailors and Marines, and people saying they've had enough of the old 'pay-to-play' culture in the Capitol. That's what's fueling this campaign."Let's not kid ourselves. John Murtha has bought alot of votes with his DC-to-Johnsville porktrain. It isn't difficult to imagine that people who've gotten addicted to Murtha's pork will do everything possible to keep their pork flowing.
Let's hope this is the year where the K Street Goliath is felled by a Main Street David.
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:48 AM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 22-Jul-08 08:14 AM
I'm one of those people who have given money to Russell. I've noticed that a bunch of militiary people are running as Republicans (the Democrats like to brag about their Minnesota people). This will be great if Mr. Russell can defeat Murtha in what is suppose to be a Democrat year.
One interesting detail you might want to know about if you look at the numbers Murtha's vote total in what was a great year in PA for Democrats was the lowest winning total for the Democrats.
Furthermore in Minnesota 10 congressional candidates (the eight winners plus losers Gutknecht and Wetterling) got more votes.
It looks like there is upside for Russell in this race.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Jul-08 11:32 AM
Walter, this would've been the Democrats' year if gas had stayed under $3/gallon.
It turned the minute that they started making mistake after mistake on gas prices.
It ain't the Democrats' year anymore.
Comment 3 by Walter hanson at 22-Jul-08 02:14 PM
Garry keep in mind one website (which does have the presidential election being close) predicts a loss of seven seats with just one going Republican. If races like Russell's go our way instead of the Democrats the losses in the house will be very low or heaven forbid a gain for the Republicans.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Jul-08 02:50 PM
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the GOP picks up seats in the House. They'll likely lose seats in the Senate but nothing remotely enough to give the D's a filibuster-proof majority.
Bachmann American Energy Tour Conference Call
I just finished participating in Rep. Michele Bachmann's conference call summarizing the "American Energy Tour" trip to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and to Alaska. The most bizarre question and followup was from the Pioneer Press' Jim Ragsdale.
Rep. Bachmann used a word picture to describe the offlimits energy supplies in this way:
Picture the pantry being full of food and your children wanting to eat. Then picture that the pantry is locked. America has lots of energy but Congress has locked the pantry.Mr. Ragsdale started by saying that he liked the picture, then asked this question:
"What if the pantry was full and the children were already overweight. Shouldn't we keep that pantry locked?Obviously, these aren't verbatim quotes but they're accurate depictions of what was said. Based on his question, It isn't a stretch to think that Mr. Ragsdale thinks that, in terms of energy consumption, we're overweight and we need to have our food rationed so we get down to an acceptable weight.
The St. Cloud Times' Larry Schumacher asked why Rep. Bachmann thinks we could return to $2/gallon gas prices. Rep. Bachmann replied by giving a historical perspective on gas prices. She first noted that national average gas price was $2.46 when she was elected. She then said that the signal that Congress sent to the world was that we weren't going to do anything to increase energy supplies.
She said that that signal, coupled with the threats from Hugo Chavez and other tyrants (my word, not Rep. Bachmann's), drove prices higher. She said that if we brought more oil and natural gas online, and invested in nuclear power, clean coal technologies and other alternatives currently being researched at NREL, we'd have more energy in a short period of time than we had when gas was $2-something a gallon.
KARE11's John Croman asked whether reducing the speed limit might help reduce our consumption of gas. Rep. Bachmann said that everything should be on the table in this discussion.
Several things caught my attention during the call.
One was Rep. Bachmann saying that she didn't "care where the energy was coming from", whether it was from hybrid cars, oil, nuclear, coal-to-gas technologies or wherever as long as these things dropped energy prices to consumers.
Another was Rep. Bachmann talking about how environmentally alert people are in Alaska. She said that people working on the North Slope literally put a somerthing on the ground under a truck anytime it stopped so that oil leaking from a crankcase couldn't touch the ground. Her point was that oil companies are extremely compliant with the environmental laws on the books, which she characterized as justifiably strict.
Rep. Bachmann also talked about setting up a special court to deal strictly with litigation that stops the exploration process. She cited a lawsuit that put a 2 year halt in an energy project because it took that long to litigate. Rep. Bachmann said that such specialty courts already exist, citing a special court that dealt strictly with tax issues. She said that that court was expert in tax law. The energy court theoretically would have experts on energy law staffing it. That way, hearings would be expedited instead of being lumped in with other lawsuits and appeals.
Finally, I got a chuckle when Rep. Bachmann talked about the EIA's prediction capabilities. After getting asked about a "Department of Energy study" that showed there would be a minimal drop, perhaps as little as a couple cents per gallon, Rep. Bachmann said that that was a report from the EIA. She then said that the EIA once predicted that crude oil might reach as high as $22/bbl. Rep. Bachmann then said that their predictions aren't something that she'd rely on.
Rep. Bachmann also chided Democrats for not taking action on the alternative energy tax credits that expire in the near future. If those are allowed to expire without a vote, Democrats bear sole responsibility on that.
UPDATE: Leo have more on the conference call here . You don't want to miss Leo's observations, especially his opinon of Mr. Ragsdale.
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:09 PM
No comments.
Obama's Ill-Advised Hawkishness
Sen. Obama has a hawkishness deficit because of his anti-war positions. Now he's trying his best to erase that deficit. Whether he succeeds with that remains to be seen. One thing that I'm fairly certain of is that he won't appear presidential if he insists on raiding Pakistan :
Obama has been careful to fortify these images with words: On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.The easiest way to give terrorists control of a nuclear nation is to invade Pakistan. That alone will topple the Pakistani government and put it into the hands of people charitably described as sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. I don't doubt that Sen. Obama thinks that this makes him look macho. The reality is that this attack policy is risky, carrying too little reward and too much potential danger.
When I read Obama make this statement the first time, I questioned whether he'd bothered to think through the ramifications of what he'd said. I still don't think he's thought this through because he's still making the same infantile mistakes of a man utterly unprepared for being commander-in-chief.
Obama's decision to travel to two war zones while highlighting his relatively hawkish rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects an attempt to deal with a problem faced by every Democratic presidential candidate since the Vietnam era: The perception that he is not as strong as his Republican rival when it comes to national security. In last week's poll, just 24 percent of respondents said it was "very likely" Obama would be an effective commander in chief. Nearly double that percentage, forty-six percent, said the same of his rival, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.He's pereceived that way because that's reality. Sen. Obama has shown time and again that he doesn't have a grasp of various historical facts about specific countries. This is best exemplified by his insistence on delivering a speech in Germany with Hitler's Victory Column as his backdrop.
Despite all his posturing, he's still unqualified as a decisionmaker, much less as the leader of the free world. He's a testament to the vapidity running wild within today's Democratic Party.
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:22 AM
No comments.
