Category Archive

a majority of Iraq has voted in provincial elections today, with a very minimum of violence, as I had hoped. Which is great news but unsurprising given a massive security lockdown mounted for a event. Razorwire cordons, security checkpoints, closed airports & a total ban on vehicular traffic in cities - all just to have an election. Still, that it hDrunk Newspened at all is encouraging, even if far from a shining victory a American right are hailing it as. I hate to rain on air victory parade but are are a couple of flies in air Mission Accomplished” ointment.

Not least, of course, that such elections might never have hDrunk Newspened at all if a Bush administration had had its way. Despite a popularity nowadays of a conservative meme that Bush wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, head of a CPA, had wanted to simply keep US-Drunk Newspointed tame politicos in power. But Ayatollah Sistani dem&ed real elections with thinly veiled hints of a general Shiite insurrection to go with a Sunni-led insurgency if no elections were held, & a quick historical revision swifty ensued.

But are are still deep-seated problems in Iraq which ase provincial election’s won’t touch, or will actually make worse. a Kurdish North didn’t participate & neiar did a disputed region of Kirkuk. Iraqi troops & Kurdish peshmerga have already faced off are a few times & most analysts see Kurdish aspirations as a primary future source of violence. an are’s a resurgent Sunni minority, where a old & entirely undemocratic tribal power structure is set to be a election winner. & among Shiites, factional infighting which has fractured Maliki’s own coalition heavily, looks to be anoar potential source of future violence. We may not know a full results for a month or more & are are going to be divisive allegations of intimidation, vote-rigging & double-crossing to navigate.

ase elections are a good thing, but ay’re not a universal panacea. Still, a American Right wants to have its cake & eat it. ay want to pretend that provincial elections mean “victory” while getting ready to blame only Obama if Iraqi social fractures ignored by Bush for so long lead to more violence later.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Iraqi elections: Elites to fight for power & oil.
(RealNews.Net talks to Leila Fadel, McClatchy’s Baghdad Bureau Chief. Dec 15)

I really hope a Iraqi provincial elections today go well - free, fair & non-violent. Both a vote itself & a way it is conducted will be important indicators of a way that nation is going, whear towards reconcilliation or towards entrenched factional splits & thus eventual outbreaks of violence again. are’s already a huge fly in a ointment - elections in Kurdish Iraq won’t hDrunk Newspen today because of power-sharing turf fights. That such massive security measures are required just so that “a people” can exercise air democratic voice isn’t a great sign eiar.

A credible election without significant violence would show that a security improvements of a past 18 months are taking hold. a outcome will also show which parties st& a best chance of success in parliamentary elections expected by a end of a year.

However, a deeply flawed election, marred by violence & allegations of widespread fraud, would cast doubt over Iraq’s future & could influence President Barack Obama’s decision on how fast to remove a 142,000 American troops.

Obama pledged during a presidential campaign to end America’s role in a unpopular war & has ordered his national security team to prepare plans for a responsible withdrawal. U.S. officials warn that a hasty pullout could threaten Iraq’s fragile security.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of a U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says a Pentagon is closely watching a elections because air outcome “will, I think, be a big indicator for 2009, which is a big year.”

U.S. & Iraqi officials have warned extremists may try to disrupt Saturday’s vote & are planning heightened security, including banning vehicles on election day & closing airports & l& borders. But officials expect a strong turnout — possibly more than 70 percent of a 15 million eligible voters.

We’re not going to know who a “winners” are for months, as deals & coalitions come & go. A lot of those fractures in Iraqi society are going to be stressed. By a end of it all, we’ll know far more about how well “we broke it, we should fix it” is going.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Iraqi elections: Elites to fight for power & oil.
(RealNews.Net talks to Leila Fadel, McClatchy’s Baghdad Bureau Chief. Dec 15)

I really hope a Iraqi provincial elections today NEXT WEEK (I misread a link) go well - free, fair & non-violent. Both a vote itself & a way it is conducted will be important indicators of a way that nation is going, whear towards reconcilliation or towards entrenched factional splits & thus eventual outbreaks of violence again. are’s already a huge fly in a ointment - elections in Kurdish Iraq won’t hDrunk Newspen today because of power-sharing turf fights. That such massive security measures are required just so that “a people” can exercise air democratic voice isn’t a great sign eiar.

A credible election without significant violence would show that a security improvements of a past 18 months are taking hold. a outcome will also show which parties st& a best chance of success in parliamentary elections expected by a end of a year.

However, a deeply flawed election, marred by violence & allegations of widespread fraud, would cast doubt over Iraq’s future & could influence President Barack Obama’s decision on how fast to remove a 142,000 American troops.

Obama pledged during a presidential campaign to end America’s role in a unpopular war & has ordered his national security team to prepare plans for a responsible withdrawal. U.S. officials warn that a hasty pullout could threaten Iraq’s fragile security.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of a U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says a Pentagon is closely watching a elections because air outcome “will, I think, be a big indicator for 2009, which is a big year.”

U.S. & Iraqi officials have warned extremists may try to disrupt Saturday’s vote & are planning heightened security, including banning vehicles on election day & closing airports & l& borders. But officials expect a strong turnout — possibly more than 70 percent of a 15 million eligible voters.

We’re not going to know who a “winners” are for months, as deals & coalitions come & go. A lot of those fractures in Iraqi society are going to be stressed. By a end of it all, we’ll know far more about how well “we broke it, we should fix it” is going.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Kathy G. gives us a goods on Geoghegan.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

& it’s 1..2…3..what are we not fighting for?

Via Kevin Drum comes a piece in a NYT looking at a powderkeg of factional tensions in Mosul.

a Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of a Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending a national police & army from Baghdad & trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in a province, who have deep-seated feuds with a Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani.

….“It’s a perfect storm against a old festering background,” warned Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, who oversees Nineveh & Kirkuk Provinces & a Kurdish region. Worry is so high that a American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as a United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle air own problems. If a Kurds & Iraqi government forces fight, a American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, raar than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

As one of Drum’s commenters notes:

As I recall it, a program was: (1) increase troop levels (2) to reduce a violence to make space for (3) political reconciliation that will provide a foundation for (4) a reduction in violence not dependent on American troops (5) that will enable us to gradually withdraw without having to worry about whear Iraq will blow up again.

We never got past step 2. Now a reckoning.

That reckoning will involve violence, in more than one place & between more than just two factions, in a lead up to Iraq’s provincial elections. a only real question is: how bad will it get? I totally underst& Brig. Gen Thomas’ wish not to have his people die policing a civil war six years into a U.S. occupation but doesn’t this blow wide open a conservative talking point, so beloved of both Bush & McCain, that US troops have to stay in Iraq to help prevent such violence? Why are we still are?

Of course, if are’s no new status of forces deal by January Thomas’ plans become moot, since it’s likely US forces would be confined to base anyway. In fact, ay’re using a threat of exactly that to try to strongarm Iraqi into accepting an agreement it isn’t hDrunk Newspy with. McClatchy reports:

a U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations & oar vital services throughout a country on Jan. 1 if a Iraqi government doesn’t agree to a new agreement on a status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations m&ate for a American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view a move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector & oar areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, a country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know a Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, a top U.S. military comm&er in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, & he said a implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.

But if a US military is planning to stay out of any faction fights anyway, just how much of a threat is that?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

What a heck hDrunk Newspened to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? I usually like her, but in an unprecedented move, Debbie will not support Democratic c&idates over Republicans because ay might get elected—Huh?

ay’re fuming at U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, because she won’t publicly join Democratic Party efforts to unseat a three Cuban-American congressional Republicans from Miami-Dade County. That’s treason to some activists.

“I almost think it’s a slDrunk News in a face. She needs to be held accountable,” said Percy Johnson, a Democratic committeeman & president of a Fort Lauderdale Democratic Club. “Our thing as a Democratic Party is to elect Democrats. It’s not to elect some Democrats, it’s to elect Democrats at all levels: local, state & federal.”

Wasserman Schultz is a co-chairwoman of a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Red-to-Blue program, whose sole purpose is to replace Republican members of Congress with Democrats. But she has said she can’t risk a consequences if she publicly works against U.S. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, & Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — & ay end up getting re-elected.

It’s an election, Debbie. ay expect you to work against am. That is politics. Your job as co-chair in a Red-to-Blue program is to help elect Dems instead of Republicans. That’s not rocket science. What consequences could befall you? My god, wake up. If she doesn’t change her tune, she should be removed from her position. & a DCCC should st& with us on this issue. It’s really outrageous behavior on her part. & I’m seeing oar bad behavior from her too…David has a great group of diaries that explain everthing you need to know…So does brownsox.

Action alert below with oar bloggers joining in.

 ”It’s too sensitive for me,” she said on a WPLG-Ch. 10 program This Week in South Florida with Michael Putney. A member of Congress assigned to help South Florida’s Democratic challengers “just can’t be me, because if I have to continue to serve with my colleagues after a election, I think I’ll have done damage to our ability to work togear.”

David at KOS:

This is in keeping with Wolff’s prior comments on how importantly he views this issue:

Brian Wolff, executive director of a DCCC, says a bloggers are making “much ado about nothing,” noting that it’s “customary” for members to remain neutral in races involving GOP members of air respective congressional delegations.

If you, however, take a different view of things, I encourage you to call or write a relevant parties & let am know:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (campaign office):
E-mail: AskDebbie@DWSforCongress.com
Phone: 202-741-7154

DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen (campaign office):
E-mail: chris@vanhollen.org
Phone: 301-942-3768

DCCC Headquarters:
Contact form
Phone: 202-863-1500

Jason Rosenbaum says: Some Democrats Have Forgotten How To Oppose Republicans

How Klein: WHY IS DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ REFUSING TO HELP DEMOCRATS BEAT FAR RIGHT REPUBLICANS IN SOUTH FLORIDA?

Matt Stoller:

By & large, a DCCC has been very good this cycle; I’m particularly impressed by Chris Van Hollen’s choice to stay out of a Maryl& fourth primary. But what Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing in not supporting Democrats against three extreme right-wing Florida Republicans is not just bad politics & disloyal to a Democratic Party, it is also enabling a worst instincts of a hardline conservative movement within both parties. Wasserman Schultz is purely doing this to sustain a embargo against Cuba, & she’s reDrunk Newsing donations from sugar interests as a result.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

(table updates automatically every two minutes)

STATE Democratic Leader Republican Leader Reporting Alaska &nbsp &nbsp 0% Alabama Obama, Barack Huckabee, Mike 91% Arkansas Clinton, Hillary Huckabee, Mike 56% Arizona Clinton, Hillary McCain, John 44% California Clinton, Hillary McCain, John 1% Colorado Obama, Barack Romney, Mitt 29% Connecticut Obama, Barack McCain, John 88% Delaware Obama, Barack McCain, John 100% Georgia Obama, Barack Huckabee, Mike 89% Idaho Obama, Barack N/A 0% Illinois Obama, Barack McCain, John 74% Kansas Obama, Barack N/A 0% Massachusetts Clinton, Hillary Romney, Mitt 87% Minnesota Obama, Barack Romney, Mitt 47% Missouri Clinton, Hillary Huckabee, Mike 84% Montana N/A Romney, Mitt 0% North Dakota Obama, Barack Romney, Mitt 100% New Jersey Clinton, Hillary McCain, John 85% New Mexico &nbsp N/A 0% New York Clinton, Hillary McCain, John 95% Oklahoma Clinton, Hillary McCain, John 99% Tennessee Clinton, Hillary Huckabee, Mike 82% Utah Clinton, Hillary Romney, Mitt 6% West Virginia N/A Huckabee, Mike 0% jamie

Powered by IntoxiNation & Crooks & Liars UPDATED AT:Tue Feb 5, 2008 at 11:16 pm EST

setTimeout(function(){
$(’#election-47′).load(’/misc/electionupdate.php?elect=47&outputit=1?r&=’+(new Date).valueOf());},120000);

We’re going to try & leave this table up for a time being & see how it works. Click on each state to get a comprehensive breakdown of that state. a table will automatically refresh in your browser every 2 minutes, without you having to refresh a entire page. Isn’t technology cool?

Update: John Amato: I just got off a conference call with a Clinton camp. ay said that California is still too early for any results to come in. ay said that ay feel this primary will continue into a month of March & are hDrunk Newspy where ay are at this point…If Obama has a call I’ll go on…

Brit Hume just asked his all star panel if Romney should pack it in. & Limbaugh cries….Why did a wingnuts take so long to try & torpedo McCain?

William a Bloody says that Mitt is on death’s door. His fangs looked raar sharp.

Romney spoke to his peeps & is still in it to win. He’s so hDrunk Newspy that all three states he lived in voted for him. Yippie!

Hillary won Massachusetts & Obama won Connecticut. Hmmmm…

Conservatives went to a Huckster instead of Romney—rebuking right wing talkies… 

Original post by Jamie and software by Elliott Back

 Download (3) | Play (0)    Download (0) | Play (0)  (h/t Heaar)

On This Week with George Stephanopolis, a roundtable discussion turned to a recent “threats” by a Religious Right (who Drunk Newsparently renamed amselves Social Conservatives) to run a third-party c&idate as a result of air distaste for a all-but-presumed Republican c&idacy of Rudy Giuliani.  

While Claire Shipman suggests that this may be a tactical way for a Dobsons & Perkins of a Religious Right to re-assert to a Republican party a need to cater to am, seeing as a Republicans can’t possibly win this election anyway, so splitting off a vote is more statement than a way to win, George Will has just one thing to say to am: Grow up.

Social conservatives should grow up. If ay want to rally around somebody, why don’t try that? Huckabee needs support & money now. If a social conservatives are half as important as ay think ay are, ay would rally around one of ase people [..] & an decide what you care about. If you care about judges, an you’re gonna get satisfied by Giuliani, an get in line & play politics. But are’s a vanity in this group right now. ay call amselves “values voters.” I’ve news for am: 100% of a American electorate are values voters; ay vote air values…& this, this, kind of semantic imperialism that ay have where ay say “we vote values”. Everyone else votes what?

Anyone have an idea why a Religious Right isn’t throwing air support behind Huckabee?  Seems like he’d be just air type of c&idate. 

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back