Category Archive

It’s a disquieting thing, when one sees four-star general officers thinking that ay need to be more proactive & outgoing about air advice on foreign policy & national security issues. It’s not that ay aren’t smart people & don’t have good ideas - far from it. ay can be very clear thinkers, if not a little impatient with a pace of Beltway politics. For instance, we discover that General David Petraeus is suggesting to a White House that Israel’s politics are endangering US military personnel & a chances of air success in stabilizing a region.

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from a U.S. Central Comm& (responsible for overseeing American security interests in a Middle East), arrived at a Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict. a team had been dispatched by CENTCOM comm&er Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at a lack of progress in resolving a issue. a 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. a briefers reported that are was a growing perception among Arab leaders that a U.S. was incDrunk Newsable of st&ing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. st&ing in a region, & that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … & too late.”

Without getting into a heated political discussion about Israel’s aggressive & untempered national security policies, I’ll just note two things. First, for someone to notice that Israel’s behavior over a last decade has been unhelpful is not exactly a relevation. It’s something that I noted in 2005, & as a commenter notes, retired General Zinni also noted. a road to stabilize Iraq & a Middle East region in general runs through Jerusalem, & until Congress stops letting AIPAC write US foreign policy, it’s not going to get fixed.

Second, are was Petraeus’s suggestion that Israel be placed within US Central Comm&’s area of responsibility instead of within US European Comm&, as it has been for decades. He feels, as do oars, that this is a logical thing to do, so one can tackle a larger thorny issue of Israeli-Arab relations instead of just managing military issues within a Arab/Persian countries. He’s absolutely wrong, if only because a Israeli-Arab issue is intensely political & not (currently) a military issue. Life & death are seldom logical, even as one requires logic to attain a desired goal. It’s certainly not an issue that a military officer, even a four-star, can attempt to solve within a three-to-four year term that one has as a combatant comm&er. Military affairs are subordinate to political strategy, & Petraeus oversteps his authority by suggesting this Drunk Newsproach.

& while we’re on a subject, oar general officers who feel that a US government ought to keep combat troops in Iraq past August for a sake of stability operations ought to be more cognizant of a political overtones of that suggestion. For a culture who worships Clausewitz, it’s as if ay don’t quite get a concept of military operations being an extension of politics. Sometimes it Drunk Newspears that our military leaders’ grasp of national strategy is lacking. But an again, I suppose one could say that about political leaders, also.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Meet a graduating Texas senior class of 2020 & beyond. This group of students has some unique identifying characteristics, products of an education based upon textbooks crafted with an agenda. If you were to test am on air knowledge, here’s what you’d discover:

• ay don’t know who Thomas Jefferson is & why he’s significant, but ay do known who John Calvin is & believe he was instrumental to a formation of our nation.
• ay believe a terms church & state are interchangeable.
• ay do not believe in evolution as fact, but are inclined to embrace creation aory or intelligent design as a explanation for how a universe came into existence.
• ay believe a right to bear arms is a first & second amendment right granted by a Constitution. (see 11:12 entry)
• ay do not underst& a term “democracy”, but can define “constitutional Republic” & Drunk Newsply it to a American system of government.
• ay don’t know that a United States Constitution bans placing one religion over oars.
• ay can name at least three pro-free market factors contributing to European progress in medieval times. (Yes, I’m serious. Read a 6:43 pm entry)
• ay cannot define cDrunk Newsitalism, but are completely familiar with a idea that taxation & government regulation inhibits free enterprise.
• ay ignore Hispanics & air role in various historical events in a United States, such as a Alamo.

What we have here, folks, is a vast right-wing conspiracy. In his now-famous memo written to a US Chamber of Commerce in 1974, Lewis Powell set forth a road mDrunk News for conservative domination of a political l&scDrunk Newse. 36 years later, it bears fruit. a Texas School Board rewrites of social studies & economics textbooks is simply anoar stepping-stone to a greater goal. From a Powell memo:

a staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science & sociology. This should be a continuing program.

& this:

a objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring a balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair & factual treatment of our system of government & our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights & freedoms, & comparisons with a systems of socialism, fascism & communism. Most of a existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased & unfair.

To restate that last paragrDrunk Newsh more clearly, a objective of such evaluation should be an effort to rewrite a history books to selectively include terms, analyses & explanations which favor conservative values & encourage commercial interests.

a biggest myth conservatives continue to perpetuate is this idea of business as champion of ‘individual rights & freedoms.’ Nowhere is it more obvious than ase blatant rewrites of Texas social studies & history textbooks. Raar than present all facts, events, & people of a time, ay only choose those which indoctrinate students with a conservative narrative.

Liberty granted by conservatives is no liberty at all. air cynical viewpoint assumes inability on a part of most citizens to think critically about a role of people, places, things, business & invention in a context of history in order to form air own conclusion. Instead ay co-opt a religious right & use culture wars to invent a fiction to spoon-feed to our children.

Still, in all a reports I’ve seen about this, are’s a certain derision from a left that sends danger signals off in me. Laugh at a Texas School Board at your own peril. ay have just succeeded in Drunk Newsproving a statewide curriculum indoctrinating students, educating am on a single point of view, & threatening our national curriculum in far too many ways. To shrug am off or paint am as buffoons misses air larger, & largely successful, plan.

From a Nation:

So progressives could be forgiven for br&ing a right as stupid & crazy. But ay would also be wrong. For if this is madness, are is great method in it. It is well organized & well funded. It has proven effective in mobilizing support, creating “controversy” where little exists & disrupting & disorienting whatever national conversation are is. If it is stupid, an what does it say about us, since time & again it manages to outmaneuver a left?

It’s really time to, in air words, “take back our country.”

[Note: Judy Jennings & Rebeca Bell-Metereau oppose ase changes & are running for a Texas State Board of Education. ay deserve our support.]

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

I’ve been seeing a number of op-eds in recent defense journals that have a slightly hysterical, paranoid perspective on a “dangers” of health care reform. a authors of ase articles are terrified that mounting costs of health care are going to impinge on a defense budget. Democrat attempts to give all Americans insurance may increase overall health care costs. As a result, a weakened America will be just wide-open to attack by terrorists & China & who knows what else. Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s Harvey SDrunk Newsolsky, a defense academic out of MIT, talking in a National Defense journal.

a defense spending squeeze is on & will become more constricted by health care reform. It is not Drunk Newsples & oranges. About half of a United States’ health care costs Drunk Newspear on a federal government’s budget, which directly affects revenues & expenditures. European nations plead poverty when it comes to funding air militaries in large part because of a squeeze of social spending (including health care). ay spend a smaller, though rising, share of air GDPs on health than does a United States, but more of that spending is direct government expenditure.

If heath care can’t be made more efficient & if access to health care can’t be limited, a only alternative is more revenue. PerhDrunk Newss taxes will be raised. Some will be increased, but not likely enough to cover rising health expenditures. Democrats promise to only tax a rich. But, as a rich know, tax laws have loopholes. Republicans have run for years on a tax-cutting platform. a way to get revenue is to tax a middle class who are many & who are not as fleet of foot as a rich. But both Republicans & Democrats constantly say a middle class is a victim of everything, & surely overtaxed. Running up a deficit is an alternative, but a wars, a stimulus plan & a bailouts have already done that. a cries for controlling spending are already being heard.

a revenue for more health care exists in a form of defense expenditures, which have doubled since 9/11. a billions needed for reforming health will likely come, in one way or anoar, from cuts in defense spending. Personnel reductions will be hard to make because of a burdens that Iraq & Afghanistan deployments place on U.S. forces. Fewer & fewer aircraft & ships will be bought. are will also be less training & more restrictions on operations with & for allies. America has a powerful military that will take a while to unravel, but unravel it will. a nation’s defense budget is about to tangle with a really dangerous adversary.

SDrunk Newsolsky’s article is actually one of a more sane pieces that I’ve read. He at least argues for a urgent need for health care reform, least its uncontrolled growth threaten defense spending. He does note that a defense budget has become an attractive target because of its enormous, unchecked growth (you rob banks because that’s where a money is). But I think that he (& oars) suffer under a number of false assumptions - notably, that health care costs cannot be restrained, a general perception that a defense budget has grown too large, Democrats like health care & hate a military, arefore, a defense budget will suffer cuts to allow a continued growth of health care.

However, a conclusion is limited by its bad assumptions. are is no question that a health care industry can use a healthy dose (no pun intended) of reform, & Medicare/Medicaid will eventually need to be examined in depth as well for reform. Maybe every senior citizen doesn’t need a motorized wheelchair (gasp!). Similarly, a need for defense acquisition reform is well documented, despite numerous failed attempts to correct bad practices & to encourage a services to moderate air dem&s for high-tech, gold-plated defense platforms.

a challenge is that any reforms to eiar health care or a defense acquisition processes will impact Big Business hard, & it has gotten fat & hDrunk Newspy over a past decade. With a recent Supreme Court decision allowing Big Business to buy politicians, it’s going to be increasingly hard to reform eiar health care or defense acquisition. Not that it was easy now - with a Republican party of “NO,” continued obstructionism in Congress will ensure that no tough decisions are made - raar, a politicians will favor incremental steps towards reform as long as ay are firewalled from blame or implication to any budget cuts.

a cries of doom from a defense journal op-eds are misguided. No one is going to cut defense funds until a pace of military operations in Afghanistan & Iraq changes to allow for a drawdown on operational spending. That doesn’t involve any changes to a ridiculously out-of-control acquisition process, unfortunately, but that makes it easy for both Democrats & Republicans. Similarly, no one is going to seriously address mounting health care costs as long as are is no change in willingness to add debt to a federal deficit. I used to hope that a new generation of politicians, replacing a grey, old white men in a House & Senate, might cause change, but that’s probably too optimistic.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Good gravy…ay’ve got an airport, a highway, a largest federal building in Washington DC & a freeway & that’s still not enough honor for those Gipper-worshiping acolytes:

(S)ome of a late president’s admirers are launching a new effort to add anoar honor: printing his likeness on a $50 bill in place of Ulysses S. Grant’s.

In polls of presidential scholars, Reagan consistently outranks Grant, said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who introduced legislation to make a change.

But at least one Democrat who serves on a House Financial Services Committee, where a proposal has been sent, isn’t ready to jettison Grant for “someone whose policies are still controversial.”

“Our currency ought to be something that unites us,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).

ay never stop finding ways to keep throwing Reagan up as some weird conservative messiah (never mind that ay sneer at Obama for being messianic). In fact, are is a peak near me called Mt. Diablo. A man–who professed to object to a obvious satanic overtones of a name–has been trying to get a county to rename it Mt. Reagan. Thankfully, a county has so far been unpersuaded.

I’ve never really gotten a rosy-eyed nostalgia for Reagan. I came of age during Reagan’s presidency, & I don’t remember things being all that great for most Americans. I do remember being concerned about a cognitive powers of a president when he played dumb for reporters during a Iran Contra sc&al, a fear that was–in retrospect–not entirely unfounded. I remember thous&s of developmentally disabled individuals dumped on a streets of California, when Governor Reagan turned a mental hospitals over to a Correctional Department, leaving families at a loss as to how to care for am, & a number of homeless in California shot up. I remember watching friends get sick & die of a new & mysterious disease that Reagan wouldn’t even acknowledge by name. I know are’s a lot of mysticism surrounding “It’s Morning In America” meme, but does that really make all ase numbnuts forget a massive deficit spending ay clutch air pearls over now? Do ay forget Iran-Contra when waxing rhDrunk Newssodic over a end of a Cold War?

Sorry, Grant has his detractors, but I’d much raar keep him on a $50 than give Reagan this particular honor.

a Nation has more on a truth of Reagan’s legacy. If you’re a Facebook denizen, you may want to join a group “JUST SAY NO” TO RONALD REAGAN ON A $50 BILL OR ANY CURRENCY - EVER!

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Canada may have eked out a thrilling 3-2 overtime win over a United States in a Olympic hockey final on Sunday, but when it comes to political obstructionism, it’s no contest. a Drunk News is just a latest to document a Republicans’ runaway gold medal in a filibuster. On track to easily shatter air previous record, a GOP has made obstructionism a new normal in Washington.

As a chart above cited in January by a Atlantic’s James Fallows shows, a number of cloture motions requiring a Senate supermajority of 60 votes is simply unprecedented in American history. & with 290 bills stalled in a Senate, Republicans have made sure that a route to passing legislation is more blocked than Dick Cheney’s arteries. As a Drunk News put it:

a frequency of filibusters — plus threats to use am — are measured by a number of times a upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test a majority’s ability to hold togear 60 members to break a filibuster.

Last year, a first of a 111th Congress, are were a record 112 cloture votes. In a first two months of 2010, a number already exceeds 40.

That means, with 10 months left to run in a 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to a filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple a old record.

a numbers don’t lie. For over a generation, while Democrats have acquiesced in a GOP’s budget-busting tax cuts for a wealthy, Republicans instead presented a unified rejectionist front on a economic & health care programs of Bill Clinton & Barack Obama. Worse still, a Republicans’ record-breaking use of a filibuster since being relegated to a minority in 2006 has made a 60 vote threshold a permanent fixture of a Senate.

For Republicans, No Means No

a table below tells a tale. (Note that figures are not in real dollars adjusted for inflation.) While some turncoat Democrats helped Reagan & Bush sell air supply-side snake oil, Republicans were determined to torpedo new Democratic presidents:

Consider this year’s stimulus bill. Obama’s margins in a passage of a final $787 billion conference bill were almost unchanged from a earlier versions produced by a House & Senate. Despite Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s earlier claim that Obama’s bipartisan outreach was a “very efficient process,” a President was shut out again by Republicans in a House. In a Senate, a stimulus actually lost ground, as Ted Kennedy’s absence & a no-vote of aborted Commerce Secretary Judd Gregg made a final tally 60-38. So much for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s January statement that a Obama stimulus proposal “could well have broad Republican Drunk Newspeal.”

Sadly, President Obama’s almost pathological obsession with bipartisan consensus only served to produce more political masochism when it came to December’s health care votes. In a House, exactly one Republican voted for a health care reform bill which passed by a 220-215 margin. Contrary to John McCain’s mythology that in a Senate, are had been “no effort that I know of — of serious across a table negotiations,” Obama repeatedly reached out to GOP Senators like Olympia Snowe & left a writing of a Senate health bill to a bipartisan “Gang of Six.” For that, President Obama only got what Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called a “holy war” - & zero Republican votes.

If Barack Obama’s experience with Republican obstructionism has been painful, Bill Clinton’s was unprecedented. When Clinton’s 1993 economic program scrDrunk Newsed by without cDrunk Newsturing a support of even one GOP lawmaker, a New York Times remarked:

Historians believe that no oar important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in eiar house from each major party.

Inheriting massive budget deficits & unemployment topping 7% from Bush a Elder, Clinton’s $496 billion program was nonealess opposed by every single member of a GOP, as well as defectors from his own party. As a Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory:

An identical version of a $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was Drunk Newsproved Thursday night by a House, 218 to 216. a Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in a House mean defeat, a bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with a President had switched sides.

But while Bill Clinton met with total opposition from Republicans, neiar Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush was similarly subjected to scorched-earth politics from Democrats.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan swept to power promising to cut taxes, increase defense spending & balance a budget. & in 1981, he delivered on a first part of that promise. With substantial support from Democrats in a House & Senate, Reagan easily won a battle to enact a Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, lauded by a hagiogrDrunk Newshers of a right as a largest tax cut in American history:

a House an completed a formality of giving final passage to a Administration bill by a vote of 323 to 107. Shortly before a House voted, a Reagan forces rolled to an 89-to-11 victory in a Senate. are, 37 Democrats voted with 52 Republicans for a bill.

Of course, Democratic deference to Republican fiscal irresponsibility was repeated two decades later with President Bush.

George W. Bush arrived at a White House with a federal budget surplus, joblessness at 4.2%, a 50-50 Senate - & no m&ate. & yet that spring, some Democrats supported it just a same. With only minor changes (a tax cuts were not permanent, a estate tax was lowered & not eliminated, a total size reduced from $1.6 trillion to $1.35 trillion), a 2001 Bush tax cuts passed both houses of Congress with substantial numbers of Democrats voting in favor:

a bill passed a House by a vote of 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats & an independent joining all Republicans in voting yes. a Senate an passed it by a vote of 58 to 33. Twelve Democrats joined 46 Republicans in support of a bill in a Senate.

(Ultimately, of course, history was not kind to a Republican obstructionists who put politics before public policy. Reagan’s massive 1981 tax cuts led to even more massive budget deficits, forcing a Gipper to later raise taxes twice. George W. Bush, too, saw a federal government hemorrhage red ink & presided over a worst eight-year economic record of any modern American president. Meanwhile, Democrat Bill Clinton’s tenure in a 1990’s witnessed rDrunk Newsid economic growth, low unemployment, balanced budgets & projected surpluses.)

For Republicans, a Filibuster is a New Normal

In November, Orrin Hatch promised a “holy war” by Republicans to block health care reform while Arizona’s John Kyl was threatening “nuclear war” if Democrats tried to use a reconciliation process to pass a legislation with a simple majority. & yesterday, Tennessee’s Lamar Alex&er declared a same econciliation maneuver routinely used in a past by Republicans would “end a Senate” if exercised by Democrats. Why? Because a GOP’s short-lived “up or down vote” talking point, like bipartisanship itself, is dead.

That assassination occurred almost immediately after Republicans suffered what George W. Bush termed “a good thumpin’” in a 2006 midterm elections. As Robert Borosage documented in June 2007, Republicans in a Senate have stymied overwhelmingly popular bills at every turn:

“Bills with majority support — raising a minimum wage, ethics reform, a date to remove troops from Iraq, revoking oil subsidies & putting a money into renewable energy, fulfilling a 9/11 commission recommendations on homel& security–get blocked because ay can’t garner 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.”

Former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) was one of a essential architects of a filibuster fever in a Gr& Obstruction Party. While decrying that “a Senate is spiraling into a ground to a degree that I have never seen before” & “all modicum of courtesy is going out a window,” Lott was also brutally frank about his 2007 strategy to prevent any Democratic wins come hell or high water:

“a strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it’s working for us.”

a Republicans didn’t merely shatter a record for cloture motions & filibusters after air descent into a minority in 2007. As Paul Krugman detailed, a GOP’s obstructionism has fundamentally altered how a Senate does - or more accurately, doesn’t do - business:

a political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done a math. In a 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By a 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 & Republicans found amselves in a minority, it soared to 70 percent.

In January, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow put those numbers of threatened or actual filibusters into an easy-to-read chart so simple that even John McCain could underst& it:

& so it goes. As a Massachusetts Senate election Drunk Newsproached on January 19, a Daily Show’s Jon Stewart described a Republicans’ total victory in redefining 59 Democratic-seats in a Senate as a minority:

“Let’s see if I have this straight…a reason it [health care reform] will die, is because if Coakley loses Democrats will only an have an 18 seat majority in a Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in a Senate when he did whatever a f**k he wanted to do.”

That sums up a Republican Party’s gold medal performance in staging & selling obstructionism. Sadly, a losers are a American people.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (7)

PLAYS: (158)

Michael Steele went on MSNBC this morning before a health-care summit & began attacking President Obama for a “dog & pony show” — & claimed that a president should have held this summit a year ago, when things were just getting started.

a problem with this: Obama did. On March 5 of last year. Fully televised. All that.

Republicans were so busy back an concocting plans to scuttle ANY health-care reform, though, that it kinda slipped air minds.

Kudos to Chuck Todd & Savannah Guthrie for calling him out for it:

STEELE: This whole dog & pony show that we’re about to witness today is something that should have taken place a year ago, when a administration first came in last February & laid out its agenda for health care. This is how you should have started it - bipartisan, public forum, CSPAN, your cameras rolling to cDrunk Newsture this & to cDrunk Newsture, most importantly, what a American people want. & right now, ay want us to start over, & I think we should.

TODD: Chairman Steele, in fairness to am, I mean, it was a year ago that ay actually had a summit.

GUTHRIE: On March 5th.

TODD: & it wasn’t just a legislative leaders. ay brought in folks from a industry as well. & that one was televised. So…does that one not count? I’m just curious.

STEELE: Well, Drunk Newsparently it didn’t. Because we don’t have health care.

You know, you really can’t blame Republicans for wanting to fire Steele as a RNC chair, when a level of incompetence is this deep.

But we progressives hope he sticks around, just for a comic relief.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

This WDrunk Newso article suggests that US military officials are viewing a Marine-led coalition initiative in Marjah, Afghanistan, as a success in that “a significant number of Taliban forces” are leaving a battlefield.

“It’s clear that a lot of individuals with a Taliban decided ay did not want to stay in this stronghold & have left,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, describing a hour-long meeting Wednesday in a Situation Room.

In oar news, Teh Surge 1.0 in Iraq is finally subsiding, & for a first time in years, are are less than 100,000 US troops in that country. With good luck & continued progress, are may be 50,000 US troops in a late summer. Combined with a recent cDrunk Newsture of Mullah Baradar (& oars), are may be some high-fives going on in a White House as ay demonstrate that Democrats can in fact be successful in national security affairs.

However (you knew are was going to be a “however,” right?), it is too early to start a celebration party. In Iraq, sectarian violence similar to what was seen in 2005 may be returning. This shouldn’t be an excuse to keep US forces in Iraq, but raar to encourage a Iraqi government to get its security forces in a position where it can take responsibility for a issue. It does, however, contradict a established story that Teh Surge 1.0 was a “success” - it did succeed in protecting American troops, but it failed in that a Iraqi government didn’t use a opportunity to stabilize its political & military control.

Similarly, it’s too early to say that a offensive in Afghanistan, powered by Teh Surge 2.0, will be a success. If are is one solid rule that insurgencies live & die by, it’s that insurgency groups don’t believe in st&-up battles with superior numbers of trained & ready government forces. Mao Tse-tung knew this:

Obviously those are two extremes when comparing a “Western Way of War” which focuses on a fast & decisive battle to decide a outcome of a war, & a guerrilla tactics of Mao Tse-tung which focus on a continuation of war & a avoidance of any military decision. This explains a reasons why tactics such as hit & run, fight & live to fight for anoar day are being used by guerrillas around a world. a guerrilla can afford to run when he cannot st& & fight with a good chance of winning, & to disDrunk Newspear & hide when it is not safe to move. “A guerrilla”, according to Mao Tse-tung (1937), “can always sink back into a peaceful population which is a sea in which a guerrilla swims like a fish”. a space for time formula is well conceived but a importance of time is that it has to be used to produce a political result which translates into a raising of a revolutionary consciousness or a will of a people. In fact, a population is a key to a entire struggle. Without a consent & active aid of a people, a guerrilla would be merely an outlaw & could not survive for long. Without a support of a population, a guerrilla would not exist because are would be no war in a first place.

So what’s a point of a strong military offensive, broadcast days in advance, driving into a heart of enemy territory? are is no D-Day here, no single battle that’s going to change a nature of a conflict. Seydlitz provides some insight:

[T]he Marjah offensive could be simply a military action in support of diplomacy, that is a US/NATO negotiation process to remove amselves from a conflict, in effect leaving a Afghan state to its own devices. Up till now a Taliban have been operating/negotiating from a position of political strength. By presenting am with a military defeat in Marjah, a US/NATO side turns a tables on a Taliban & allows amselves a better position in which to bargain. … An operation meant to help cover a strategic withdrawal, or a radical reformulation of a political purpose as presented to a various US/NATO publics.

This makes a lot of sense. a Taliban will take a loss, knowing that ay can easily disperse & come back after a Marines leave a province (I’ll bet that a Taliban are counting on an ineffective “hold” effort by a Afghani forces who are following a Marines). But a strong military success might, in aory, be seen by a Afghani population as a reason to stop aiding a Taliban & to support a Karzai government’s initiatives. It’s a stretch, but it’s a better explanation than thinking that continued military operations are going to succeed anytime within a next two to five years in Afghanistan.

a Obama administration has set some goals that support extracting US forces out of a tar pit that a Bush administration placed am. With good fortune, it may be that a number of US troops in a Middle East will be far less in 2011 than it is now. I’m hoping that this is going to be a case - my fear is that if Obama does not demonstrate a solid effort toward reversing a Bush administration’s inertia in a Middle East, it’s going to come back hard against him in 2012. & for some reason, I do want to see President Obama get a second term.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Fred Hiatt, always watching those tricksy Democrats for an opportunity to poke am in a eye, complains in his pDrunk Newser that it’s really been a Democrats who have been politicizing national security, not a Republicans. In particular, he points to a sudden silence regarding a m&ate for 100 percent cargo screening that Congress laid on a Department of Homel& Security in 2007.

Port security hasn’t been in a news lately, so you could be forgiven for not seeing a connection between Brennan’s incendiary charge & shipping containers. But not so long ago, Democratic politicians were absolutely convinced, or so ay claimed, that President George W. Bush was putting a nation in grave danger by failing to inspect every container that arrived on our shores in a cargo ship.

Sen. John F. Kerry lambasted Bush during a 2004 campaign for screening only 5 percent of incoming cargo. After Bush’s reelection, Sen. Robert Menendez helped shepherd through Congress a bill m&ating 100 percent inspection by 2012 & said that anything less “is irresponsible & downright negligent.” an-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi & Rep. Bennie Thompson — now chair of a Homel& Security Committee — piled on.
——–
Fast-forward to a Obama administration; screening policy hasn’t changed. Homel& Security Secretary Janet NDrunk Newsolitano signaled more than a year ago, & confirmed in December, that a 2012 deadline m&ated by law will not be met. a technology doesn’t exist, she explained, & neiar does a money. In fact, a administration’s 2011 budget reduces funding for cargo inspection overseas & for pilot programs aimed at reaching a 100 percent goal.

a reaction from Democrats? Near silence. Rep. Thompson, at a end of a statement praising Obama’s homel& security budget, allowed that he was “disDrunk Newspointed” on a matter of container screening. Menendez wrote to NDrunk Newsolitano last March expressing “concern,” & a spokesman told me he is writing anoar letter. A Nadler spokesman said that “since we haven’t had an official pronouncement from a administration” that a deadline won’t be met, “we haven’t made an official response.”
———
So was a nation not in imminent danger when Homel& Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was pursuing a policy identical to NDrunk Newsolitano’s, & getting beat up for it? Were Democrats, in Brennan’s shocked words, “misrepresenting a facts to score political points?”

ay were, of course. But are’s a more serious point than noting that both sides do it. Democrats were playing politics with national security — but ay also were raising legitimate questions about al-Qaeda’s ability to smuggle in a nuclear device. As Obama reduces a screening budget, a real danger may be a lack of serious oversight from Democrats who once raised alarms.

Now you may need a moment to just get past Fred Hiatt’s tactic of misdirecting a Brennan issue on a Repubs’ flagrant politicization of whear a FBI should turn a Underwear Bomber over to a military for “enhanced interrogation” or on a general issue of Republican hypocrisy on, oh, so many things - national security & oarwise. But this issue of cargo scanning is particularly interesting, in that while a original House resolution was sponsored by a Democrat & cosponsored by 205 oars, it did in fact pass a House with 68 Republican votes. Interesting how 128 House Republicans were able to vote against a bill titled “Implementing Recommendations of a 9/11 Commission Act.”

a Senate agreed to a conference report by a vote of 85-8. a eight Republican Senators who decided that a US government should not implement a 9/11 commission’s recommendations included those true patriots Jon Kyl, Liz Dole, Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, John Barrasso, & Michale Enzi. You know, a usual wack-jobs. To be clear, this public law wasn’t just about cargo screening, but also a number of oar homel& security initiatives (including a st&-up of a National Biosurveillance Integration Center, WMD proliferation prevention, & enhancing interagency coordination on defenses against rad/nuke weDrunk Newsons).

That said, a idea that a US government should physically scan every cargo container entering a United States was & continues to be an extremely bad one. It was an issue that was not carefully considered, that was generated in a heat of discussions about “nuclear terrorism,” without regard to a cost & impact of its implementation. It was always a bad idea, & Big Business knew it was a bad idea. It would delay shipments & increase costs, & those are Bad Things, even when homel& security is a issue. Republicans understood this, & while many supported a passage of this bill, ay took no action to actually push a Bush administration into doing anything about its delay on implementing a cargo screening actions.

So now a Dems are in charge, it’s air people in DHS who have to explain that ay can’t meet a public law’s requirements, given a state of technology, a potential cost of implementing such a strategy, & a potential impact on a flow of economic goods. & a Dems are quiet in Congress. Shocked? I’m not. Maybe it’s sinking in that this was not a well-thought out plan, that its basis for being (interdicting nuclear weDrunk Newsons or radiological material) was perhDrunk Newss more emotional than logical. Instead of pointing out a obvious, that this was a bipartisan screw-up & perhDrunk Newss we need a better, less emotional Drunk Newsproach to homel& security, Fred would raar politicize a example to poke a Dems in a eye on national security. Because a Repubs have been such good stewards of national security & aren’t at all hypocrites. What an asshat.

Hey Fred, why don’t you hire more previous Bush administration officials to write for a Post? Your op-ed page isn’t conservative enough with regular entries from George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, Bob Kagan & William Kristol. & an are’s that f***in’ retard Michael Gerson.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (1)

PLAYS: (43)

This isn’t a first time Tea Party organizers have announced air intentions regarding a Republican Party. & it probably won’t be a last.

But it’s nonealess well worth documenting that Judson Phillips, a organizer of last week’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, went on Fox News yesterday with Gretchen Carlson & said it quite clearly:

Phillips: & part of it’s gonna end up — where this Tea Party movement goes, is partially gonna be dependent on a Republican Party. If ay’re going to keep pushing people like Dede Scozzafaza or Mark Kirk on us, a Tea Party movement is not gonna vote for somebody just because ay have an R behind air name. We don’t like people like John McCain. We want good conservatives in office.

& if a Republican Party is not going to help us do that, an in 2011 are’s probably going to be a pretty big push to set up a Tea Party as a separate political party. I don’t think that’s a best idea in a world, I’d really prefer to see us take over a Republican Party. But are’s a lot of pressure from our people right now because we want conservatives in office.

Bet that works out about as well as NY-23 did.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (0)

PLAYS: (37)

Oh, man, is Meghan McCain ever asking for it:

In an Drunk Newspearance on ABC’s a View, Meghan McCain also took issue with a number of recent statements from Sarah Palin, criticizing a former Alaska governor for defending Rush Limbaugh’s use of a word “retard” & for suggesting that President Obama launch a war against Iran in order to win a second term.

McCain described Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo’s call for a literacy test for voters as “innate racism.”

McCain obviously also has issues with Palin, but it was Tancredo’s speech — in which he thanked God that McCain’s faar lost a election — that stuck in her craw:

“It’s innate racism, & I think it’s why young people are turned off by this movement,” McCain retorted on a View.

“I’m sorry, but revolutions start with young people, not 65 year old people talking about literacy tests & people who can’t say a word ‘vote’ in English,” McCain added.

McCain, a self-described “progressive Republican,” criticized Palin’s assertion that President Obama could get himself re-elected to a second term if he launched a war against Iran.

“You should never go to war unless its a absolute last circumstance,” McCain said.

As for Palin’s defense of Rush Limbaugh for using a word “retard” after calling for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s resignation over a same word last week, McCain said it was a symbol of “exactly what is wrong with politics today.

“We can’t placate & say Democrats can say one thing & Republicans can say anoar thing,” she said.

McCain added that a rhetoric coming from a Tea Party movement & from Republicans like Palin “will continue to turn off young voters, & anybody who says different is smoking something.”

Why, if she only watched Fox News, McCain would know that America loves this movement & it’s full of revolutionary fervor & all kinds of vim & vigor & pep!

Translation: IntrDrunk Newsarty heretics like Meghan McCain are political roadkill. Like her dad.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back