(no subject)
AND NOW, a collection of articles that is just an excuse to post this picture again
Iraq welcomes Obama with common goal: hope for pullout of US troops from combat by 2010
Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.
The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.
Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.
"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.
Obama made no public statements following the talks with al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone. Obama also plans meetings with U.S. military commanders who will outline recent progress in the war he has opposed from the start.
This was the third stop on a foreign tour designed to gather information while burnishing the Democratic contender's foreign policy credentials. National security issues are the one issue area in which Obama trails Republican John McCain in the polls.
The Iraqi government comment on troop withdrawals could be embraced by the Obama campaign, but may irritate White House officials. The Bush administration has refused to set specific troop level targets and only last week offered to discuss a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.
The Iraqi stance also is another wrinkle in a confusing series of remarks and denials in recent days.
Al-Maliki was quoted last week by the German magazine Der Spiegel appearing to endorse Obama's 16-month timetable. The Iraqi leader's aides have since said his comments were misunderstood, and he is not taking sides in the U.S. election.
The U.S. military also took the unusual step of translating and distributing the Iraqi government reaction to the Der Spiegel article.
The meetings with Iraqi officials came after Obama began his first on-the-ground inspection of Iraq since launching his bid for the White House.
It marked the second major leg of a war zone tour that opened in Afghanistan. The contrasts in tone and message were distinct.
Obama sees the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan as America's most crucial fight and supports expanding troop strength there to counter a sharp rise in attacks.
But Obama had opposed the Iraq invasion and now worries that an open-ended U.S. combat mission here will sap military resources and focus - at a time when Iraq violence has dropped to its lowest level in four years.
The Illinois senator - traveling with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. - arrived first in the southern city of Basra, the U.S. Embassy said.
Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militia believed linked to Iran.
His meetings in Baghdad were expected to include the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and other military chiefs outlining the significant gains in recent months against both Shiite militia and Sunni insurgents including al-Qaida in Iraq.
The White House and military leaders - and many residents of Baghdad - trace the momentum back to last year's buildup of more than 30,000 troops in areas around Iraq's capital. McCain has tried to hammer Obama on his criticisms of that military surge.
In an interview Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," McCain said he hoped Obama would now "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."
"This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain said. "He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning."
All five surge brigades have left Iraq, but there are still about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, more than in early 2007.
Iraqi leaders also pressed Obama for more clarity on his long-term vision for relations with Washington. Such discussions have added importance since Iraq and U.S. negotiators appear stalled in efforts to reach a long-range pact to define future U.S. military presence and obligations.
American diplomats hoped to reach a final accord by the end of the month, but it now seems the goal is a stopgap "bridge" document that would maintain the status for U.S. forces once a U.N. mandate on their presence expires at the end of the year. Such as move would leave the hard bargaining to the next president.
Obama arrived following talks Sunday in Kuwait with the emir, Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah. Earlier he met with U.S. military commanders and troops in Afghanistan and held talks with President Hamid Karzai.
He is scheduled to go on to Jordan, Israel and European capitals.
Source
McCain Warns Of 'Hard Struggle' On The 'Iraq-Pakistan Border'
Today on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) refused to call the situation in Afghanistan “precarious and urgent,” but admitted that “We have a lot of work to do.” He warned of a “very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”
Of course, Iraq is nowhere near Pakistan. In fact, Baghdad - the capital of Iraq - is over 1,500 miles from Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad:
Before McCain repeats his claim to “know how to win wars,” he should probably look at a map.
Source
Washington Post Spins Iraqi Official's Call For Troops Out By 2010 As Against Obama
Wow, this is getting kind of surreal. As I noted below, The Washington Post has yet to do a stand-alone story on al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's troop-withdrawal timeline.
Now look how WaPo is reporting on Iraqi government official Ali al-Dabbagh's assertion that he's hopeful that U.S. troops will be out by 2010:
"Eight months later than Obama's proposal." Got that? al-Dabbagh's comments are at odds with Obama's plan.
Can this be real? First, unlike the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press, WaPo buries Maliki's comments -- and now this?
There is still some lack of clarity about what al-Dabbagh said. WaPo quotes him as follows: "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010."
On the other hand, the Associated Press' version makes it sound like he wants them out by some time in 2010 and didn't specify that they should only be out by the end of the year, not before.
It doesn't really matter, however. Even the quote that says he wants them out by the end of that year doesn't really preclude them being out earlier that same year. So spinning this as somehow counter to Obama's plan is borderline farce.
Source
War crimes fugitive Radovan Karadzic arrested
Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb wartime president and one of the world's most wanted men, has been arrested, Serbian government and judicial sources have said.
Karadzic, leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the 1992-95 Bosnia war, was indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague in July 1995 for authorising the shooting of civilians during the 43-month siege of Sarajevo.
He was indicted for genocide a second time four months later for orchestrating the slaughter of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia.
He went underground in 1997 after losing power.
Karadzic was one of three fugitives wanted by the UN Yugoslav war crimes tribunal who were still at large. He refuses to accept the legitimacy of the UN tribunal.
If Karadzic is extradited, he would be the 44th Serb suspect extradited to the tribunal. The others include former president Slobodan Milosevic, who was ousted in 2000 and died in 2006 while on trial on war crimes charges.
The arrest of Karadzic and other indicted war criminals and their delivery to the Hague war crimes tribunal has been one of the main conditions of Serbian progress towards EU membership.
The West is also pressing for the arrest of the former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic.
Matt Drudge Doesn't Always Rule The Media's World, It Turns Out
You may have heard that Matt Drudge "rules our world" -- the "we" in question being members of the political media, who helplessly march off like pod people to cover stories when Drudge tells them to with his little siren.
That Drudge rules our world is something you hear constantly from members of the press themselves. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, for instance, recently hailed Drudge's "ability to drives news cycles" and the "power Drudge has to push a particular storyline or a broader narrative in the race."
Except that it turns out that Drudge doesn't always rule the world of political reporters. Yesterday, Drudge blared the following banner headline for around 20 hours straight:
While The Times and the Associated Press finally got around to posting stand-alone stories on Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal time-line late last night, WaPo downplayed the news on Sunday and only flagged it in the 18th paragraph of its story today on Obama's trip. No stand alone story from WaPo yet. And has this story gotten the sort of wall-to-wall cable coverage that other Drudge-flacked tales have?
The point, as has been made here repeatedly, is that reporters and editors make editorial decisions to follow Drudge. They themselves confer on him whatever influence he has, and then in turn claim to be hypnotically transfixed into obeying him.
As we can see on the Maliki story, reporters and editors do have the power to refrain from treating Drudge as their assignment editor. I thought Drudge ruled WaPo's world. What happened?
Source
Lawmakers considering special investigator in Monegan firing
State legislators are talking about hiring a special investigator to dig into the circumstances surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.
“That’s the only thing I can think of, if you want to get to the truth and be unbiased,” said Senate President Lyda Green, a Wasilla Republican. “Otherwise, speculation just continues.”
Green, who has sparred with Palin politically, said the investigator would be someone unconnected to both the Legislature and the governor’s office. She said the investigation would cover the circumstances surrounding the firing - including accusations that Palin had pressured Monegan to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who is the ex-husband of Palin’s sister.
Green said the Legislature could move to hire an investigator as soon as early next week. She said she’s been hearing from other senators who want answers.
Senate Judiciary chairman Hollis French said he agrees with Green that “there is a problem in the (Palin) administration” and legislators should look into the firing.
“I know we’re going to look at it. We’re trying to figure out right now what method we use,” the Anchorage Democrat said.
A special investigator isn’t the only possibility. State House Judiciary Committee chairman Jay Ramras said he’s going to meet with French about possibly holding a legislative hearing to find out what’s going on.
“And see whether it’s appropriate to (have) an early confirmation hearing on the new commissioner and what exactly was not correct about the mission of the Department of Public Safety,” the Fairbanks Republican said.
The governor says she dismissed Monegan and replaced him with Kenai Police Chief Chuck Kopp last week because she wants a new direction for the department.
House Speaker John Harris said legislators have asked him about having a hearing.
“I’ve told them they have that authority if they think there is a reason for it,” the Valdez Republican said. “I wouldn’t want them to be doing it if it was a witch hunt.”
Harris said that, if the accusations against Palin were proven true, “it could be fairly damaging to the governor’s credibility. We’ll just have to wait and see.”
Harris said it could help Palin end the speculation if she explained why she fired Monegan.
“To get up and say that the only reason she made the change was they wanted to go in a different direction is not an explanation,” Harris said.
Palin has said she wants more of a focus on trooper recruitment and fighting drug and alcohol abuse in rural Alaska. The governor’s spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, said no more details are coming about the reasons for Monegan’s dismissal.
“The governor has said she felt the department could be better served under new leadership,” Leighow said. “She can’t talk about the specifics because it’s a personnel issue. And that’s not going to change, no matter who is asking, whether it be a reporter or a lawmaker.”
One difference Palin had with Monegan was on public safety spending, said John Cyr, executive director of the Public Safety Employees Association. He said Palin suggested cuts in the department budget.
“My understanding is that the commissioner had a long-range plan that called for a lot more troopers on the ground, that called for increased training, that called for up-to-date technology, that looked to change the direction of the department,” Cyr said. “And that the governor basically was content with the status quo.”
Leighow, the governor’s spokeswoman, said Palin has asked all departments to find ways to trim spending. But the governor is not looking to cut public safety positions and wants to fill the 56 existing state trooper positions already in the budget, Leighow said.
Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase over the previous year in the current year’s public safety department budget, according to the state Legislative Finance Division. The Legislature cut that to a $6.4 million increase.
Accusations tying Monegan’s firing to an attempt by the governor to get Wooten fired first became public Thursday on former state lawmaker Andrew Halcro’s blog. Halcro, who lost to Palin in the 2006 governor’s race, wrote on his post about the Monegan firing that the public safety budget was cut by .06 percent for this year under Palin. He conceded that was an error Friday.
But Halcro also suggested Monegan’s Friday revelation that he felt pressured by Todd Palin and others to fire Wooten should make those who attacked his blog reconsider.
“And just a note for all our skeptics and the Palin defenders since our story broke yesterday morning. … here’s looking at you kids,” Halcro wrote Friday.
Source
Rep. Bachmann: Drilling Would Make Gas $2 -- Because I Say So!
As you know, we've been posting here regularly about the GOP's frequent pushing of the myth that China is drilling for oil off American shores.
Well here's another outlandish oil-drilling line: If not for the Dems in Congress, gas would cost two bucks a gallon!
Here's what Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had to say in an op-ed for National Review, promoting drilling in ANWR:
The fact of the matter is that Congress is standing in the way of $2-a-gallon gas. It is Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats who are refusing to let commonsense energy legislation come to the floor.
That's right: Bachmann says that we can cut the price of gas from over four dollars down to two, a change of more than 50%, by just opening up some new drilling. What wonderful news!
The problem, however, is that this just isn't true when you're working on the scale of a vast global marketplace.
In the case of ANWR, a Department of Energy study this past May found that drilling there could potentially lower the price of a barrel of oil by a mere 75 cents -- only enough to lower the price of a gallon of gas by about two cents, and it would take until the year 2025. Proposed offshore drilling plans for other areas have yielded similar numbers, too.
Oh well. Lowering the price by two dollars, or two cents -- what's the difference?
We'll be hearing a lot more of this line over the next few months.
Source
Bill Kristol Cannot Write Words That Fit Together
Here’s the fourth paragraph in today’s offering from New York Times “lightning rod conservative” columnist Bill Kristol: “The Siegessäule is an impressive structure (especially if you have a militaristic bent). It’s a large fluted sandstone column on a base of polished red granite, topped by a golden statue of winged Victory. Completed in 1873, it commemorates Prussia’s victories in the previous decade over Denmark, Austria and France. The column was lengthened and relocated to its present site in 1939.” Well now you know more about the large cock in the middle of Berlin from which Barack Obama will deliver his Speech this week. This is what Kristol does to us.
He usually delivers an anecdote about finding an old book in an illiterate airport or that one time someone was stupid enough to offer him a commencement address, or he gives a space-killing history lesson. You read these things at the top of the page with his shit-eating columnist photo to the left. Then, a segue, about Barack Obama, and the Liberals, and you suddenly want to eat a pound of lead and die for a very long time.
OK, a five-paragraph block quote. We apologize. Be thankful, however, that we did not choose the paragraphs that followed:
I’m hoping it means that Obama in Berlin will go beyond the anodyne message his campaign advertised Sunday - a discussion of the “historic U.S.-German partnership” and strengthening trans-Atlantic relations. I’m wondering if Obama chose the Victory Column as his speech venue because he intends to make the case for … victory.
There’s a precedent for this. As Obama knows, he’s been widely compared, especially in Europe, to another young, charismatic Democrat - John F. Kennedy. Perhaps Obama will choose to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps in Berlin.
When President Kennedy spoke to a huge crowd in front of West Berlin’s city hall in June 1963, victory in the cold war seemed a distant hope. The Soviets had crushed the East German uprising of 1953 and the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. Castro had taken power in 1959. The Berlin Wall had gone up in 1961. The Cuban Missile Crisis had brought the world to the brink of war less than a year before. There were many, in Europe and elsewhere, who wanted to find a way out of the struggle.
Speaking on behalf of “the world of freedom,” Kennedy challenged the anti-anti-Communists and the peaceniks. He chastised the “many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world.” He rebuked those “who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists.” To all of them, Kennedy memorably said: “Let them come to Berlin.”
Perhaps Obama - with the Victory Column at his back - will also challenge those who think it impossible to imagine victory today. Perhaps Obama will also warn of the temptation of assuming we can somehow avoid confronting the terrorists and jihadists, and those who support them.
Alas, Barack Obama has no interest in confronting the terrorists and jihadists, a.k.a. the Sunnis and Shiites in a civil war in their own country of Iraq.
Didn’t the New York Times just reject John McCain’s column because it didn’t, uh, explain what VICTORY meant in the Middle East? And yet, here is William Kristol doing the exact same thing, but worse - he makes us learn about BERLIN MONUMENT HISTORY before SHITTING OUT his FAKE POINT.
Imagine you had some money to spend on anything. You don’t, and neither does the New York Times, but the New York Times is going to spend it anyway. They’re going to give their tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Kristol, the terrible piece of shit responsible for the text quoted above. To make matters worse, they’re not giving him this money just out-of-the-blue, as charity. They’re going to give him all this money and let him write 1,000 words in their newspaper, explaining his thoughts, every single week. Can’t they just pay him not to write in their newspaper ever again?
(Same with all the other columnists they have, but still.)
Source
Drudge also virtually ignored the Wright "story" up until the race speech. When Drudge is taking a more principled stand than our national press... D:
And I apologize on my state's behalf for Michele "Poor Man's Katherine Harris" Bachmann. I wish she'd stick to making out with Bush.
Iraq welcomes Obama with common goal: hope for pullout of US troops from combat by 2010
Iraq's government welcomed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday with word that it apparently shares his hope that U.S. combat forces could leave by 2010.
The statement by Iraq's government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, followed talks between Obama and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki - who has struggled for days to clarify Iraq's position on a possible timetable for a U.S. troop pullout.
Al-Dabbagh said the government did not endorse a fixed date, but hoped American combat units could be out of Iraq sometime in 2010. That timeframe falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day as part of a congressional fact-finding team.
"We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq," al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.
Obama made no public statements following the talks with al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone. Obama also plans meetings with U.S. military commanders who will outline recent progress in the war he has opposed from the start.
This was the third stop on a foreign tour designed to gather information while burnishing the Democratic contender's foreign policy credentials. National security issues are the one issue area in which Obama trails Republican John McCain in the polls.
The Iraqi government comment on troop withdrawals could be embraced by the Obama campaign, but may irritate White House officials. The Bush administration has refused to set specific troop level targets and only last week offered to discuss a "general time horizon" for a U.S. combat troop exit.
The Iraqi stance also is another wrinkle in a confusing series of remarks and denials in recent days.
Al-Maliki was quoted last week by the German magazine Der Spiegel appearing to endorse Obama's 16-month timetable. The Iraqi leader's aides have since said his comments were misunderstood, and he is not taking sides in the U.S. election.
The U.S. military also took the unusual step of translating and distributing the Iraqi government reaction to the Der Spiegel article.
The meetings with Iraqi officials came after Obama began his first on-the-ground inspection of Iraq since launching his bid for the White House.
It marked the second major leg of a war zone tour that opened in Afghanistan. The contrasts in tone and message were distinct.
Obama sees the battle against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan as America's most crucial fight and supports expanding troop strength there to counter a sharp rise in attacks.
But Obama had opposed the Iraq invasion and now worries that an open-ended U.S. combat mission here will sap military resources and focus - at a time when Iraq violence has dropped to its lowest level in four years.
The Illinois senator - traveling with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. - arrived first in the southern city of Basra, the U.S. Embassy said.
Basra is the center for about 4,000 British troops involved mostly in training Iraqi forces. An Iraqi-led offensive begun in March reclaimed control of most of the city from Shiite militia believed linked to Iran.
His meetings in Baghdad were expected to include the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and other military chiefs outlining the significant gains in recent months against both Shiite militia and Sunni insurgents including al-Qaida in Iraq.
The White House and military leaders - and many residents of Baghdad - trace the momentum back to last year's buildup of more than 30,000 troops in areas around Iraq's capital. McCain has tried to hammer Obama on his criticisms of that military surge.
In an interview Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," McCain said he hoped Obama would now "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."
"This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against," McCain said. "He was wrong about the surge. It is succeeding and we are winning."
All five surge brigades have left Iraq, but there are still about 147,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, more than in early 2007.
Iraqi leaders also pressed Obama for more clarity on his long-term vision for relations with Washington. Such discussions have added importance since Iraq and U.S. negotiators appear stalled in efforts to reach a long-range pact to define future U.S. military presence and obligations.
American diplomats hoped to reach a final accord by the end of the month, but it now seems the goal is a stopgap "bridge" document that would maintain the status for U.S. forces once a U.N. mandate on their presence expires at the end of the year. Such as move would leave the hard bargaining to the next president.
Obama arrived following talks Sunday in Kuwait with the emir, Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah. Earlier he met with U.S. military commanders and troops in Afghanistan and held talks with President Hamid Karzai.
He is scheduled to go on to Jordan, Israel and European capitals.
Source
McCain Warns Of 'Hard Struggle' On The 'Iraq-Pakistan Border'
Today on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) refused to call the situation in Afghanistan “precarious and urgent,” but admitted that “We have a lot of work to do.” He warned of a “very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.”
Of course, Iraq is nowhere near Pakistan. In fact, Baghdad - the capital of Iraq - is over 1,500 miles from Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad:
Click to view Before McCain repeats his claim to “know how to win wars,” he should probably look at a map.
Source
Washington Post Spins Iraqi Official's Call For Troops Out By 2010 As Against Obama
Wow, this is getting kind of surreal. As I noted below, The Washington Post has yet to do a stand-alone story on al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's troop-withdrawal timeline.
Now look how WaPo is reporting on Iraqi government official Ali al-Dabbagh's assertion that he's hopeful that U.S. troops will be out by 2010:
"Eight months later than Obama's proposal." Got that? al-Dabbagh's comments are at odds with Obama's plan.
Can this be real? First, unlike the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press, WaPo buries Maliki's comments -- and now this?
There is still some lack of clarity about what al-Dabbagh said. WaPo quotes him as follows: "We can't give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010."
On the other hand, the Associated Press' version makes it sound like he wants them out by some time in 2010 and didn't specify that they should only be out by the end of the year, not before.
It doesn't really matter, however. Even the quote that says he wants them out by the end of that year doesn't really preclude them being out earlier that same year. So spinning this as somehow counter to Obama's plan is borderline farce.
Source
War crimes fugitive Radovan Karadzic arrested
Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb wartime president and one of the world's most wanted men, has been arrested, Serbian government and judicial sources have said.
Karadzic, leader of the Bosnian Serbs during the 1992-95 Bosnia war, was indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague in July 1995 for authorising the shooting of civilians during the 43-month siege of Sarajevo.
He was indicted for genocide a second time four months later for orchestrating the slaughter of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia.
He went underground in 1997 after losing power.
Karadzic was one of three fugitives wanted by the UN Yugoslav war crimes tribunal who were still at large. He refuses to accept the legitimacy of the UN tribunal.
If Karadzic is extradited, he would be the 44th Serb suspect extradited to the tribunal. The others include former president Slobodan Milosevic, who was ousted in 2000 and died in 2006 while on trial on war crimes charges.
The arrest of Karadzic and other indicted war criminals and their delivery to the Hague war crimes tribunal has been one of the main conditions of Serbian progress towards EU membership.
The West is also pressing for the arrest of the former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic.
Matt Drudge Doesn't Always Rule The Media's World, It Turns Out
You may have heard that Matt Drudge "rules our world" -- the "we" in question being members of the political media, who helplessly march off like pod people to cover stories when Drudge tells them to with his little siren.
That Drudge rules our world is something you hear constantly from members of the press themselves. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, for instance, recently hailed Drudge's "ability to drives news cycles" and the "power Drudge has to push a particular storyline or a broader narrative in the race."
Except that it turns out that Drudge doesn't always rule the world of political reporters. Yesterday, Drudge blared the following banner headline for around 20 hours straight:
While The Times and the Associated Press finally got around to posting stand-alone stories on Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal time-line late last night, WaPo downplayed the news on Sunday and only flagged it in the 18th paragraph of its story today on Obama's trip. No stand alone story from WaPo yet. And has this story gotten the sort of wall-to-wall cable coverage that other Drudge-flacked tales have?
The point, as has been made here repeatedly, is that reporters and editors make editorial decisions to follow Drudge. They themselves confer on him whatever influence he has, and then in turn claim to be hypnotically transfixed into obeying him.
As we can see on the Maliki story, reporters and editors do have the power to refrain from treating Drudge as their assignment editor. I thought Drudge ruled WaPo's world. What happened?
Source
Lawmakers considering special investigator in Monegan firing
State legislators are talking about hiring a special investigator to dig into the circumstances surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin’s firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.
“That’s the only thing I can think of, if you want to get to the truth and be unbiased,” said Senate President Lyda Green, a Wasilla Republican. “Otherwise, speculation just continues.”
Green, who has sparred with Palin politically, said the investigator would be someone unconnected to both the Legislature and the governor’s office. She said the investigation would cover the circumstances surrounding the firing - including accusations that Palin had pressured Monegan to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who is the ex-husband of Palin’s sister.
Green said the Legislature could move to hire an investigator as soon as early next week. She said she’s been hearing from other senators who want answers.
Senate Judiciary chairman Hollis French said he agrees with Green that “there is a problem in the (Palin) administration” and legislators should look into the firing.
“I know we’re going to look at it. We’re trying to figure out right now what method we use,” the Anchorage Democrat said.
A special investigator isn’t the only possibility. State House Judiciary Committee chairman Jay Ramras said he’s going to meet with French about possibly holding a legislative hearing to find out what’s going on.
“And see whether it’s appropriate to (have) an early confirmation hearing on the new commissioner and what exactly was not correct about the mission of the Department of Public Safety,” the Fairbanks Republican said.
The governor says she dismissed Monegan and replaced him with Kenai Police Chief Chuck Kopp last week because she wants a new direction for the department.
House Speaker John Harris said legislators have asked him about having a hearing.
“I’ve told them they have that authority if they think there is a reason for it,” the Valdez Republican said. “I wouldn’t want them to be doing it if it was a witch hunt.”
Harris said that, if the accusations against Palin were proven true, “it could be fairly damaging to the governor’s credibility. We’ll just have to wait and see.”
Harris said it could help Palin end the speculation if she explained why she fired Monegan.
“To get up and say that the only reason she made the change was they wanted to go in a different direction is not an explanation,” Harris said.
Palin has said she wants more of a focus on trooper recruitment and fighting drug and alcohol abuse in rural Alaska. The governor’s spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, said no more details are coming about the reasons for Monegan’s dismissal.
“The governor has said she felt the department could be better served under new leadership,” Leighow said. “She can’t talk about the specifics because it’s a personnel issue. And that’s not going to change, no matter who is asking, whether it be a reporter or a lawmaker.”
One difference Palin had with Monegan was on public safety spending, said John Cyr, executive director of the Public Safety Employees Association. He said Palin suggested cuts in the department budget.
“My understanding is that the commissioner had a long-range plan that called for a lot more troopers on the ground, that called for increased training, that called for up-to-date technology, that looked to change the direction of the department,” Cyr said. “And that the governor basically was content with the status quo.”
Leighow, the governor’s spokeswoman, said Palin has asked all departments to find ways to trim spending. But the governor is not looking to cut public safety positions and wants to fill the 56 existing state trooper positions already in the budget, Leighow said.
Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase over the previous year in the current year’s public safety department budget, according to the state Legislative Finance Division. The Legislature cut that to a $6.4 million increase.
Accusations tying Monegan’s firing to an attempt by the governor to get Wooten fired first became public Thursday on former state lawmaker Andrew Halcro’s blog. Halcro, who lost to Palin in the 2006 governor’s race, wrote on his post about the Monegan firing that the public safety budget was cut by .06 percent for this year under Palin. He conceded that was an error Friday.
But Halcro also suggested Monegan’s Friday revelation that he felt pressured by Todd Palin and others to fire Wooten should make those who attacked his blog reconsider.
“And just a note for all our skeptics and the Palin defenders since our story broke yesterday morning. … here’s looking at you kids,” Halcro wrote Friday.
Source
Rep. Bachmann: Drilling Would Make Gas $2 -- Because I Say So!
As you know, we've been posting here regularly about the GOP's frequent pushing of the myth that China is drilling for oil off American shores.
Well here's another outlandish oil-drilling line: If not for the Dems in Congress, gas would cost two bucks a gallon!
Here's what Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had to say in an op-ed for National Review, promoting drilling in ANWR:
The fact of the matter is that Congress is standing in the way of $2-a-gallon gas. It is Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats who are refusing to let commonsense energy legislation come to the floor.
That's right: Bachmann says that we can cut the price of gas from over four dollars down to two, a change of more than 50%, by just opening up some new drilling. What wonderful news!
The problem, however, is that this just isn't true when you're working on the scale of a vast global marketplace.
In the case of ANWR, a Department of Energy study this past May found that drilling there could potentially lower the price of a barrel of oil by a mere 75 cents -- only enough to lower the price of a gallon of gas by about two cents, and it would take until the year 2025. Proposed offshore drilling plans for other areas have yielded similar numbers, too.
Oh well. Lowering the price by two dollars, or two cents -- what's the difference?
We'll be hearing a lot more of this line over the next few months.
Source
Bill Kristol Cannot Write Words That Fit Together
Here’s the fourth paragraph in today’s offering from New York Times “lightning rod conservative” columnist Bill Kristol: “The Siegessäule is an impressive structure (especially if you have a militaristic bent). It’s a large fluted sandstone column on a base of polished red granite, topped by a golden statue of winged Victory. Completed in 1873, it commemorates Prussia’s victories in the previous decade over Denmark, Austria and France. The column was lengthened and relocated to its present site in 1939.” Well now you know more about the large cock in the middle of Berlin from which Barack Obama will deliver his Speech this week. This is what Kristol does to us.
He usually delivers an anecdote about finding an old book in an illiterate airport or that one time someone was stupid enough to offer him a commencement address, or he gives a space-killing history lesson. You read these things at the top of the page with his shit-eating columnist photo to the left. Then, a segue, about Barack Obama, and the Liberals, and you suddenly want to eat a pound of lead and die for a very long time.
OK, a five-paragraph block quote. We apologize. Be thankful, however, that we did not choose the paragraphs that followed:
I’m hoping it means that Obama in Berlin will go beyond the anodyne message his campaign advertised Sunday - a discussion of the “historic U.S.-German partnership” and strengthening trans-Atlantic relations. I’m wondering if Obama chose the Victory Column as his speech venue because he intends to make the case for … victory.
There’s a precedent for this. As Obama knows, he’s been widely compared, especially in Europe, to another young, charismatic Democrat - John F. Kennedy. Perhaps Obama will choose to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps in Berlin.
When President Kennedy spoke to a huge crowd in front of West Berlin’s city hall in June 1963, victory in the cold war seemed a distant hope. The Soviets had crushed the East German uprising of 1953 and the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. Castro had taken power in 1959. The Berlin Wall had gone up in 1961. The Cuban Missile Crisis had brought the world to the brink of war less than a year before. There were many, in Europe and elsewhere, who wanted to find a way out of the struggle.
Speaking on behalf of “the world of freedom,” Kennedy challenged the anti-anti-Communists and the peaceniks. He chastised the “many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world.” He rebuked those “who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists.” To all of them, Kennedy memorably said: “Let them come to Berlin.”
Perhaps Obama - with the Victory Column at his back - will also challenge those who think it impossible to imagine victory today. Perhaps Obama will also warn of the temptation of assuming we can somehow avoid confronting the terrorists and jihadists, and those who support them.
Alas, Barack Obama has no interest in confronting the terrorists and jihadists, a.k.a. the Sunnis and Shiites in a civil war in their own country of Iraq.
Didn’t the New York Times just reject John McCain’s column because it didn’t, uh, explain what VICTORY meant in the Middle East? And yet, here is William Kristol doing the exact same thing, but worse - he makes us learn about BERLIN MONUMENT HISTORY before SHITTING OUT his FAKE POINT.
Imagine you had some money to spend on anything. You don’t, and neither does the New York Times, but the New York Times is going to spend it anyway. They’re going to give their tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Kristol, the terrible piece of shit responsible for the text quoted above. To make matters worse, they’re not giving him this money just out-of-the-blue, as charity. They’re going to give him all this money and let him write 1,000 words in their newspaper, explaining his thoughts, every single week. Can’t they just pay him not to write in their newspaper ever again?
(Same with all the other columnists they have, but still.)
Source
Drudge also virtually ignored the Wright "story" up until the race speech. When Drudge is taking a more principled stand than our national press... D:
And I apologize on my state's behalf for Michele "Poor Man's Katherine Harris" Bachmann. I wish she'd stick to making out with Bush.