You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.
dithering
–noun
1. a trembling; vibration.
2. a state of flustered excitement or fear.
–verb (used without object)
3. to act irresolutely; vacillate.
4. North England. to tremble with excitement or fear.
Seems Joe Tobacco over at Cadillac Tight sees President Obama’s patient and thorough process towards the Afghanistan troop issue is indeed dithering.
Let’s not talk about the public dithering this president is engaging in with regards to Afghanistan, which is unseemly, unpresidential, and unproductive.
…not only is he a liar, he’s a wishy-washy, indecisive limousine liberal who is so afraid of how a decision on Afghanistan, a war we have troops currently engaged in will affect his domestic policy that he’s literally paralyzed. Get this: The president of the United States promulgated an approach to a shooting war that he now refuses to support. Barack Obama doesn’t support his own war policy, where the hell does that leave our commanding officers in the field, our allies, the Afghani people who don’t know whether the United States will be in their country next year or whether the Taliban will be conducting beheadings in stadiums again?
The Washington Post said:
“President Obama has asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle.”
This is what the right wing and Joe Tobacco apparently calls “dithering” – doing what McChrystal ASKED HIM TO DO IN HIS REPORT.
From McChrystal’s report:
“ ”[I]t must be made clear: new resources are not the crux. To succeed, ISAF [the NATO command in Afghanistan] requires a new approach — with a significant magnitude of change — in addition to a proper level of resourcing. ISAF must restore confidence in the near-term through renewed commitment, intellectual energy and visible progress.”
Got that? McChrystal ASKED for a NEW APPROACH – and later in the report said that a new approach MUST be found BEFORE any increase in troops.
But please – go ahead Joe and call doing what the general on the ground suggested that he do “dithering” – even though the Bush administration had a general’s request to increase troops in Afghanistan sitting on their desk for 8 MONTHS and did NOTHING about it – and it took Obama to sign it when he came into office to get it done in May of this year.
But please, keep talking nonsense – keep being ignorant instead of knowing the actual facts. It seems it makes you comfortable.
KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.
Isn’t this what the CIA is supposed to do? If they want to flip some bad guy, they don’t go to the guy that’s pure as the driven snow, they find the dirtiest guy they can because he’s the guy who’ll be able to put them in touch with the bad guy. They get to roll around in the pig slop so that the State Department and the military don’t have to. They’re just not supposed to get caught. Many may be too young to remember when we took down Manuel Noriega in Panama and then our press discovered that he had been on the CIA payroll for years. They, and our Congresscritters, were just absolutely shocked that the United States Government would do business with such a person, or any of the other third world thugs that we’ve done business with over the years. Well, duh!
Isn’t this the way power works in Afghanistan? If you need something, you go to the tribal chief or the provincial governor or whatever, then you haggle for a while and end up giving him what he wants so that you can get what you want? Then he distributes the wealth in such a way as to buy support from those under him? Isn’t that what Pakistan has been doing in Waziristan, cutting deals with the Afghan Taliban so that they can go after Baitullah Mehsud.
On the face of it it looks like a bit of COIN theater going on here: Ahmed Wali Karzai has got to be a big obstacle to reform, yet is probably untouchable. It’s one thing to be a druglord; it’s another to be a CIA-owned, paramilitary-druglord, and we have a long history of dealing with those.
Every knowledgeable source says the problems over there, in descending importance are:
- Corruption within the government.
- Drugs
- Security.
- Working out some sort of working deal with Pashtuns fighting us and only loosely allied with the Taliban.
Why would the CIA, somehow, considered it wise to flush 1 and 2 down the toilet for some far-fetched, tangential effort to get at 4 by working with a corrupt-to-his-bone drug kingpin/semi-governmental figure who is the president’s brother? I know this is how the CIA works but has this actually struck anyone as a good idea?
Someone should give the Karzai brothers a lesson on the fate of the Diem brothers.
Struggling Iraq vet may lose his anchor.
Two years after returning from his service in Iraq, U.S. Army Spc. Jack Barrios, 26, is fighting sleeplessness, sudden angry outbursts, aversion to emotional intimacy and other fallout from his post-traumatic stress disorder.
But as he undergoes counseling and swallows anti-depressants, the soldier is fighting an even bigger battle: to keep his family from collapsing as his wife, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, faces deportation.
His wife, 23-year-old Frances, was illegally brought to the United States by her mother at age 6, learned of her status in high school and discovered just last year that removal proceedings have been started. Her possible deportation has left Barrios in panic as he contemplates life without her.
A good example of an individual being undocumented vs. illegal. A six year old girl didn’t come here by herself, intentionally without documents. Which means Rep King is not only against illegal aliens but also undocumented immigrants. How anti-immigrant can you get when she is the wife of an Iraq War veteran? This is the same congressman who in the desmoinesregister.com site characterizes our servicemen serving overseas as “booze-hounds prone to one-night stands and black-out drunk marriages”. King’s beliefs that America should be populated by native-born whites, was a strong supporter of the so-called “widow penalty.” More than 150 foreign-born widows and widowers face deportation because their spouses died less than two years after the marriages and before citizenship paperwork could be processed. President Obama will effectively abolish the provision known as the “Widow’s Penalty” when he signs the bigger Homeland Security bill. The new law would allow the widows to submit petitions seeking residency even when the spouse dies before two years of marriage.
I didn’t think the problem was so wide as to require a revision of the whole immigration code – just grant an amnesty to those few spouses it applies to. A little policy change and quick admin action was all that was needed to be able to save these people while safeguarding against fraud. These Vets have paid this price.
Congressman – why don’t you just make these widows and widowers give back the flag that was draped on their loved ones coffin while you are at it? That would be another one to wrap yourself in.
Credit card companies are raising rates ahead of new federal laws set to ban the practice of raising the interest rate on an existing balance. Citibank just issued notices, as far as anyone can determine it was to all of its card holders, that its interest rate is being raised to 29.99% on existing balances. That’s on all balances, not just ones that are delinquent.
In a hearing this week, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., warned the industry that its rate hikes were not going unnoticed. This new law will restrict banks’ ability to raise interest rates on existing card debt and require them to apply payments in a way that helps consumers get out of debt faster. But Congress gave banks until February to make the changes, but part of it becomes effective in the next few weeks.
Did we expect anything different from a profit driven enterprise to protect their bottom line? You can side with those who merely say that it is their decision to beat the new law; to get the higher rate imposed before the law prevents them from doing so, but how does this square with the fact that Citibank wants to screw the same consumer who gave them $45 billion of TARP money from the U.S. Treasury when things were not so rosy.
I can only assume that this has been sort of a nerve racking game for Citibank shareholders. After sustaining major losses at the end of last year in the equities market, this run up of Citibank from less than $1 to where it currently sits today at $4.50 a share, makes up for a nice “equities bailout” that some of them were counting on the U.S. Taxpayers, to provide.
I can also only assume that shareholders of Citibank (a TARP recipient), thanks each and everyone of the U.S. Taxpayers who made this better-than-expected result possible. Because without TARP, without our generous support (as forced down our throat as it was) Citibank would have never received the liquidity it needed to achieve this better than expected result.
Some of us might possibly be perplexed why we were forced to make an interest free loan to Citibank for the purpose of explicitly propping it’s equity, solvency, and it’s shareholders…..buy now we can begin to see the fruits of our generous, interest free contributions.
We are rewarded with interest rate hikes up to 29.99% I guess sucking another $1.5 billion per month out of the consumer economy into the financial economy is par for the course for these credit card companies. Another $1.5 billion per month out of Main Street into Wall Street.
1. Taxpayers fund TARP
2. Citibank receives TARP
3. Citibank posts “better than expected” earnings because of TARP
4. Citibank equities “appreciate”.
5. Federal Government imposes new consumer protection laws
6. Citibank raises rates ahead of law to lock in profits.
7. Taxpayer loses 1.5 billion to higher interest rates.
8. Wall Street is happy.
BRILLIANT!!
Anyway…I guess Citibank thanks the U.S. Taxpayer.
Why would Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana stand in the way of passing health care reform?
She told reporters, “I’m not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be.”
That is, except for Medicare, which is a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And Medicaid, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And the V.A. system, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And S-CHIP, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports.
And the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which is also a taxpayer-subsidized national plan that Landrieu supports — and takes personal advantage of.
Yes, except for all the “government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plans” Landrieu already favors, she’s not for them and she never will be.
Good to know.
Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have tried to plant “spies” within key national-security committees in order to shape legislative policy.
Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key panels. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee.
“If an organization is connected to or supports terrorists [and] is running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices, I think this needs to be made known,” said Broun, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee. “So I join my colleagues here today in calling for action.”
So what have these four conservative wingnut howler monkeys done to investigate this threat that one of the four described as a terrorist-linked group possibly “running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices?” Have they submitted a request to the House sergeant at arms to look into the matter? No. They called a press conference and proceed to do … nothing? They’re basing the charge on a WND-published book that itself is based on the work of a man who posed as a Muslim to infiltrate CAIR as … an intern!
One question: why was CAIR singled out for wanting to “focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community”? If that’s the worst thing that was found in CAIR’s “internal memo,” what are we supposed to fear from CAIR’s concern for fellow Muslim Americans? I wont defend CAIR, nor do I need to. Critics allege CAIR has Hamas connections but has never been able to produce any “cold hard facts” other than akin to McCarthyism, “guilt by association”. And what about the AIPAC and the federal prosecutors that were pretty damn sure classified info was given from DOD to AIPAC to Israel, and have pointed out the law that forbid such behavior. AIPAC staffers collected information from Larry Frankin a loyal footsoldier of then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who reported to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and passed it along to Israel. AIPAC has lobbyist and interns that litter our government, but that is A-OK with everyone even when they conduct espionage.
These wingnuts are idiots fear-mongers plain an simple. After all wingnut Rep Myrick has pointed out American’s lack of readiness to deal with future terrorist attacks when she spoke about danger within the country.
“You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness (husband) Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, ‘You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country.’ Every little town you go into, you know?”…
OMG MUSLIMS RUN OUR MINI-MARTS AND 7-11’s WE ARE DOOOMED.
I know that the story has moved on, that the outline of the journalistic narrative has been set, and that the “first draft” of history has been just about finalized. Before the ink dries though, I would like to offer at least a footnote.
And this footnote has to do with President Obama’s decision in April to release opinions drafted by the Department of Justice that detailed the CIA’s interrogation program for high-value al Qaeda detainees.
Specifically, it has to do with the argument made publicly and privately by the administration that its hand was being forced by a pending decision in a Freedom of Information Act case by the American Civil Liberties Union before Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York.
Indeed, when Obama visited the CIA the Monday after the release of the documents, he specifically cited this argument in his remarks to the work force.
He said that he released “… the Justice Department Office of Legal Council (OLC) memos as a consequence of a court case that was pending and to which it was very difficult for us to mount an effective legal defense. …”
Many disagreed with that presumption.
Only a few weeks before, CIA lawyers had been hard at work with other government attorneys sorting out which of the many available FOIA exemptions they would use to continue to protect various parts of the OLC documents.
They were confident since, in the very same ACLU FOIA case, the CIA had been in front of Hellerstein the year before on an almost identical issue.
Based on a declaration I signed, the judge had agreed in 2008 to allow us to continue to protect — on the grounds of national security — the specifics of waterboarding, a technique that had not actually been used since March 2003 and one the agency had not even authorized for use in years.
Despite all that, the judge agreed that to reveal the details of this technique would tie the hands of a president in a future emergency — since, after all, laws and policies and presidents could always change.
I agree, Obama could have pulled a Bush/Cheney and claimed he couldn’t release it “in the interest of national security” blah blah. But they were released because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Isn’t this more about how America expects its citizens to be treated abroad. Under the Bush interpretation, another country could detain a US tourist and water board them and this would not be considered a crime, just a harsh interrogation technique. We can’t merely fight for freedom and security. We need to deserve it. If we use torture to secure our own freedom, then we’re no better than those we oppose.
And tell me again General Hayden, was it Obama that fired competent people from every position possible and filled them with strict party loyalists? I might be getting my news stories confused, but I thought that was actually the Bush administration that took politicization and party loyalty to new extremes.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Won’t Get Fooled Again
The Who -1977
Since taking office, President Obama has sanctioned at least 41 Central Intelligence Agency(C.I.A.) drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed between 326 and 538 people, many of them, critics say, “innocent bystanders, including children,” according to reliable reports. The drone is a remotely controlled, unmanned aircraft.
“Even if a precise account is elusive,” writes Jane Mayer in the October 26th The New Yorker, “the outlines are clear: the C.I.A. has joined the Pakistani intelligence service in an aggressive campaign to eradicate local and foreign militants, who have taken refuge in some of the most inaccessible parts of the country.”
Yet CIA director Leon Panetta says. Not only are the spy agency’s unmanned aircraft “very effective” in taking out suspected militants in Pakistan, he told the Pacific Council on International Policy . “Very frankly, it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership.”
Where is the left anti-war blogoshere and why aren’t they attacking President Obama on these drone attacks? Weren’t they accusing Bush of killing Afghan civilians by U.S. drones. Obama is on record as saying that he will fight Al Qaeda by whatever means necessary, but this smacks of hypocrisy.
Saudis Seek Payments for Any Drop in Oil Revenues
By JAD MOUAWAD and ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: October 13, 2009Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.
Saudi Arabia is highly dependent on oil exports, which account for most of the government’s budget. Last year, when prices peaked, the kingdom’s oil revenue swelled by 37 percent, to $281 billion, according to Jadwa Investment, a Saudi bank. That was more than four times the 2002 level. At one point in 2008, the average gasoline price in the United States surpassed $4 a gallon.
Saudi exports are expected to drop to $115 billion this year, after oil prices fell. American gasoline prices are hovering around $2.50 a gallon.
“Assisting us as oil-exporting countries in achieving economic diversification is very crucial for us through foreign direct investments, technology transfer, insurance and funding,” Mr. Sabban said in an e-mail message.
WTF!?!?!?!?
Saudi Arabia has been able to manipulate the world oil market to maximize their cash flow for decades. They’ve been sucking the money pipe so long they think they’re fucking entitled. They have done very little to build a national economy that is based on anything other than pumping oil. Screw them. Maybe they should have been educating their population in things other than Islamic Studies. Maybe if more of them became educated they would not be so despondent with their lot in life, and be able to function in the global economy outside of petroleum.
“Assist you” in helping you ween off oil? While it may be true that the U.S. has given very little help to make that adjustment, the Saudi’s must do it themselves. Helping the Saudi’s transition away from an oil economy sounds a little like offering Pat Robertson bible lessons. Good luck with that.
Recent Comments