You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2009.
Here’s a companion piece of news
An American military detention camp in Afghanistan is still holding inmates, sometimes for weeks at a time, without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to human rights researchers and former detainees held at the site on the Bagram Air Base.
Well, besides what we already know of Guantanamo.
In what is turning out to be a sequel of a bad movie, the media is once again covering for a warmonger.
Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit
A nice euphemism (not unlike clinching – to substitute “winning the primaries) The article is replete with anonymous senior officials who assure us about that “vision” as well as the GOP-es who oppose it (the fiends!)
But Marc Ambinder, the shorthand scribe for the politically in the know describes the huddle that generated the NY Times propaganda
That suggests that the meeting was akin to a pre-game rally session by the commander-in-chief: he wants to get everyone from Gates to Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the same page before his Tuesday speech.
and discloses the big one
Officials said last week that while would outline a clear exit strategy, he would not tie troop withdrawals to any specific political developments in Afghanistan, which might run into opposition from Democrats in Congress, who are demanding benchmarks.
Hence the nostalgic illustration for this entry. Of course, unlike in the original version of this movie, we won’t get theories proving a connection between 9.11 and Iraq. This being the sequel
An official said that Obama plans to try explain the interconnection between the the stability of Pakistan and the nexus of terror in Afghanistan.
Which Ambinder qualifies as
An explanation that the American people would accept has proven elusive.
Don’t worry, propagandists! An Obama war is OK – as it has the Nobel Peace Prize stamp of approval on it!
I thought that since we are in the sequel, another funny reminder of the first movie would help
I laughed and laughed seeing this one! democrats say the darnest things!
While all the rest are into the Tiger Woods drama, Newsday prints what seems to be a relevant cover about the war
Although the article seems to be written by McChrystal’s PR department (“do what he asks” is the refrain)
One sane opinion is lamely and apologetically framed – from a family preparing to deploy one of them again:
“They should end the war and bring our people home. But I know the president can’t do it all at once. If he did, it would take him more than one term in office to bring them home slowly and surely. He’s basically picking up other people’s problems. It’s going to take a while for everything to be rectified.
But at least Newsday’s cover is one step up over this
which shall remain the standard in war propaganda.
And while on the topic, here’s an interesting fact B0bot Sirota uncovered
“President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II,” reports National Journal’s Government Executive magazine.
But, but…Hillary voted for the war!
Slow news day, so beyond Tiger Woods, the best crashed party still gets legs (like the best heckled speech).
NY Post is giving this its hole first page
while the Daily News is making it a little cameo on top of the Tiger Woods story – but the headline is way more heartbreaking:
Stop the presses! The fiend! Bam’s hand?
Oh, the humanity!
I always thought that it would be during the following disastrous presidency that the mea culpas for the was they treated Clinton would come. First from the progressives, then maybe the others. I was wrong. They continued to blame him – this time for Gore and Kerry’s “losses”
And now, with a God in the White House I was expecting a continuous stream of: see, he can do what Clinton couldn’t” and pretty much got it.
Facts however are stubborn things and I can already see some chinks in that strategy.
The Clinton hater extraordinaire, M0Do sent shockwaves through the Village when she ended her usual Clinton hating column with a virtual “But Obama is even worse”
Bill Clinton may not have cared any more about contributors than Obama does, but he was such a talented politician that he made them feel as though they were in “a warm bath,” as one put it.
Obama is more like a cold shower.
where Laurence O’Donnell – now part of Obama’s network actually remembers 1994 – when a “vote to debate” was not deemed necessary as the bill (Clinton’s) went to the senate almost by unanimous consent. Listen from the 1:08 mark for some startling revelations bout Ted Kennedy’s role and at the 3:20 mark
“It was inconceivable – for both parties not to allow one of the president major legislation to come to a vote – and this is a much weaker president – remember – Clinton got elected with 43% of the vote and there were 43 Republicans in the senate, only 57 Democrats….so this issue of needing 60 to go in the debate is the most stunning demonstration of weakness”
When asked to point the finger as to why, O’Donnel blames…the bill “this bill, this idea is so unpopular in the US”. And then points to the 1994 failure and the determination of Obama to do the opposite of what Clinton did – take a bow from behind the curtain, Tom Daschle.t
Except of course for the part where they asked Bill Clinton to talk to the Senate
It’s not that the media stopped attacking the Clintons – they’ll never forgive them for trespassing Versailles. But even their attacks have instant blowback.
A laundry list of “conflicts of interest” between the Clintons from WaPo only manages to highlight the many accomplishments of each of them.
So, ironically, it wasn’t Bush’s incompetence that would showcase Clinton’s brilliance. It will be Obama’s. Whether they allow it or not.