And we wonder why they hate us, Part II

Read the rest of this post...

Yet another reason they hate us

Yes, I get it. If our soldiers stop, they risk getting killed. But this sure seems like one hell of a way to turn the entire population against you really fast. Imagine if some guy invaded your country and then rammed into the back of your car, and your friend's car, and every car on the road. How long do you think it would take you to hate him? About one ding.

Yes, I get the necessity. But it's a necessity created by our having invaded their country for a lie. And in any case, try explaining to any of these Iraqis why we had to hit their cars, and see how many flowers you're greeted with.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama's Iraq plan

There's some confusion regarding precisely what Senator Obama's Iraq resolution entails, exactly. In particular, there are questions about his call for the removal of "all combat brigades" from Iraq. In other words, if we remove all the combat brigades, what's left? Aren't "combat" troops just a small amount of the total force? And what happens to the people who remain?

When people talk about removing "combat brigades", they generally mean the shooters themselves and the troops that support them (i.e. both the "tooth" and the "tail"). The slight wiggle room is almost certainly to allow leaving some forces to continue training Iraqi army and police forces and do counter-terrorism (mostly airstrikes and limited tactical operations but not ground patrols, major presence in cities, etc.). That interpretation is supported by this passage in Obama's press release:

"The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States."

This is sound policy, if not necessarily significantly different from proposals by other leading Democrats (such as Edwards, who has been calling for full redeployment by 2008 for about a year, and Clinton, who recently said all troops should redeploy by the end of 2008). Obama's legislation mandates redeployment for the vast majority of soldiers who are regularly getting shot at, the ones who are still ostensibly engaged in counterinsurgency (and, in theory, the troops supporting them). It allows for leaving advisers and training personnel (which could number thousands but almost certainly not tens of thousands) as well as a kind of rapid-response force for counter-terrorism and specific battlefield emergencies.

If the plan were followed (and it won't be of course, but if it were) my best guess is that it would result in the redeployment of 90-95% of forces out of Iraq. As for the safety of the remaining forces, withdrawal in general is a little more dangerous (in the short term) than simply manning defensive positions, but it wouldn't make them significantly less safe. So removing combat brigades wouldn't simply remove everybody who can shoot straight and leave the rest, and while it made a splash as the first legislation along these lines, the plan is in line with popular opinion and the proposals of other major dems.

Not everybody is impressed, of course; Kevin Drum, for example, wonders if the plan is as aggressive as it initially sounds. In the end, many of the resolutions floating around are not that qualitatively different, and hopefully people can coalesce around one or two as things shake out. Read the rest of this post...

Tony Snow suggest that US Senate inviting bin Laden to hit us again

There is a certain joy in seeing the White House now spew their venom against august senior Republican Senators like John Warner (R-VA). It's also ironic that the White House now feels the need to mention bin Laden, again - you remember him, the guy Bush doesn't think about much anymore.

Tony Snow's exact quote today (as quoted on CNN), presumably referring to the various resolutions being debated in the Senate about the Bush/McCain escalation plan for Iraq:

Osama bin Laden thought that a lack of American resolve was a key reason why he could inspire people to come after us on September 11th. I am not accusing members of the Senate of inviting carnage on the United States of America. I'm simply saying you think about what impact it may have.

Bush should have thought about what impact it would have on terrorists when he invaded Iraq without a plan or strategy. We know from the nation's 16 intelligence agencies that the Iraq war has been a boon to terrorists.

Bush's war in Iraq has been a failure. Bush's war against terror has been a failure. Bush's presidency has been a failure. The fact that Tony Snow can even invoke Bin Laden just sums it all up. Read the rest of this post...

FBI agent just testified that Libby told her he first heard Plame name from Cheney - contradicts Libby's earlier claim he heard name from Russert

From Editor & Publisher:

After a long day or legal wrangling and no witnesses, an FBI agent took the stand shortly before 3 p.m. She is Deborah Bond, a 19 year veteran, called into the probe of who may have leaked name of classified agent.

She described the bueau's interview with Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Oct. 14, 2003. Asked where he first learned of Plame, he had told the FBI -- from the vice president, on June 12 that year.

Vice President Cheney had also said that she worked in "CP" or counter-proliferation at the agency. How did Cheney know this? From someone at the CIA -- possibly director George Tenet, but Libby wasn't sure.

How to explain Libby originally claiming he had first heard name from NBC's Tim Russert in July He had simply forgotten he had actually heard it from the vice president a month or more earlier. He said it was actually Russert who asked him if he knew that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked at the agency and, allegedly, other reporters knew this. Then Libby told other reporters about it, including Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

Read the rest of this post...

Enter the Twilight Zone: Top US commander in Iraq says maybe we only need half the troops Bush wants to send for "surge"

This is becoming absurd. They have no idea what they're doing. The proposal Bush accepted said we needed 35,000 or so troops. Bush chose to send 21,000, even though the generals told him that's not enough. Now another general, the top guy in Iraq, is telling us that we only need half the 21,000 that Bush wants to send.

They have no idea what they're doing. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: Bush "surge" likely sending DOUBLE the number of troops to Iraq - 35,000 to 48,000 - NOT 21,000

Shit gonna hit fan, fast.

Leaked Congressional Budget Office report says real number of Bush troop surge is between 35,000 and 48,000 additional troops.

UPDATE: And that $5.6 billion Bush asked for to pay for the "surge," it was a lie too. From CBO:

CBO estimates that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment...

In the best case scenario, this will be a four-month deployment. That means the cost will be around two times what Bush claimed. Read the rest of this post...

Potential advertisers, take note: We're now allowing XML feeds in our blogads

What that means is that your ad on this site can now look like the Reuters box at the top of the left hand column. (The Reuters feed is a free demo we're doing.) You'll notice that the box shows you the latest political headlines from Reuters, constantly updated, and anyone can click any link and go directly to the specific story on Reuters.

What does this mean for our advertisers? It means that you can put links to your Web site content on AMERICAblog, live, and change them an infinite number of times throughout the day.

Let me give you some examples.

1. The New York Times or CNN can feature the headlines of their latest 5 or 10 stories, with direct links to those stories, updating the list every few minutes (I believe the new ads update the XML feed every 15 minutes or so).

2. The John Edwards presidential campaign, or Hillary, or Obama or anyone else, can literally buy a box on the blog in which they can showcase, real-time, the latest headlines from their Web site or blog, with direct links to that content.

3. Circuit City can showcase specific products on sale today or this week, with links to those products. A movie studio, or ad agency, can list, with links, all of its movies released this week. Or a bookstore can list its latest (or best-selling) books, again with direct links to where one can purchase the book.

4. Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, or the ACLU can own a box on our blog - as prominent as they're willing to pay - in which they can constantly stream their latest action alerts and press releases.

5. A public relations firm can finally get the blogs to cover their clients' story - just buy the ad and stream the story(ies).

6. Any blog, political, tech, or any other kind, can literally put their latest content on AMERICAblog, inviting our readers to pop on over and read what they have to say.

The beauty of this new ad template is that you can finally solve that age old question, "how do I get the blogs to report my stuff." You can report your stuff yourself via these constantly updated blogad feeds. And unlike a typical blogad that states relatively static, this ad can be updated a practically infinite number of times throughout the day. You literally have your own mini-Web site incorporated in our Web site.

HOW TO BUY AN AD

For now, this new feature is in beta form - meaning, we're still working out the kinks, so keep that in mind if you buy an ad. Because we're still working out the kinks, we are not charging any extra, at the moment, for this feature (and let's face it, if your content is good, I believe you'll get far more clicks on an ad like this than a standard static ad). In fact, this week only, we'll even double your ad for free (read more below).

Here's how to place an ad:

- First, use the links below to go to our ad-buying page on BlogAds.com.
- Then, select a "standard" ad.
- Next, in order to submit an XML-feed ad, in the portion of the ad template that asks for your ad text, you only insert your XML feed (XML only at the moment) preceded by the following 5 characters @RSS:

So, were you to want to buy an ad that streams AMERICAblog's latest content, you would insert the following in the text portion of the ad:

@RSS:http://feeds.feedburner.com/Americablog

That's it. And be forewarned, if we get too many requests for these ads at the same time, we will be forced to queue them up so that we don't have too many feeds running at the same time. So, first come, first serve. If you need more help figuring all this out, contact BlogAds directly via their Web form.

In order to buy a new XML-feed ad on AMERICAblog, you have two options for where on the blog your ad will be placed:

1. The top position in the left-hand column, where only one ad runs at a time - so you own this spot exclusively, guaranteed always on top. This is the spot the Reuters feed is currently running in. (If you buy an ad, we'll remove the Reuters feed.)

2. The middle position on the site (middle price), where you see the New York Times, Chuck Schumer, and Freedom to Marry Week ads. These ads are cheaper than the top ad, but they are also lower down on the site.

We are currently not accepting XML-feed ads in the lowest-position-ad on the site, where you see the "Gay Agenda" ad. Any XML ad purchased in that spot will be rejected.

And to sweeten the deal, if you buy a one-week or two-week XML-feed ad this week only, we will double your ad for free. That means, if you buy one week, we'll run your ad for two. And if you buy two weeks, we'll run your ad for one full month. This special offer does not apply to 1-month or 3-month ad buys.

I'm very excited about this, and think this will be of great benefit to advertisers and our readers. Read the rest of this post...

McCain scapegoats top general for Bush's Iraq mess

John McCain to the rescue... of George Bush, again. Who does John McCain think is responsible for the disaster in Iraq? Not George Bush, but rather, our generals on the ground. It's as if Bush is a child, never responsible for anything because, you know, he's kind of young and slow. McCain is digging his political grave here, and it's not clear why. The far-right of the party, the folks who support this war still, hate him because he's hates them. The rest of us, all 70% of us, think this war is a disaster and blame George Bush. So why is McCain triangulating for an audience that doesn't exist? Kind of crazy. Read the rest of this post...

Religious right misleads its followers in massive email blitz about weekend peace march

What a surprise. Two of the largest and angriest groups of the religious right, the American Family Association (known for its failed boycotts of American companies that support civil rights) and the Family Research Council (known for its obsessive homophobia), were caught misleading their followers this week in an effort to denigrate the United States Capitol Police, the folks risking their lives to protect our members of Congress.

In separate emails, the AFA and FRC defamed the United States Capitol police by claiming that they knowingly permitted a small handful of individuals to deface the US Capitol during this weekend's anti-Iraq-war protest. AFA and FRC even urged their followers to contact Speaker Pelosi's office to complain about the apparently deficient police officers defending our nation's capitol. (One group even suggested that perhaps Pelosi herself had ordered the police to allow the graffiti!)

Only problem? The AFA and the FRC got the story totally, 100%, wrong. The two far-right groups siced their alleged millions of members (that's what AFA claims, though we don't buy it) on the Capitol Police, berating them for not doing their job. That's why the Capitol Police were now forced to respond and set the record straight.

First off, before we hear from the Capitol Police, let's see what AFA and FRC alleged (untruths in bold).

From an AFA email sent today:

War protesters allowed to spray paint the U.S. Capitol

Capitol Chief of Police tell officers not to arrest anyone

Dear xxxxx,

During last Saturday's Washington rally protesting the war in Iraq, hundreds of anti-war protesters were allowed to desecrate government property by spray painting the Capitol with anarchist symbols. I did not see or hear any report of this in any of the mainline media outlets!

Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse ordered his officers to fall back and allow the protesters to exercise what he called "their First Amendment rights" to spray paint the Capitol steps with graffiti. Defending his actions, Morse said, "The graffiti was easily removed by the staff. It is our duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, while allowing the public to exercise their freedom of speech." He even ordered his officers not to arrest anyone!

The war protesters were given access and leniency to deface government property. According to Family Research Council, public employees had to come in on their day off, at taxpayers' expense, to clean up the mess the protesters left behind.

And here is what the Family Research Council told its followers:

...the anti-Bush protestors were given unprecedented access to the U.S. Capitol grounds, and some of them used that access to publicly deface taxpayer's property. According to the local newspaper, The Hill, the protesters were allowed to take the Capitol steps and they began to spray-paint "anarchist symbols" and phrases such as "Our capitol building" and "You can't stop us" around the area.

For any other group, such acts would mean immediate arrest. This time, the Capitol police's hands were tied because they were ordered to stand down by their Chief of Police, who answers to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)....

According to the news reports the rank and file police officers were "livid" that they were ordered not to arrest anyone. Since the Capitol police answer to Speaker Pelosi, the question arises, did the Chief of Police give the "no arrest" order or did it come from someone else? Whoever is responsible for the order needs to explain why the physical destruction of taxpayer property is acceptable.

Too bad that most of what they wrote their followers isn't true per the Capitol Police themselves. Let's walk our way through the charges, and then see what the Capitol Police chief had to say:

1. ALLEGATION: The Capitol Police "allowed" the protesters to spray paint the US Capitol - the police saw the protesters defacing the property and did nothing about it because the chief of police ordered his fellow officers to let the evil protesters do whatever they wanted.

TRUTH: The Police had no idea that a small group was defacing anything, and had they seen the defacement, there would have been immediate arrests. And I quote the chief of police:

Some members of this group did covertly mark the pavement on the Lower West Terrace during their confrontation with us. Had this been observed, I would have directed arrests to be made. However, the size and continual movement of the crowd provided concealment and made detection of their actions impossible. Once the crowd dispersed, I was appalled and disgusted that any individual, whatever their cause, would deface the grounds of the Capitol. Fortunately, due to the notable efforts of the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, their signs of disrespect were quickly washed away.

2. ALLEGATION: The protesters were permitted to take to the Capitol steps where they painted the steps with graffiti.

TRUTH: From the chief, "We held our lines; no one entered into secure areas; and no one climbed the steps of the Capitol or even got close to any of the doors or windows."

3. ALLEGATION: The anti-Bush protesters were given "unprecedented access to the Capitol grounds."

TRUTH: From the chief, "At the end of the day, the splinter group was only allowed to be in areas that are otherwise open to the public at anytime of the day or night."

And now, the right wing blogs are getting involved, spurred on by the religious right groups, and they're asking their readers to harass the Capitol Police. Imagine that, trying to close down the phone lines of a police department - and not just any police department, but the police department in charge of protecting our members of Congress from the terrorists.

The untruths spread by the likes of the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are now quite literallly endangering the ability of the Capitol Police to do their jobs.

So there you have it. Whether they're simply sloppy with the truth, or outright liars, the religious right has proven again why it simply can't be trusted. It always lets its anger, rather than its heart, guide its action. Not very Christian. Read the rest of this post...

More deadly evidence that "Support the troops" is just a talking point for the GOP

Republicans talk about supporting the troops, like White House puppet John Cornyn did yesterday when he was trashing his colleague, John Warner:

“To offer nonbinding resolutions which encourage our enemies and undermine our allies and deflate the morale of our troops is, to me, the worst of all possible worlds,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.

It's bad enough that Bush and the GOP haven't provided the right equipment for our soldiers as the Department of Defense Inspector General reported yesterday. That is bad enough. But, Senator Cornyn and any other GOPer who talks about supporting the troops should meet Jonathan Schulze. Well, it's too late to meet him. The young Iraq vet died of post-traumatic stress disorder -- and neglect. But, they need to know his story. It's appalling.

Talk is cheap. And all we get from Republicans is cheap talk to cover up failed policy. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

The Today Show and other "news' shows have spent way more time talking about Miss USA and her rehab from partying than they have about all the wounded U.S. soldiers who are in rehab to rebuild their lives. Her woes are not news. Their struggles should be.

Okay, start cranking...what do we need to know. Read the rest of this post...

Shell would just like to take a minute to thank all of you out there

Another record quarter. Isn't it time for the GOP to give them another handout? They look like they need some help because enough is never enough. Read the rest of this post...

Election heating up in France - dirty tricks or smears?

Just as the US election is wrapped up, France is now moving quickly into high gear for the elections which are in the spring. Yesterday the "hot" scandal was about Sarkozy - the center-right candidate - who supposedly used his influence as the Interior Minister to track down his son's motor scooter which was one among thousands and thousands of missing motos. Yawn and big shock on that story. Favoritism, sure, but a big deal? No. Today's story is a much bigger deal though and one that could really take off because it plays into the fears that many have of Sarkozy, which is that he is power hungry and will play outside of the rules to get what he wants even if that means using the state to attack opponents.

Accusations were made last week that M. Sarkozy's office had prompted an investigation by the Renseignements Generaux (RG) - similar to MI5 or Special Branch - into one of Mme Royal's advisers. Yesterday, the newspaper which made the allegation, Le Canard Enchaine, said a senior officer in the RG had also ordered an investigation last November into property owned by Mme Royal and her partner, Francois Hollande.

The newspaper did not state directly that the investigation had been ordered by M. Sarkozy. It pointed out, however, that a member of M. Sarkozy's centre-right party had placed information about the value of Mme Royal and M. Hollande's three properties on the internet earlier this month together with an - inaccurate - allegation that they were evading wealth tax.

It's no wonder he's chummy with Bush and Blair if these allegations are true. Read the rest of this post...

Al Franken is running for Senate

The news always hits just as I'm getting ready to sign off. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Chris should be awake in Paris in an hour or two... Read the rest of this post...