US Politics?

[RichPundit]

Originally Posted by clueless1der

CommaSutra1der: "Is it a bad thing that I actually derived pleasure from the stadium people boooooooooooo-ing when Double Ya threw out the first pitch? "

LostGrrl: ... "Crazy how for a period of time after 9/11 our newsmen really rolled over for them."

Sorry TTSers, still can't figure out multiquotes with/without the labeled button or our Master TailHook's kind help.

Am confident that our lavish living Neocons are true American Patriots, but serve the wrong masters and are therefore misguided, even despicable in their rabid and ruthless behaviours. Cheney's dismissive response to a comment that a large majority of Americans do not feel our Iraqi war is justified is clear recent evidence. Also directly related, a majority of Israelis and US Jews have almost always not supported settlements outside Israel which is clearly illegal, yet settlements have continued unabetted for over 40 years ... perhaps a reason to support Obama who is less politically captive and more moralistic. The loong-term and continuing costs to both the US and Israel are enormous beyond simply HUGE $$$'s.

However fyi: think the below is an interesting WSJ editorial about pre-Iraq intelligence, that even mentions evil Richard Pearle buddy Chalabi. It illustrates that both the news and politics are really businesses with individuals maximizing their personal wealth including beyond simple $$$'s. Of course, the WSJ still believes even in face of actual resulting data, that our Iraq war is "well-justified". imho, despicable IDIOTS that deserve ... !

Namaste - RichPundit

	March 29, 2008

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Curveball Revisited March 29, 2008; Page A8 In the long history of U.S. intelligence fiascos, few have been as minutely examined as the "Curveball" episode – the source whose fraudulent claims were largely responsible for the pre-Iraq War view that Saddam Hussein possessed biological weapons. So it's worth noting what a new, remarkable report from the German magazine Der Spiegel tells us about the spy who lied. According to media legend, Curveball was a creation of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who headed the exiled Iraqi National Congress before Saddam's overthrow. That notion was destroyed in 2005 with the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report on intelligence. But the myth persists in many circles that, through Curveball, Mr. Chalabi had conned his neocon friends, who in turn had conned President Bush, who in turn had pressured a reluctant but spineless CIA into giving him the "intelligence" he needed to make the case for war. But Curveball was nobody's stooge. On the contrary, he is Rafid Ahmed Alwan, an opportunistic Iraqi asylum-seeker who came to Germany in 1999. His claims to having inside knowledge of Saddam's illicit weapons program quickly made him a prized asset of Germany's intelligence service, the BND. So convinced were the Germans of the reliability of his information that in the fall of 2001 they purchased 35 million doses of smallpox vaccine for fear of what Saddam might be cooking up. More remarkable is that even after September 11 – when then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised "infinite solidarity" with the U.S. – the German government refused to allow the CIA to interview Curveball in person. Often, the Germans resorted to dishonest pretexts for their lack of cooperation, such as that Curveball didn't speak English, when in fact he spoke it fluently (and as if nobody in the CIA spoke German or Arabic). "It was a blockade that made it impossible for any other service to validate his information," David Kay, who ran the Iraq Survey Group that looked for WMD after the war, told Der Spiegel. BND nonetheless sent some 100 reports about Curveball's information to the CIA. And while doubts about Curveball's credibility began to emerge on both sides of the Atlantic as early as 2000, the Germans persisted in believing him. In November 2002, according to Der Spiegel, Curveball's disclosures formed the centerpiece of a top secret briefing by the BND to the foreign affairs committee of the German parliament. This caused one of those who were briefed to note the "enormous discrepancy between the public statements made by the government" – which opposed the war and downplayed the Iraq threat – "and the knowledge it had in its possession." None of this is to say that U.S. intelligence didn't commit its own grave analytical blunders, in turn compounded by the usual bureaucratic infighting, buck-passing and miscommunication. Nor is it very likely that the war's course would have changed had Curveball's fabrications been exposed sooner. But it might have prompted the Bush Administration to rely less on the WMD issue in its broader, and well-justified, case for the need to get rid of the Butcher of Baghdad. As for Germany, it has yet to really account for its own large contribution to the bad intelligence – intelligence it later pretended never to have believed in the first place. If the Curveball story teaches anything, it's that the intelligence failures regarding Iraq were world-wide and included many of those who would later become the war's fiercest critics.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[lost_grrl]

Interesting article...and exactly opposite of what the Frontline show said about the situation. According to Frontline, both the Germans and the US intelligence community said from the jump that Curveball was a crappy source who would basically say anything he needed to to get what he wanted.

The Chalabi issue is a great example of what happened again and again throughout the planning and early stages of the Iraq invasion. Wolfowitz must have been indebted to Chalaby for something because his rabid defense of Chalaby and the Iraqi National Congress even when everyone else were correctly pointing out that the INC had devolved from its original purpose (unite various anti-Saddam groups) into a self-serving group of rich exiles who had no connection to or support from Iraqis living in Iraq. Chalaby held press conferences and rallies in the days after we took Baghdad and nobody knew who the hell he was or wanted to listen to him. He had no credibility with the international community and no credibility (or even widespread recognition) with Iraqi citizens.

Regardless of this, Wolfowitz pushed incessantly for Chalaby to head the new Irai government. The issue was one of the biggest issues that divided the Defense Department and State. Apparently the issue caused very heated words between the two departments. Richard Armitage said that long standing friendships and professional relationships were destroyed by the Chalaby issue--including his own previously amiable relationship with Wolfowitz.

I find it just horrifying that in circumstances as important as this--war--the people who were making the decisions were so combative towards each other. It really was similar to playground bullying. Until the Neocons were ousted, compromise and discussion were not part of the war planning. It was their way or no way, regardless of logic or consequence.

[RichPundit]

Hmmmm, seems that this interesting forum thread is fading, even burned out ... perhaps thru massive defections by "good ones". There have been no posts in over 3 weeeks even tho' we are clearly at a critical time in our political war.

Below is an interesting, albeit obvious, NYTimes column by NeoCon William Kristol [Bad Dad Irving] about the truths and benefits of an Obama/Hillary, no media moderator, Lincoln-like debate. Hillary proposes, Obama rejects!

For fun, I think that: Hurley, Claire, Charlie, & Locke support Obama; Ben, Juliet, Kate, Desmond/Penny, & Jack support Hillary; Widmore, Sawyer (?), Sayid (?), & of course Keamy support "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain. Personally, I still think that Hillary is our best choice among flawed choices, tho' think that Obama would radically help we Americans break away from our Middle East chokehold ["Shimi-Waza"], so Obama is my 2nd choice with a pile of reservations.

Always enjoy! Namaste - RichPundit [WOW, am I LOST!]

btw, saw that Jimmy Carter also has a NYTimes column this morning about his Middle East "Pariah Diplomacy", and Fareed Z. of Newsweek explains McCain/Republican's idiot foreign policy ... may post about them if anyone cares since directly relevant to the continuing failures on every issue after almost 8 years of dominating power.

---

April 28, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary Gets No Respect

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
I normally don’t claim to speak for other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. After all, we’re each nefarious in our own, individual way. Indeed, we often disagree with one another.

But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate. She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall — first in New Hampshire, then in several big primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, and then last week in Pennsylvania, where she was outspent by almost 3 to 1, yet won handily.

She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories.
But Hillary may well be the better candidate. After all, for all the talk of Obama’s extraordinary ability to draw voters to the polls, Clinton has defeated him in the big states, including California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama won his home state of Illinois, but she won Florida, where both were on the ballot but didn’t campaign.

Furthermore, if you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses — excluding Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot), and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported — Clinton now trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total. By the end of the nominating contest, she may well be ahead on this benchmark — one not entirely to be scorned in a democracy.

Hillary has achieved this despite much disparagement of her candidacy by liberal commentators, and in the face of the media’s crush on Obama. Even those who started out being well disposed to Clinton have moved toward Obama, if only out of concern that the prolonged race is damaging Democratic prospects in the fall.

Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, “Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?”

Obama chose a nice word: “anguished.” You’re only anguished by an Obama defeat if you’re rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he’d win. Now, they’re rooting for him to close the deal.

That’s fine. If I were on the left I might be rooting for that too. But this focus on Obama has resulted in a refusal to give Hillary her due. It’s startling how much of the commentary on the Pennsylvania results has had to do with Obama’s flaws and mistakes — rather than Hillary’s strengths and successes. Maybe in Pennsylvania, they were voting for Clinton, not simply against Obama.

Which leads to this question: Will the media this week give Obama a pass on refusing to debate Clinton before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6? Will he be chastised for his lame excuse? “We’ve had 21, and so what we’ve said is with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we’re talking to as many folks as possible on the ground, taking questions from voters,” Obama said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Will it be left to conservatives like the estimable blogger “Allahpundit” (at hotair.com) to (sarcastically) state the obvious? “What’s the most efficient way to communicate with voters? Surely not at a massively promoted, televised, highly watched debate. Much better to hold a few town halls and meet and greets.”

We have had four one-on-one debates so far — and each has been revealing. A debate without a moderator, as Clinton has suggested, could be particularly interesting. But debates would give Clinton equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama’s advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant.

On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.

Will Obama pay no price for ducking? Should paid advertisements determine the Democratic victor, not the performance of the two candidates debating at length in an unscripted setting?

Over to you, anguished liberals.

[clueless1der]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Hmmmm, seems that this interesting forum thread is fading, even burned out ... perhaps thru massive defections by "good ones". There have been no posts in over 3 weeeks even tho' we are clearly at a critical time in our political war.

Speaking for myself, my computer has been dead. I haven't been posting much of anywhere!

Originally Posted by RichPundit

For fun, I think that: Hurley, Claire, Charlie, & Locke support Obama; Ben, Juliet, Kate, Desmond/Penny, & Jack support Hillary; Widmore, Sawyer (?), Sayid (?), & of course Keamy support "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain.

Oh I don't know.... I can see Sayid dusting off a Nader '04 Badge... hehe. I bet he keeps it next to his unexhaustable supply of TORCHA SCRUNCHIES....

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Shimi-Waza

Huh?

[RichPundit]

Loong-time Republican/Neocon Middle East performance & results clearly BITE - RichPundit

[Gartism]

Are politics worse outside of the US? Or is the US just a decent focal point for doing things the L-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-N-G, Bass-Ackwards Way?

[RichPundit]

"We did it! John McCain renounced Hagee!


After disturbing new audiotape surfaced of Rev. Hagee saying that God sent Hitler to cause the Holocaust so that Jews would move to Israel, tens of thousands of J Street and MoveOn activists signed a petition asking McCain to finally renounce Hagee's endorsement. Soon after we launched the action, John McCain announced that he was rejecting Hagee's endorsement. We did it!
Unfortunately, Hagee's ties to mainstream American politicians and prominent Jewish leaders remain deep. McCain's rejection of Hagee's endorsement is by no means the end of J Street's efforts to rid the American political scene of Hagee's hateful rhetoric. Stay tuned for our upcoming campaigns."

While I am for a much broader Mideast strategy approach far beyond misguided, reckless and sophomoric Israel, think that "J Street" is good for all, particularly Israel - RichPundit

[RichPundit]

Memorial Weekend 2008.

imho, as our closest ally Churchill said at the White House in 1954: it is always better to Jaw, Jaw tha to War, War - RichPundit




Washington DC, May 23, 2008
Issue # 369

The Dangers of Diplomacy: There Aren’t Any

Dore Gold, a former official in several Likud governments, is appalled at reports that the Israeli government has entered into serious negotiations with Syria.
“In a period in which Iran is on the march and extending its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider giving up the Golan Heights would be a strategic blunder of the highest order,” he said. Not surprisingly, Gold has it backwards. I say “not surprisingly” because Gold was one of the more vocal proponents of the idea that a U.S. invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein would make Israel safer. Instead, the invasion gravely damaged Israel’s security by essentially handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.
There is then real irony in Gold expressing concern about Iranian “influence” in Iraq when it comes from the camp that is responsible for it. But that does not mean that Gold is wrong about the dangerous situation that is evolving to Israel’s north. It is just that his conclusion is wrong.
Israel needs to pursue an agreement precisely because the situation is so bad and will, if left alone, get worse. And not just a little worse.
Last week’s agreement between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah clearly puts the Shiite organization on top. Hezbollah rules. The only reason it has not taken formal control of Lebanon is that it chooses not to.
But Hezbollah doesn’t have to formally take control to pose a terrible threat to Israel. It can, and will, move against Israel when it decides to and no one in Lebanon has the power to stop it.
That could mean resumption of the 2006 war, but this time with thousands of long-range missiles that can reach all the way to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Unlike the Iranian nuclear threat—which remains theoretical at this point—conventional missile attacks on Israeli cities could happen tomorrow. Deterring them is Israel’s highest strategic priority especially as summer approaches, which is often war season in the Middle East.
And that is why talking to the Syrians makes sense. The Lebanese government cannot stop Hezbollah from launching those missiles. Only their patrons in Damascus and Tehran can do that.
There are those (and they have been quite vocal lately) who say that engaging in negotiations is a gift to the other side and that negotiating is a form of surrender. What hogwash!
In 1971, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt told the Israelis that if Israel would pull back two miles from the Suez Canal, Egypt would open negotiations on a full peace treaty. President Richard Nixon told Prime Minister Golda Meir to explore the offer and that if she didn’t, Egypt would probably go to war. Meir said “no,” Israel was strong and didn’t fear Egypt. So Sadat prepared for war.
Two years later Egypt attacked. Israel lost 3,000 soldiers and almost the state itself. Only then did it agree to negotiations that ultimately led to the Camp David agreement, which has saved countless Israeli and Egyptian lives over three decades. It also led Israel to a situation where it relinquished not a few miles of Sinai but every last inch.
In other words, it is not diplomacy that rewards aggressors and would be aggressors. It is the absence of diplomacy or inept diplomacy.
Not everybody understands that. Charles Krauthammer writes in today’s Washington Post that one must never negotiate with rogue states or organizations without preconditions.
You know, like the preconditions Congress likes to apply to negotiations with the Palestinians. These have included banning anti-Israel remarks in mosques, rewriting their already rewritten textbooks, converting to Judaism but only by a certified Orthodox rabbi. Okay, that last one was a joke. Krauthammer favors setting preconditions that will deter negotiations in contrast to achieving goals in the context of negotiations.
In the same column Krauthammer says that it was okay to deal with Stalin, the worst butcher in world history, because he was our “ally.” Some ally! And that is just the point, FDR dealt with the Soviet thug because it was necessary to our security. That should be the only criterion.
Frankly, I have never been comfortable with the idea that the United States negotiated with, and has now opened relations with, the Qadaffi regime in Libya. It is not only one of the most repressive governments on earth; it also shot down a Pan Am plane killing 200 American kids on their way home from semester abroad programs in Europe twenty years ago.
But the Bush administration negotiated a deal with Libya anyway. Similarly, despite the rhetoric, Israel is indirectly negotiating with Hamas and has been for months.
The United States negotiated with Libya not as a gift to a murderous junta but because the Bush administration believed that getting Libya to end its nuclear weapons program was a vital American interest. The same with Israel and Hamas. Israel is negotiating with Hamas because there are things Hamas can provide that Israel wants—like an end to the shelling of Sderot and freedom for Gilad Shalit.
Ehud Olmert understands that. He is negotiating with the Syrians to achieve a verifiable agreement that will compel Syria to get out of Lebanon, end its support for Hezbollah and its role as Iranian proxy on Israel’s border. The strategic value of the Golan would be replaced by early warning systems, demilitarized zones, and international monitors.
Will he succeed in reaching an agreement? I am not optimistic. The Syrians seem to want the Golan but not at the price of full recognition of Israel. There is little indication that they have any intention of repeating the kind of gesture Sadat made when he came to Jerusalem although President Assad has said that he accepts the concept of full normalization, as expressed in the Arab Initiative of 2002.
But a dramatic gesture of some kind is essential to convince Israelis that Syria is serious. The Israeli public is not eager to leave the Golan. Israelis might be ready to relinquish the Heights in exchange for full peace and normalization but it certainly won’t in exchange for a peace treaty that is little more than a formal end of belligerency.
Nonetheless, I hope the two sides keep talking. One never knows what kind of breakthrough can occur when the parties to a conflict are negotiating, even indirectly. But everyone knows no breakthroughs will come if leaders refuse to negotiate.
Olmert deserves U.S. support for negotiating with Assad. Similarly, the United States needs to negotiate with Iran on all the issues that divide us, starting with its nuclear program, its backing of terrorists in Iraq, and its alliance with Hezbollah. What has the United States accomplished by stonewalling?
You talk not because it benefits the other side but because it benefits you. You refuse to talk when your preference is confrontation, not resolution. It is that simple.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center

---

Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by Gartism

Are politics worse outside of the US?

Pretty much.. yes. The United States still has one of the most civil internal political systems on the planet. Not that there isn't roughhousing from time to time... but you don't see it degenerate into coups and/or civil wars. *A lot* of countries can't say that.

Originally Posted by Gartism

Or is the US just a decent focal point for doing things the L-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-N-G, Bass-Ackwards Way?

When you're the champ.. everyone wants a go at ya(sometimes your own people). For every person griping about our system.. there are 3 more looking to jump the border fence. It aint for the exercise.

-TH

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by RichPundit

Hmmmm, seems that this interesting forum thread is fading, even burned out ... perhaps thru massive defections by "good ones". There have been no posts in over 3 weeeks even tho' we are clearly at a critical time in our political war.

I'll see what I can do about that.

---

But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton.

---

Sounds about right.

---

Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

---

Nope!

---

The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate.

---

Not really.. no. Wasn't when she started.. still isn't.

---

She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall — first in New Hampshire, then in several big primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, and then last week in Pennsylvania, where she was outspent by almost 3 to 1, yet won handily.

---

There were always Obama States and always Clinton States. People didn't get a really definitive view at the start but its pretty clear now. He took the well educated, young, and African American votes... she played well to older women, the middle-class working Democrats, and Appalachian Hill-Bill-ies. As per the 3 to 1 horse****... spending the money closed the gap.. which in a proportional system is key. You can lose states.. just try not to get routed. Had Hillary even competed in the caucus states and pulled them somewhat close this would be a whole different ballgame. She tanked the small states and paid the price.

Whats really been digusting is the last couple of weeks. One thing Hillary Rodham Clinton never understood or has yet to understand is that sometimes in politics *there are no clear cut winners*. You can take results if they're close and twist them this way and that and throw 1000 lawyers at the problem while you defend your negative(as in delegate count in this case) position and drag this out trying to claim victory on some point or another. Gore could have done that and I think Hillary doesn't really understand why he didn't. And he didn't because sometimes *there are no clear cut winners* and the guy(or woman) in the negative position needs to back down.

In the case of 2000... that was Gore. In the case of Obama V. Clinton... thats Clinton. If you look at history.. every single time that the guy in the negative position *didn't* back down and they went full bore(say to a convention).. the party has always suffered as a result. It has never been viewed as a 'noble' thing or a 'heroic' thing.. it is what it is... a candidates ego getting between whats best for them and whats best for the party and not allowing them to do the right thing.

Btw.. Rich... what did you think of her Hillbilly call to arms against Obama? Easily the most disgusting thing I've ever seen a candidate say. She'd better PRAY that he stays safe or she'll be blamed for it... especially if the perpetrator turns out to be one of her Appalachian supporters.

-TH