You don't think the recent spike in "Bush Crimes" rhetoric in the fever swamps is an attempt to obscure the manifest progress in Iraq, do you?

Jane Hamsher is cool, calm and very collected as she advocates the extreme remedy for George Bush´s deeds. Smiling! Shouldn´t she have a least a scowl? I would hate to have her use tweezers to extract a splinter from my foot!

Quoting edhesq: You don't think the recent spike in "Bush Crimes" rhetoric in the fever swamps is an attempt to obscure the manifest progress in Iraq, do you?

It couldn't be a reaction to the perception that Bush&Co have committed crimes. "Manifest progress" in Iraq? How far would we have to climb just to find ourselves at parity to the situation when Saddam still had his foot on the collective throat of the entire nation?

I guess it's a matter of priorities

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. “Barack Obama will not be coming to us,” a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. “I don’t know why.” Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

Wow what a class act for the future CIC. I guess his foreign fans take priority over those Americans that have paid the price.

Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, “we’ve got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? …I’ve never been to Berlin, so…I would love to tour around a little bit.”

No it's about not missing the sights!

What an excellent diavlog. Good catch getting Mr Fein to come on BHTV. The most impassioned vocalization of what many of us feel is the most disgusting degradation of American values, that I've heard yet. America's ambivalence on these core issues has been really sad. And congress has been complicit all the way. The forefathers are rolling in their graves for sure. Jane was excellent as always.

And if he did go? The conservative response: "How dare a man who never spent a day in uniform try to use our wounded heroes for a cheap campaign photo op blah blah blah..."

Since honor and commitment are two of the stalwarts of the Military Services I wonder how the individual service members will see it. I could really care less how the pundits manipulate it.

CNN reports today:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (CNN) -- A former army commander in Argentina was sentenced to life in prison Thursday for his role in the kidnapping, torture and death of four activists in 1977.

Luciano Benjamin Menendez led a major branch of the Argentine military during a "dirty war" that led to the torture and death of thousands of people in secret detention centers.

A junta that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983 launched the "dirty war" against dissidents and subversives.

About 13,000 people were killed during the dictatorship, according to official numbers, but human rights groups claim the number is closer to 30,000, The Associated Press reported.

Judges sentenced Menendez to life in prison for the kidnapping of four young militants in the Revolutionary Worker's Party in November 1977, according to Telam, the Argentine National News Agency.

Four former officials received the same sentence Thursday for their roles in the kidnapping and torture of the four students. Three others were sentenced to between 18 and 22 years in prison.

Several legislators were present for the sentencing, along with the nation's top human rights official and prominent human rights activists.

Menendez claimed he had acted in a "war to

Gosh, Jane seems to be batting nearly a 1000 here. She seems always to bring a first-class DV. So refreshing to hear Bruce Fein calling it like it is, cutting through all the political theatre of the Primaries. Thanks to both. EW

Yes, great contribution to Bheads. I had heard Bruce Fein speak a couple of years ago with the same brilliance and passion. Kudos to Jane for giving him the time necessary to illuminate us all on this subject. We need people like Bob Barr, Dennis Kucinich and Bruce Fein all on the same page regarding the abuse of presidential power. The "litmus test" idea that Bruce raises is an interesting one.

Quoting edhesq: ... the manifest progress in Iraq...

Amazing how many Republicans think just saying the same empty phrase over and over again somehow makes it true.

I couldn't care less that Obama doesn't go for a cheap Bushian photo op at a military hospital. The only people who want to make a big deal out of this are people who aren't going to vote for him anyway. You want to measure real support from a politician for the troops? Look at the different voting records between Obama and McCain on veterans' benefits. Start here. Many more details here. Compare the relevant pages on the campaign sites for Obama and McCain. Note how McCain's is mostly history (i.e., pre-flip-flop) and gooey pronouncements -- it's all "John McCain has" and "John McCain believes." Note, by contrast, how many specific plans Obama proposes.

It's Senator Obama's choice whether or not it is a photo op. And note how art fully they are worded to support both yea and nay.

Quoting piscivorous: It's Senator Obama's choice whether or not it is a photo op.

Incorrect. It would be nothing more than a photo op. His choice is whether to hold one or not. And Jyminee is right: If he did go, he'd get nothing but criticism and mockery from most of the loudmouths on the right. And what would they say? Exactly this: "Obama thinks he can get mileage out of a cheap photo op. I call bullshit."

Related to this fine diavlog, Slate has posted a heavily linkified article, titled "Crimes and Misdemeanors: Who in the Bush administration broke the law, and who could be prosecuted?" Their conclusions are nicely presented in an accompanying interactive graphic. (Text-only version also available.)

Here is a man that purports to be able to effect the rise of the oceans and he can't even control the fawning press. I'm impressed!

Incorrect. It would be nothing more than a photo op.

How the left views the troops (wounded ones at that) can't be put any better. Nothing to be gained by visiting those who serve except advertising. And a true leader would be able to deal with any partisan critcism. I would agree however, if these terms were used to describe his ad blitz at the Western Wall.

If he did go, he'd get nothing but criticism and mockery from most of the loudmouths on the right

Hilarious that one of the 12 percenters would call anyone else a 'loudmouth'.

The most impassioned vocalization of what many of us feel is the most disgusting degradation of American values, that I've heard yet.

America's ambivalence on these core issues has been really sad. And congress has been complicit all the way. The forefathers are rolling in their graves for sure.

Don't forget to add Dem members of Congress to the show trials after BO takes office. It's so funny watching Hamsher, Fein, Moyers, Nichols and others who for years have told us impeachment was just around the corner stewing in their own juices of dishonesty. And

Quoting harkin: How the left views the troops (wounded ones at that) can't be put any better. Nothing to be gained by visiting those who serve except advertising.

Correct. As we have been saying about Bush for years now. The right, unfortunately, still believes there is something substantial to this phoniness.

And a true leader would be able to deal with any partisan critcism.

Thanks for your admission that George Bush and John McCain are anything but true leaders. =============== By the way, harkin, your last blockquote appears to be attributed to me. Not that I disagree with it, but those words were penned by uncle eb, and he deserves the credit. You should correct your post, unless you want to keep up the right's usual tradition of disregarding the truth.

By the way, harkin, your last blockquote appears to be attributed to me. Not that I disagree with it, but those words were penned by uncle eb, and he deserves the credit. You should correct your post, unless you want to keep up the right's usual tradition of disregarding the truth.

Wrong again. Considering that none were attributed to you I can only guess that you think that since you favor quantity over quality, that any post not specifically attributed must be yours. I was quoting three different comments and I made a point of separating your two from the other with an extra space. If you feel that listing two from you and one from someone else is somehow 'disregarding the truth', I suggest you buy a dictionary and connect the dots. I do however congratulate you on resisting the urge to use crude name-calling this time. A true example of 'disregarding the truth' would be BO's complete disregard for Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in his Berlin speech. VDH takes a more sober view of the 'event': "Obama still does not do history well. He started, as in now usual, almost immediately by mentioning his race (“I know

Quoting harkin: Wrong again. Considering that none were attributed to you I can only guess that you think that since you favor quantity over quality, that any post not specifically attributed must be yours.

I was quoting three different comments and I made a point of separating your two from the other with an extra space. If you feel that listing two from you and one from someone else is somehow 'disregarding the truth', I suggest you buy a dictionary and connect the dots. I do however congratulate you on resisting the urge to use crude name-calling this time.

A true example of 'disregarding the truth' would be BO's complete disregard for Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in his Berlin speech. VDH takes a more sober view of the 'event':

"Obama still does not do history well. He started, as in now usual, almost immediately by mentioning his race (“I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”) But that simply was not true, given the fact that for the last seven years both American Secretaries of State — who have been the faces of American foreign policy in Europe

Quoting harkin: Wrong again. Considering that none were attributed to you I can only guess that you think that since you favor quantity over quality, that any post not specifically attributed must be yours.

I was quoting three different comments and I made a point of separating your two from the other with an extra space.

First, your guess is stupid. Obviously, since I was the one pointing out which blockquote was not mine and gave you a link to the correct source, your attempted insult fails even to make sense. That aside ... Strictly speaking, I suppose you're right. Nonetheless, the first two blockquotes were material copied by you from the same post, which was written by me. The third blockquote was material copied by you that was not written by me. I don't think an extra blank space made this clear enough, but since you're not in the business of attributing anything you copy ... hey, wait a minute. Are you defending yourself from a charge of misattribution by pleading plagiarism? Ah. Those twisted wingnut notions of honor and decency, once again.

Quoting piscivorous: Here is a man that purports to be able to effect the rise of the oceans and he can't even control the fawning press. I'm impressed!

No force of nature can control the fawning press and their uncritical love for St. Maverick McStraightTalk, Teh WarHeeeero (tm).

Quoting bjkeefe: hey, wait a minute. Are you defending yourself from a charge of misattribution by pleading plagiarism?

Ah. Those twisted wingnut notions of honor and decency, once again.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that harkin is "defending [himself] from a charge of misattribution by pleading plagiarism." He didn't take one of your and ebeneezer's quotes and say they were his own. Do you mean that he's pleading plagiarism because he's not citing the source of his quotation? I.e., he's engaging in plagiarism because if you don't give your sources for your citations, then you run afoul of, say, university and publisher plagiarism policies. If so, I don't think that's a fair charge, since I don't think university/publisher standards of plagiarism apply to comments (though I grant that if he tried to pass someone's words off as his own, that would be dishonest). I really don't understand what you mean here.

Quoting Bobby G: I don't understand what you mean when you say that harkin is "defending [himself] from a charge of misattribution by pleading plagiarism." [...]

Hard to believe you're treating this seriously, Bobby. Do I really have to put a winkie after something that over the top?

Uh...I guess you don't. But even as a joke, I don't understand the plagiarism thing. Still, since it's a joke, I guess it doesn't matter that I don't understand it.

Quoting Bobby G: Uh...I guess you don't. But even as a joke, I don't understand the plagiarism thing. Still, since it's a joke, I guess it doesn't matter that I don't understand it.

It's not really a joke. Here, maybe this will help.

What a fact free, complete BS, misinformation campaign of a bheads session. Bruce wants us to believe Bush was, and still is, personally sitting in the WH sifting through millions of electronic communications and picking which ones to open and which ones not to. What a crock.
If you want to actually be informed about what is going on and what are the issues, go read this Slate discussion between Orin Kerr, Marty Lederman and others.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172952/entry/2172953/
Bruce says no President ever complained about the shortcomings of FISA before Bush did … email has only been widely used since the mid 90s. Presidents can’t complain about technology that undermines existing law if that technology doesn’t exist yet! Jane Harman, John Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress have been briefed about the NSA's program from the beginning. They know more than Bruce Fein ever will what actually happened. They know Bruce's description of what the program entailed is complete BS. Bruce never acknowledges that FISA needed to be updated to work in today's technology.
Responsible Democrats know an update needed to be made. But let Hamsher anf Fein prattle on about the necessity of impeachment. Just exposes them as the wackos they are.

Quoting conncarroll: What a fact free, complete BS, misinformation campaign of a bheads session. Bruce wants us to believe Bush was, and still is, personally sitting in the WH sifting through millions of electronic communications and picking which ones to open and which ones not to. What a crock.
If you want to actually be informed about what is going on and what are the issues, go read this Slate discussion between Orin Kerr, Marty Lederman and others.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172952/entry/2172953/
Bruce says no President ever complained about the shortcomings of FISA before Bush did … email has only been widely used since the mid 90s. Presidents can’t complain about technology that undermines existing law if that technology doesn’t exist yet!

Jane Harman, John Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress have been briefed about the NSA's program from the beginning. They know more than Bruce Fein ever will what actually happened. They know Bruce's description of what the program entailed is complete BS. Bruce never acknowledges that FISA needed to be updated to work in today's technology.
Responsible Democrats know an update needed to be made.

But let Hamsher anf Fein prattle on about the necessity

For a hilarious take on Senator Obama's world tour, with the delightful snark of British humor.

Well said Jeff. In response to Harkin: I would have NO problem with investigations into Democratic Congresspeople suspected of breaking their Constitutional oaths and committing crimes. Accountability is accountability, and it is something that has been sadly lacking in recent years. Part of it was the rah-rah, patriotic element that 9-11 brought out in many, and part of it was simple re-election concersns (these are politicians we're talking about.) If Dems broke the law then so be it, they should pay the price. But it never ceases to amaze me that many of the people who rant about illegal immigration and blow jobs in the White House (on the basis that they degrade our legal structure if we permit such acts) fail to find a President refusing to follow well-established laws that are intimately tied to the protection of the most fundamental civil protections, as a matter of concern. This was precisely the kind of thing that impeachment was designed to prevent. Maybe if there was a sticky blue dress, the public would finally care.

"We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff." "

After being told this, the Obama campaign announced yesterday that it had decided it was "inappropriate" to make the visit as part of a campaign trip.

It's unclear how Obama could have made the visit at all, given the Pentagon's directives. No Senate staff was on the trip, and the Obama camp says they received the Pentagon's directives on Wednesday, after they were already abroad.

-Talking Points Memo

Quoting conncarroll: What a fact free, complete BS, misinformation campaign of a bheads session. ....
But let Hamsher anf Fein prattle on about the necessity of impeachment. Just exposes them as the wackos they are.

Gad, Conn, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as this is, after all, what they pay you for. It doesn't matter whether it's cuneiform tablets, email, or 22nd-Century thought-reading technology, the Constitutional issues remain the same. As a Right-Wing Paladin, your mouth may be for hire in service to your employer's cause, but, at least in this case, you're firing blanks. As far as I'm concerned it would be kind of nice if Pelosi et al would be impeached right along with Bush and Cheney, whilst Obama should have to walk the plank for being such a slimy sell-out. But of course none of this will ever happen and I suspect everyone, both Right and Left, already knows it. Everybody's just blowing steam. Still, it's refreshing to hear somebody speaking the truth for a change and both Hamsher and Fein were doing just that. But Conn will never cop to it: What a surprise! EW

Bruce wants us to believe Bush was, and still is, personally sitting in the WH sifting through millions of electronic communications and picking which ones to open and which ones not to. What a crock.

Disingenous, Conn. You know that Bruce never meant to suggest Bush personally spends his day as a low-level analyst.

Bruce says no President ever complained about the shortcomings of FISA before Bush did … email has only been widely used since the mid 90s. Presidents can’t complain about technology that undermines existing law if that technology doesn’t exist yet!

Misleading, Conn. The proper response to an emerging technology issue is not "Well, fuck that law. It dont' work, so I'll piss on it cuz I'm the POTUS."

But let Hamsher anf Fein prattle on about the necessity of impeachment. Just exposes them as the wackos they are.

Gratuitous ad hominem, Conn. And by focusing exclusively on the tekkie aspects of the illegal wiretapping you conveniently ignore the rest of the interview which included a discussion of TORTURE, the insane doctrine of PERPETUAL UNDECLARED WAR, the kidnappings, illegal detentions, contempt for habeas corpus, etc., etc. etc.

EW - Refreshing was exactly the word running through my head. Odds are no one will be impeached or held accountable in any real way. And this is certainly in part because the Democrats are complicit. Still, I wonder if the new minority party will take it all so lightly when it is a Democratic administration run amok.

Damn you, reality-based community, and your fetish for facts! Nice find, sleep.

Actually anybody can kill al Qaeda terrorists on the spot. No warrant is needed. The rules of war apply to them, so they don't have to be arrested. They simply can be killed wherever they are. This is international law.

Quoting Lyle: Actually anybody can kill al Qaeda terrorists on the spot. No warrant is needed. The rules of war apply to them, so they don't have to be arrested. They simply can be killed wherever they are.

This is international law.

But how do you know who's an "al Qaeda terrorist?" I mean, given that they're illegal combatants since, among other things, they don't wear uniforms, and given that Bush and Co. would have me believe that the entire planet is the "battlespace."

Quoting Lyle: Actually anybody can kill al Qaeda terrorists on the spot. No warrant is needed. The rules of war apply to them, so they don't have to be arrested. They simply can be killed wherever they are.

This is international law.

What if they're not wearing the splendid blue and gold al Qaeda uniform, is there a barcode somewhere that we can check?

International law wasn't made to deal with terrorists. There isn't even a legal definition in international law for terrorism. The next best kind of law for al qaeda terrorists would be the law of piracy, which would be the same thing as it is now. Anybody who finds them, can kill them. They simply aren't murderers or conspirators under the common law, they are actually fighting a war. It makes no sense to argue we aren't fighting a war, when they definitely are.

Do pirates wear uniforms?

Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.

"Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance."

Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff.

"We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him," Morrell said of Obama. "We

Quoting Lyle: International law wasn't made to deal with terrorists. There isn't even a legal definition in international law for terrorism.

Now wait a minute. You just said (emph. added):

Quoting Lyle: Actually anybody can kill al Qaeda terrorists on the spot. No warrant is needed. The rules of war apply to them, so they don't have to be arrested. They simply can be killed wherever they are.

This is international law.

Which is it, law or no law?

They could also be killed even under the common law (so in the United States) as a defense to third parties if they were killed while they were actually carrying out an attack somewhere.

Quoting Lyle: They could also be killed even under the common law (so in the United States) as a defense to third parties if they were killed while they were actually carry out an attack somewhere.

That much I buy -- stopping someone clearly in action. It's the other 98% I'm worried about.

Quoting Lyle: Do pirates wear uniforms?

Clearly.

Quoting Lyle: Do pirates wear uniforms?

So no uniforms. What about names that sound Islamic? If somebody's named Mohamed al-Kayyam can I assume he's a terrorist and shoot him on the spot? Or less facetiously, what about a guy who's said he hopes bin Laden defeats America? I don't see the point of your original post. It seems to define a license to kill at least some class of people, except I can't figure out who so I can use my cool new license.

I have noticed that your topic for the day is Obama's failure to visit injured troops in Germnay - BUT I was wondering your opinon of McCain's new definition of the surge that includes the Anbar Awakening. Do you think he has the definition right? Or does the surge go back even farther than that?

In the abscence of a law that specifically covers people like al Qaeda you have to go with what you have. What he have are the rules of War, and the rules of war allow you to kill your enemy wherever they are. If there was an international law that covered terrorists, the U.S. might be in violaton of such a law, but because no such law exists we can only apply the law that we have now. The law we have now allows the U.S. and any other nation state to kill al Qaeda wherever it finds them. It's imperfect and a whole lot of people may not like it, but it's the law.

Yes, we do have a license to kill terrorists. That's the point of war: to kill your enemy. Being a terrorist has nothing to do with being a Muslim.

Quoting conncarroll: What a fact free, complete BS, misinformation campaign of a bheads session. Bruce wants us to believe Bush was, and still is, personally sitting in the WH sifting through millions of electronic communications and picking which ones to open and which ones not to. What a crock.

Thank god! for a minute there I thought he heard me call him a faux-drunken-redneck, and make fun of the way he says "war on tear".

Quoting ohcomeon: Still, I wonder if the new minority party will take it all so lightly when it is a Democratic administration run amok.

My only fear is that, if allowed into office, a Democratic administration won't run amok enough and thus might fail to run amok on those issues redounding to the benefit of the people as a whole as opposed to those solely benefitting business interests, oligarchs, and aristocrats. (i.e. Will they or will they not just continue the same sell-out, but merely under a different party's name.) But, yeah, it was stunning: A couple B-heads actually spent an hour telling it just exactly how it is. I nearly fainted! EW

What a fantastic presentation, Mr. Fein should be a moral fortitude model for every American. I have watched him on Bill Moyers Journal where another honorable man of law has appeared, Mr. Phillipe Sands. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...s+&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?q=bruce...L_enUS227US240 America needs more honorable men to imitate and follow. http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/index.html

Quoting Lyle: In the abscence of a law ...

... it's the law.

Orwell wept.

On a related note, how much does anyone suppose the "manifest progress" has to do with what this story describes? Mostly, it's about the suppression of photographs of killed and wounded soldiers, which is part of what I'm asking. But another part of what I'm asking is embodied in this excerpt:

James Lee, a former marine who returned to Iraq as a photographer, was embedded with marines in the spring of 2008 as they headed into battle in the southern port city of Basra in support of Iraqi forces.

“We were within hours of Basra when they told me I had to go back. I was told that General Kelly did not want any Western eyes down there,” he said, referring to the same Marine general who barred Mr. Miller.

and this one:

By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

In a lot of ways, we're not getting any independent corroboration on military reports of their own actions. I'm not saying they're engaged in some massive cover-up or conspiracy, but no one gives a perfectly objective assessment of one's own performance. No

Quoting ohcomeon: I have noticed that your topic for the day is Obama's failure to visit injured troops in Germnay - BUT I was wondering your opinon of McCain's new definition of the surge that includes the Anbar Awakening. Do you think he has the definition right? Or does the surge go back even farther than that?

Actually my real point of the day is goes to the character of Senator Obama. His retraction of his word to go visit the troops is what's pulling my chain and the issue of the canceled visit is just one more example of of how shallow Senator Obama appears to me. As far as the timing of the surge and the Anbar Awakening this is a much more complex question. A strict time analysis would say that there were some Anbar Sunni groups that were starting to flip prior to the surge. A more interesting analysis would look at areas within Anbar province and when the groups, in those areas, flipped overlaid with the specific locations of American units. There were numerous American units with in Anbar and a few of

Quoting piscivorous: Actually my real point of the day is goes to the character of Senator Obama. His retraction of his word to go visit the troops is what's pulling my chain and the issue of the canceled visit is just one more example of of how shallow Senator Obama appears to me.

What do you make of sleepyhead's 2:32 PM post?

Did you see the Congressional hearings on CSpan today? Bruce was awesome, as was Dennis Kucinich, Sheila Jackson Lee, Vincent Bugliosi, et al.

Quoting sleepyhead: "We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff." "

After being told this, the Obama campaign announced yesterday that it had decided it was "inappropriate" to make the visit as part of a campaign trip.

It's unclear how Obama could have made the visit at all, given the Pentagon's directives. No Senate staff was on the trip, and the Obama camp says they received the Pentagon's directives on Wednesday, after they were already abroad.

He cherry picked it. Left out the fact that the press was also excluded and given Senator Obama's dissatisfaction with similar press restrictions, at times in his Afghanistan tour I can only infer he wished to use it as a pr stunt and canceled when he knew it couldn't be used as such. Whether or not you like my particular take it still seems a fairly shallow move to renege given the seemingly trivial

Quoting piscivorous: He cherry picked it. Left out the fact that the press was also excluded and given Senator Obama's dissatisfaction with similar press restrictions, at times in his Afghanistan tour I can only infer he wished to use it as a pr stunt and canceled when he knew it couldn't be used as such. Whether or not you like my particular take it still seems a fairly shallow move to renege given the seemingly trivial conditions imposed upon him and any other political that wish to visit the troops. It is standing policy, has been for quite some time and you would have thought the Senator, or someone on his staff, would know this.

I especially like the bolded part where he essentially say the Senator can't do anything without being baby sat.

In fairness to sleepyhead, I see nothing in the link that says the press was also disallowed. I hadn't heard that was a factor in Afghanistan with Obama's campaign. Have a good link? It seems that he missed a golden opportunity to go in without any campaign staff. He still would have CIA or soldiers with him, I guess.

The press restrictions were widely published and should be no problem to find as far as the dissatisfaction goes I have no link that would be considered credible here as the were mostly anonymous and not reported in the MSM.

Didn't see this until I finished my previous comment but here is a more detailed look at the evolution of the Anbar Awakening. MilBlogs TV - Anbar Rising - Part 1 - narrated by Greyhawk Yes it is from a MILBlog but it will answer many questions about the evolution and timing of the phenomena called the "Anbar Awakening."

Quoting piscivorous: He cherry picked it. Left out the fact that the press was also excluded and given Senator Obama's dissatisfaction with similar press restrictions, at times in his Afghanistan tour I can only infer he wished to use it as a pr stunt and canceled when he knew it couldn't be used as such.

That's all you can infer? Then you lack imagination. Here's another hypothesis: Obama probably wanted to visit troops for the same half-noble/half-cynical reasons that all these politicians pay visits to troops: partly to burnish their images, partly to learn more first-hand about what the troops serving in places like Iraq actually experience, and partly to keep their perspective on the real issues at stake in campaigns that can sometimes seem more like some kind of game or sport or even showbiz. Then his campaign realized that the military frowns on campaign visits to military bases or hospitals, and since the Germany/France/England part of his trip are being funded by the campaign, they decided that it might be inappropriate -- and contrary to the spirit of the Pentagon's rules -- to include a

Quoting piscivorous: As far as the timing of the surge and the Anbar Awakening this is a much more complex question. A strict time analysis would say that there were some Anbar Sunni groups that were starting to flip prior to the surge. A more interesting analysis would look at areas within Anbar province and when the groups, in those areas, flipped overlaid with the specific locations of American units. There were numerous American units with in Anbar and a few of them adopted some of the basic tenants of COIN before General Petraus was placed in command and changed the strategy from force protection to population protection and COIN. It is in these areas where a COIN strategy was adopted early in which the Anbar Awakening originated. If you really want to know more search for Col. H.R. McMaster, Col. Sean MacFarland or LTCol. Erik Kurilla. The Awakening didn't pop up out of the blue.

The surge, which added 2 battalions to the Marines to Anbar, allowed the nascent realignment of Anbar Sunnis to bloom into what is now known as the Anbar Awakening and the additional troops and the change in

Right and "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother..." got the good Senator what a week before he did just that! What a fantasy world you live in.

Quoting piscivorous: Right and "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother..." got the good Senator what a week before he did just that! What a fantasy world you live in.

Huh? What exactly does this have to do with the cancelation of the visit to the mil hospital? Oh, I get it. Here's the logic: 1. Obama said he couldn't disown Wright.
2. After Wright became an even bigger liability, Obama disowned him.
3. Ergo, everything Barack Obama does is a "pr stunt."
4. Ergo, anyone who suggests that Barack Obama might occasionally do something for any reason other than as a "pr stunt" is living in a fantasy world. Well, Pisc, at least you've confirmed what I suggested above, which is that your conclusion that one could "only infer" that it was a pr stunt said more about your pre-existing opinions than any kind of analysis of the actual events in question in this thread. Why should we bother discussing these things on their merits if your final argument is going to boil down to, "He disowned Wright for political reasons several months ago, therefore everything he ever does MUST be done for the most craven of political

Well since you are only interested in scouring points instead of actually understanding the complexity of the issue. When exactly did the phrase "Anbar Awakening" become the accepted lexicon for the flipping. Was the first group that fliped the "Anbar Awakening" as it basically only affected one part of Anbar province. Or was it when the second group came on line or the third or the fourth. Would the forth group have come on board if the first three had failed or if we didn't have sufficient troop strength to propagate the tactics that worked first here, then there, then everywhere. Draw your time line where you wish. The Awakening, the surge and the change in strategy are intrinsically linked and interdependent. The full Awakening would not have been possible with out the addition of troops, the addition of troops would not have succeed with out the surge and neither would have occurred with out the shift in strategy.

Ah if only ended with the preacher perhaps my cynicism would not run so deep. But I will not bother to list all of the Senator's shifts and deceptions as they have previously been aired here.

Quoting piscivorous: Well since you are only interested in scouring points instead of actually understanding the complexity of the issue. When exactly did the phrase "Anbar Awakening" become the accepted lexicon for the flipping. Was the first group that fliped the "Anbar Awakening" as it basically only affected one part of Anbar province. Or was it when the second group came on line or the third or the fourth. Would the forth group have come on board if the first three had failed or if we didn't have sufficient troop strength to propagate the tactics that worked first here, then there, then everywhere.

Draw your time line where you wish. The Awakening, the surge and the change in strategy are intrinsically linked and interdependent. The full Awakening would not have been possible with out the addition of troops, the addition of troops would not have succeed with out the surge and neither would have occurred with out the shift in strategy.

Again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether the surge "began the Anbar Awakening." It simply didn't. No rhetoric about how "the surge and the change in

Like I said draw your time line where you wish. If you wish to play technical games it was in 2007 that Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, formed the Anbar Awakening Council which also called "Anbar Awakening". I don't remember the month but as the surge was announced in early January and came before the council was formed and considerably before it began to be referred to as the "Anbar Awakening." So were is the time line. McCain refers to Abdul Sattar Abu Risha and Col. McFarland getting together, which occurred before the Anbar Awakening was formally christened so on technical points I've got to give it to Senator McCain. The surge is announced, troops begin to deploy and the Awakening is then christened.

Quoting piscivorous: Like I said draw your time line where you wish. If you wish to play technical games it was in 2007 that Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, formed the Anbar Awakening Council which also called "Anbar Awakening". I don't remember the month but as the surge was announced in early January and came before the council was formed and considerably before it began to be referred to as the "Anbar Awakening." So were is the time line. McCain refers to Abdul Sattar Abu Risha and Col. McFarland getting together, which occurred before the Anbar Awakening was formally christened so on technical points I've got to give it to Senator McCain. The surge is announced, troops begin to deploy and the Awakening is then christened.

No offense, but you're completely full of it, and your dates are simply wrong. Sheik Abdul Sattar formed his group in 2006. If you don't believe me, read this Time Magazine article from December 2006, which discusses Sattar and his Awakening Council by name the month before the surge was announced in January and several months before surge troops actually started arrived on the ground. For

Another paladin of Law: Jane Mayer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Mayer http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Insi.../dp/0385526393

By the way, Conn - I may disagree with you about most policy issues, but I love the way you're mixing it up here in the "sewers." Keep coming back.

No offense but you seem to once again have picked a poor source, Time Magazine, as your point of reference on which to base your argument. Actually the original grouping centered in and around Ramadii referred to themselves as the Anbar Salvation Council. Perhaps some where in one of the wrinkles of your gray matter your vaguely remember hearing that moniker. With the implementation of the surge Sheik lAbdul Sattar called a gathering of other prominent Sheiks throughout the Anbar Province and a coalition was formed which consisted of the original Anbar Salvation Council tribes and the additional of many of the other tribes of Anbar Province, and it is this larger group that was called the Anbar Awakening Council that is commonly referred to, by the press, as the "Anbar Awakening." As I have said draw your time line where you wish but when you do please get the facts correct. In my original comment I acknowledged the existence of the small group of Sheiks that had flipped prior to the surge. You wish to call this small localized group, which referred to

Quoting piscivorous: No offense but you seem to once again have picked a poor source, Time Magazine, as your point of reference on which to base your argument. Actually the original grouping centered in and around Ramadii referred to themselves as the Anbar Salvation Council. Perhaps some where in one of the wrinkles of your gray matter your vaguely remember hearing that moniker. With the implementation of the surge Sheik lAbdul Sattar called a gathering of other prominent Sheiks throughout the Anbar Province and a coalition was formed which consisted of the original Anbar Salvation Council tribes and the additional of many of the other tribes of Anbar Province, and it is this larger group that was called the Anbar Awakening Council that is commonly referred to, by the press, as the "Anbar Awakening."

As I have said draw your time line where you wish but when you do please get the facts correct. In my original comment I acknowledged the existence of the small group of Sheiks that had flipped prior to the surge. You wish to call this small localized group, which referred to

Bruce is absolutely dead-on in pointing out the complicity of Congress, the Media, and the general public in Bush's crimes.
We ought to roundup everyone who voted for Bush-Cheney twice and ship them to Gitmo. I kid you not!

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Bruce is absolutely dead-on in pointing out the complicity of Congress, the Media, and the general public in Bush's crimes.

We ought to roundup everyone who voted for Bush-Cheney twice and ship them to Gitmo. I kid you not!

Agree. Or we can divide the country according to State color... Wonderment contributed an article about the recent sentencing of mass murderers in Argentina. If there is any justice sought for the Bush- Cheney and company, I hope it doesn't take 30 years! The "punishment" isn't as important as the uncovering of the corruption and total disregard for human life that these people represent.

Haha... Doing this would actually make you worse than Bush. I mean you would really have to violate the Constitution to get away with this. And unlike Bush and Cheney you might actually be arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail.

Quoting Lyle: Haha... Doing this would actually make you worse than Bush. I mean you would really have to violate the Constitution to get away with this. And unlike Bush and Cheney you might actually be arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail.

Worse than Bush??? Haha... There are many constitutional ways of making justice. Or do you not trust our constitution? Anyone, including you and me could get arrested, convicted and sentenced, if a crime had been committed, of course. So you don't believe that Bush and Cheney are subject to the same system of Law than the rest of us? You must be one of those that don't believe in the fairness of our Justice system... Not a patriot certainly...

Abu Risha, 37, was the leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, renamed Anbar Awakening - an alliance of about 200 Sunni sheikhs drawn mostly from the Dulaimi tribe and dozens of sub-clans who were fighting against al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers.

In 2007 the leader of the movement, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, formed the Anbar Awakening Council also called "Anbar Awakening" to counter the influence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Abu Risha, 37, was the leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, renamed
Anbar Awakening

Such was the case with Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, also known as Abu Risha, a member of the Sunni resistance in Anbar province who formerly attacked us convoys for his own profit, thereby alienating other resistance members. After Al Qaeda militants killed his relatives, he went to war against them. The Americans and other Sunni tribes invented a title for Abu Risha and the fiction that he was head of something more than a militia—the “Anbar Salvation Council,” it was called, later renamed “the Awakening Council.”

This became known as the
“Awakening” (As Sahawa) that declared its aim as working with the U.S.-led
coalition to expel AQ-I from Anbar and to secure

Yes, I know that you repeatedly said it was so named and organized in 2007. However, the evidence appears to show that it was so named and organized in 2006. This is not a particularly important point except that 2006 predates the surge and 2007 is concurrent with the surge, so one date makes McCain's statement true and one date makes it false. Anyway, you are free to continue denying that it was called Anbar Awakening in 2006 no matter what evidence I offer to support that fact -- such as the above Time article which was published in 2006, which refers to Sattar's group as the "Sahawat al Anbar" -- the Anbar Awakening. And Col. MacFarland states as clear as day in his own article that the "Anbar Awakening" was announced in September of 2006. You can keep believing that it was not called the Awakening until 2007 if you would like to, but I'm going to move on since you haven't offered a more substantive rebuttal than "I've said over and over that it was renamed from Anbar Salvation Council to Anbar Awakening Council in 2007." I know what you've said over

Quoting piscivorous: I guess it's a matter of priorities

Why didn't McCain want to see the troops in March?

Quoting piscivorous: But I will not bother to list all of the Senator's shifts and deceptions as they have previously been aired here.

Which Senator are we talking about again?

Just think that a couple weeks ago the entire campaign was engulfed by scrutiny of Obama's suggestion that he might be "refining" his plan for a 16 month timetable for withdrawal -- a twitter, if that, on the seismograph of campaign course corrections. Now consider that over the span of a few weeks Sen. McCain has gone from predicting a decades long presence of American troops in Iraq and attacking any discussion of timetables for withdrawal to endorsing Maliki's push for a 16 month timetable and tying himself in knots trying to explain why what Maliki's endorsing is any different from Obama's.

When confronted with Maliki's own words saying that he supports what Obama supports, McCain now falls back on that last redoubt of philanderers, asking the American people, "Who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?"

For all the seismic shifts that have taken place over the last two weeks, we need to recognize that McCain has now abandoned

And still more "shifts and deceptions:"

Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.

[...]

The Obama stampede is forcing Mr. McCain to surrender on other domestic fronts. After the Democrat ran ads in 14 states berating chief executives who are “making more in 10 minutes” than many workers do in a year, a newly populist Mr. McCain began railing against “corporate greed” — much as he also followed Mr. Obama’s example and belatedly endorsed a homeowners’ bailout he had at first opposed. Given that Mr. McCain has already used a refitted, hand-me-down Obama campaign slogan (“A Leader You Can Believe In”), it can’t be long before he takes up fist bumps.

[...]

Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush’s de facto abdication. His inability to

Quoting conncarroll: What a fact free, complete BS, misinformation campaign of a bheads session. Bruce wants us to believe Bush was, and still is, personally sitting in the WH sifting through millions of electronic communications and picking which ones to open and which ones not to. What a crock.

No shit, who in their right mind would ever think Bush could figure out how to log on the internets and access the surveillance files? Wait a minute, can't he order others to do it? And if no one is sifting through the files, then what are the wirelesstaps for?

The NYT article I linked to in my previous post in this thread described the case of photojournalist Zoriah Miller, who was effectively booted from Iraq by the military after he posted photographs of a suicide bombing scene on his blog. Some of you may be interested in hearing a short interview with him. If so, On The Media has you covered.

Is this the same Bob Herbert that the Big Tent Democrat mentions here The Fairy Tale Revisited

Quoting piscivorous: Is this the same Bob Herbert that the Big Tent Democrat mentions here The Fairy Tale Revisited

Are you telling me you need help comparing URLs? Or that you think PUMA people are a reliable source? BTW, the correct spelling of that name is Big Spent Democrat. I don't read his crap, ever.