Soooo....

I've been kept pretty upset by the Obama campaign recently.  But that is to be expected in politics.  I'm particularly appalled at his campaigns staffers/volunteers/whomevers treatment of Muslim supporters and his views and stance regarding FISA.  BUT, I don't want to hurt the good Senator nor harm his chances this November.  I have long been a supporter of Obama.  Loooong before he mentioned a run for president.  (FWIW, it began at the 2006 Campus Progress National Student Conference in DC.  I was a fortunate intern at CAP that summer...  ahhh memories...)

Meet ya across the fold...

There's been numerous posts/diaries here and elsewhere highlighting the many gaffes of Senator McCain.  In this case on Iraqi sects but on others as well.

Now, I don't want to get anyone too excited, but me thinks the MSM might be catching on...

Hello!  Important debate today for us in SC!

I'm working with a radio crew but have also been doing a little bit of blogging when possible...  hasn't amounted to much.  I thought I'd start a thread for the debate so we can chat.

We just got the live feed here so things are about to get rolling.  A choir was singing and now they're3 going through the formalities (the good ol' Star Spangled Banner, and introductions of elites).  I don't have much to say here, but the latest polls have Obama at around 45%, Hillary in the 30s and Edwards in the teens.  After NH I don't thing that means much, until the real poll takes place Saturday.  

live feed here, thx jacques.

hopeful ME and secure America yada, yada, yada...

Update [2007-9-13 21:21:33 by hfiend]:   hunters FP thread here

This comes from a post at National Security Intelligence by Tom Quiggin and Sir Richard Dearlove.  The post was the first in a pair that argue that secrecy, while necessary in certain circumstances, can in fact hinder the counter terrorism process.  I'll leave interested readers free to read the posts but want to archive the "rules" here and comment.  They write...

Thats the feeling I got from reading Dr. Lind's piece Tuesday at the website Defense and the National Interest entitled "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back".

(Cross-posted at my blog, American Entropy.)

Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno claimed that The decrease this month in US fatalities is a sign that the surge is working.  He left himself an out saying that more time is needed to see if it is a true trend.  I believe that this dip in fatalities is attributable to more than just the Presidents surge.  It is a combination of the new way forward and yearly cycles of activity.  And it's probably more due to yearly cycles.  For example, Odierno said that the US fatalities topped out in May of this year and have fallen as they "kind of predicted."  OK, but similar drops in monthly fatalities per day (FPD) have occurred a handful of times since May 2003 (the end of major combat operations), including a similar slide in the same period of 2005.  Below is a graphical presentation of whats going on with respect to US fatalities in the Iraqi theater (note: presented below are US deaths only and were gathered from the Internet on 27 July 2007 from the Iraq Coalition Casualties website).

OK, OK...  One man's account is just that.  One man's account.  But an authoritative one!

Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress and the Center for Defense Information recently returned from Iraq.  He visited from April 7 to April 11.  He stayed outside the Green Zone (now called the International Zone since it is not, as they say, green).  He kept a diary it's published at the CAP website.  ThinkProgress has a snippet...

I'll go over it all for you on the flip...

I've been enjoying the whole Justice Department v. U.S. attorneys fiasco.  Admittedly I know little about the subject; it falls outside my interest and focus.  But this caught my attention:

A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.

so off come the gloves...(jump)

From UK Times Online and Michael Smith of Downing Street Memo fame:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

As we've all heard Tony Blair has decided to begin the redeployment of his military out of Southern Iraq.  We've also heard that this is some sort of validation of sound policy or a form progress in Iraq.  I won't comment on that point of view because it's stupid.  But what I will imply is that this makes the situation we are "surging" our troops into even more difficult.  I'll do this by linking to a memo from  Wayne White, a senior member of the  State Departments Bureau of Intelligence and Research, obtained by Col. Pat Lang and posted to his blog.  First the reality of the situation in Southern Iraq which I'll get to below the fold:

Foreign Policy has its new issue up online (limited for those w/o subscriptions) of the 10 winners of the US occupation of Iraq.  The list includes states, people, NGOs, and other 'entities.'  The list goes as follows with links if the essay is open to the public:

1.  Iran

2-10 and the booby prize under the crease....

This is a far more serious charge than the typical rhetoric that emanates from Republican politicians (like the Congressman who uses fake Lincoln quotes in a lame attempt to ignore the obvious), pundits, and operatives about Democrats.  No, this time it appears to be serious and based on reality.  

CBS:

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, 53, of Ardsley, N.Y., pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to an indictment accusing him of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and other charges. The charges carried a potential penalty of 95 years in prison.

I'll get to the point presently

Finally a non-biased think tank (although some of you may say it is a biased think tank because it doesn't back up your belief system) has forcefully stated that reality that military might alone will not win the war in Iraq or more importantly the War on Terrorism.  In fact, these enhanced efforts to further militarize the theaters could have (and I would argue have had) an adverse affect on our stated goals.  This is an assertion I've mentioned many times in the past and hold on to today more than ever.

I’m going to try and tell a narrative that I feel pertains particularly to the present predicament placed upon us by our presence in Iraq.

Is that enough to get you to jump on over?

   After, five years, the memory of 11 September 2001 (9/11) is still present in the American -- and indeed the world -- conscience, although somewhat warped by various ideological lenses.  In America, the events of 9/11 still emerge in political debate.  It is used as a justification for the war in Iraq and covert and possibly illegal actions as often as it is used as a symbol of government failure. ...

Please make the jump...

The cabal of the neocon has seen better days.  Prominent members have pulled out, as in the case of Francis Fukuyama.  The American Enterprise Institute placed blame for Iraq at the door of the White House rather than their office, where it originated, indicating the last throes of failed policy.  

A recent Zogby poll has indicated that Americans are more "distrustful than ever of political ... leaders."  No one should be surprised by this, but let me take a stab at a theory.

Let us assume that trust starts at a mid-point and is either eroded or enlarged as time and events come and go.  Let it also be true that cycles in power offer a legitimate reference point.  And finally let's assume that trust and approval are somewhat related.

Jump!