Story in the Israeli paper Haaretz: Ahmadinejad's deputy: Iran is a friend of the U.S. and Israel By DPA The deputy to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Iran was a friend of Israel, Iranian news agencies reported. "Iran wants no war with any country, and today Iran is friend of the United States and even Israel.... Our achievements belong to the whole world and should be used for expanding love and peace," said Iranian Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, who is also head of the Cultural Heritage Organization. |
The following excerpts are from the current lead article in Spiegel Online International, the highly respected online source for German news and information. Spiegel Online is the online offering of Der Spiegel, one of the largest and most influential weekly news magazines in Europe *. It will be interesting to see what play this receives in U.S. media. Are we to remain in Iraq at the pleasure of the elected Iraqi government, or will we stay despite the wishes of that government, as an occupying forces?  Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." *** "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." *** "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain's more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems." Iraq, Maliki went on to say, "would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations." He also emphasized though that the security agreement between the two countries should only "remain in effect in the short term." (Emphasis added.)
Why would we want to maintain a major, long-term military presence in Iraq against the wishes of the friendly Iraqi government and the Iraqi people?
Once we are no longer in military control of that nation, Iraq will be free to do business with whomever it wishes -- including Iran. (The U.S. has long used Iraq as a counterbalance against the influence of Iran in the region. (See, e.g., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq," (National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82), National Security Archive at George Washington University.)) The long-term effect of the Bush / neocon strategy in the region will then be visible for all to see. We will see that the loss of life, health and fortune that we suffered as a nation due to this folly lead to an overall harm to our national interests. Then it will be time to refocus our attentions on al Qaeda as they continued to build strength in Afghanistan.
Photo caption / credit: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shakes hands with U.S. service members during Iraqi Army Day, a celebration marking the 86th birthday of the Iraqi army, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Baghdad, Iraq, Jan. 6, 2007.
 From the New York Times, July 18, 2008:Electrical Risks at Bases in Iraq Worse Than Previously Said WASHINGTON — Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents. During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country.... Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007. And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. ***[A]t one building complex in Baghdad... soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis. (A U.S. Army survey produced in February, 2007)... noted “a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires.” ***
From a reading of the entire New York Times article (recommended for its content as well as a photo depicting substantial fire damage) apparently, nothing significant has been done to correct these defects. KBR, a company directly connected to Halliburton, was responsible for overseeing much of the electrical work done, and in continuing to manage many facilities. They allowed electrical work to be done by subcontractors who hired Iraqis unskilled at electrical work, who would work for only a few dollars a day, and unsafe work was not challenged by government auditors. Several electricians who worked for KBR have said previously in interviews that they repeatedly warned KBR managers and Pentagon and military officials about unsafe electrical work. They said that supervisors had ignored their concerns or, in some cases, lacked the training to understand the problems. Previous complaints about KBR in Iraq "include accusations of overbilling, providing unsafe water to soldiers and failing to protect female employees who were sexually assaulted." Our service men and women in Iraq continue to be exposed to unnecessary risk of death and serious injury at the hands of "friendly fire." This behavior is hardly supporting our troops. Then again, "our" primary goal in Iraq truly seems to have been the enrichment of favored elites. Are we too tired of reading about Iraq to really care anymore?
(Photo: Typical electrical poles, Falujah, from Michael Totten. We now link to Totten's well-written blog, Middle East Journal, on our blog roll, for added breadth of perspective. )
 Have Progressive Democrats Lost Our Sense of Humor? One would think so from some of the responses to the most recent New Yorker cover. It's come to be known, already, as "The Cover." And it's because of the reaction of Obama and many of his most vocal supporters that The Cover may prove harmful to the Obama campaign. Here's how the other side gets to play this -- responding not to the cartoon itself, but to the reaction to the cartoon by Obama and some of his supporters:
Greg Gutfeld on Fox.com:
So, The New Yorker, otherwise known as Highlights for Liberals, ran a cartoon on their cover with Senator Barack Obama in Muslim clothing, with his wife dressed like a Black Power revolutionary, complete with automatic rifle. A burning American flag was present, near a portrait of Usama bin Laden.
Of course this wasn't meant to bash Barack, rather it was an attack on his critics — a commentary on those who sensationalize Obama's perceived flaws. Basically The New Yorker cover suggests that anyone who finds Obama to be less than a cross between Jesus Christ and gorgeous unicorn, to be a racist creep.
Which is why Obama's response has been so hilarious and telling. His campaign called the cartoon "tasteless and offensive."
But to whom, exactly?
Is it offensive to liberals? No -- the cartoon is the shield that protects "the chosen one" from criticism.
Is it offensive to conservatives? Who cares? The New Yorker hates those jerks.
Is it offensive to terrorists? Come on, everyone knows terrorists don't read The New Yorker. They prefer the Daily Kos for their politics and Cat Fancy for their masturbatory fantasies -- or maybe I have it backwards.
So, what have we learned? That Senator Obama isn't as hip and facile as his slavish followers would have us believe. In a sense, he can't take a joke, even one that's kissing his ass. ***
Limbaugh's take on The Cover and the reaction to it is also illustrative (am I allowed to keep an eye on what our opponents are doing?):
RUSH: The Obama campaign, they continue to be in a tizzy over this New Yorker cartoon. Let me ask you a question. Obama and his team are upset over a cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker, a leftist publication, that makes him look like a Muslim, that makes his wife look like a terrorist Muslim, that has the American flag burning in the fireplace, under the portrait of Osama Bin Laden in the Oval Office. The Obama campaign and The Messiah himself were said to be very, very upset over this. Let me ask you a question. Who is it that gets upset over cartoons? Muslims. ***Who is it that gets upset over stupid cartoons? Muslims, intolerant Muslims.
I have a theory about this, and we've got audio sound bites. They're out there saying, "You know what the piece missed?" Typical of liberals, they're saying that most Americans are too moronic to understand the sophisticated satire here, that what this piece needed was Rush Limbaugh painting the picture on the cover. That would have clued in the great unwashed that it was a joke, otherwise the great unwashed will not get that this is satire.
***
This cartoonish cover, here's the bottom line. This New Yorker cover happens to stereotype, not the Obamas. It stereotypes conservatives as racists, sexist throwbacks. That's the intent of this cover: to reinforce that Obama is a victim of right-wing haters lying about him and his wife. It is Obama and the left that kept perpetuating the notion that we are saying he was Muslim and that his wife was unqualified. The New Yorker is selling magazines when they smear conservatives as racist and sexist. Obama gets to run around like he's doing and claim to be a victim, and wheeze-whine about it, by the way, that's quite unbecoming. If he doesn't get a handle has to be a victim every three or four days to keep his popularity up, it's going to come back and haunt him. So we are left watching all this while we are the ones who have been smeared by this.
The Obamas are not the ones being smeared in this cover. And of course the Drive-By Media, they're all you upset because you people are a bunch of rubes and idiots and you won't understand that it is you that are being made fun of, that it's you that are being criticized. They're afraid you're going to think, "Wow, even the libs think Obama is a Muslim. Wow, even the libs think Obama loves Bin Laden!" That's what they're deathly afraid of. Because they don't know, they don't have any confidence at all that you have any brains. ***
I believe that the following linked Salon article (excerpts below) captures much of my thinking on the subject of "liberal" reaction to the New Yorker cover:
Rush Limbaugh was right
The blogosphere's reaction to the New Yorker cover proves that the Bush era has killed a lot of liberals' sense of humor. And that's not funny.
By Gary Kamiya
July 15, 2008 | It's official: The Bush era has made liberals so terrified of right-wing smears it has caused them to completely lose their sense of humor. Much as I hate to repeat one of Rush Limbaugh's flat, stale and unprofitable applause lines, that's the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the left-wing blogosphere's bizarre reaction to the New Yorker cover....
***
Yes, the right wing is obviously trying to paint Obama as a Muslim terrorist sympathizer -- it's the only card they have to play. And yes, there are ways that the mainstream media can, and has, "laundered" such scurrilous smears -- Fox News is expert at them.... But it should be obvious that there's a fundamental difference between mocking something and laundering it. Some on the left, however, are so terrified that Americans, in their cosmic stupidity, cannot distinguish between satire and smear that they reject satire. After Obama wins, they decree, there will be time for all the sophisticated ha-ha. But right now, imagery must be as tightly controlled as at an exhibition of Stalinist realism paintings.
***
In a certain way, the left's reaction is reminiscent of mainstream Democrats' refusal to challenge Bush on Iraq. They, too, were instrumentalists and amateur semioticians, worrying that the GOP would "frame" them, to use linguist George Lakoff's concept, as weaklings and wimps. But they were wrong, just as those who advise the liberal media to deal with the right-wing smear campaign against Obama by refusing to acknowledge it are wrong. In any case, once journalists and artists start censoring themselves because they're afraid their work will play into political attacks or have other unwanted political consequences, they've started down a dark road, one that ends up with party hacks celebrating the latest Fearless Leader. What's the point of electing a progressive president if you lose your soul in the process?
Follow the following links for other worthwhile posts by progressive media on "The Cover" issue, and our response to it.
Phil Gramm gave us progressives a nice gift by claiming that we had become a "nation of whiners", as reflected by people's worries about the economy. Then we have to go and whine about a damned satirical magazine cover in a left-leaning magazine.
We can't lose our sense of humor if we wish to take advantage of the opportunity before us. It's fine that we take our nation's condition - the war, economy, inequality - seriously. However, we need to learn, now, how not take ourselves so seriously.
If we fail to reclaim our senses of humor, if we forget to relax a bit and respond rather than react to events, we will become perceived as the whiners, clinging desperately to our Volvos and arugula.
Thanks for reading. -Alan
 The McCain for President website has apparently scrubbed its site of all references to the Chair of their campaign in Alabama, Attorney General Troy King.
In confirming the appointment of King to Chair his Alabama campaign, McCain said that:
"Troy is an outstanding public servant and passionate advocate for the rule of law... dedicated to the... traditional values that we share. I'm proud to have Republican leaders and dedicated public servants like ... Troy King leading my campaign to victory in Alabama."
(McCain's press release of that announcement, which has apparently been removed from the McCain website, is available through Google cache.)
Rumors related to the possible resignation of King as Alabama's Attorney General, and the possible reason for that resignation, including alleged behavior outside of what most would consider to be 'traditional values' are currently the subject of wide speculation. Those rumors are alleged to be based upon thinly sourced public statements. Alabama Republican power brokers deny rumors of King's resignation.
It is unclear whether King remains the chair of the McCain campaign in Alabama.
(Hat tip to Fishbowl America, Left in Alabama, (which reports that the McCain press release was still up as of Saturday morning, July 12, 2008), and the blog of Loretta Nall, former Libertarian candidate for Governor of Alabama, which led me to the other two.)
Phil Gramm in interview with the Washington Times, July 9, 2008 Gramm, who is vice chair of Swiss financial giant UBS Warburg, and who lobbied Congress on behalf of USB mortgage interests earlier this year, had a major role in bringing mortgage deregulation to the American economy.
 The no-frills site " Progressive Punch" provides a ranking of members of the House and Senate based upon their votes on various significant bills, for this session of Congress, or over their careers. There's also a ranking of voting "when the chips were down." You can also select to rank by subject matter. Guess who's not the most progressive member of the Senate! (And which Republican Senator actually rates as more progressive than the least progressive Democrat?) Could Jane Harman (ranked #158) actually have had a more progressive voting record this House session than Dennis Kucinich (ranked #178?) Prepare to have your expectations tested. (BTW, Can you identify the accompanying photo (without cheating?))
|
Posts
