Mark in Austin,

When I referred to Barack "I think we should keep all options on the table" Obama I was referring to

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-28.htm

when Mr. Obama was asked about Iran. In my opinion his answer indicates that he can be accurately categorized as just another saber rattler like Giuliani and Hillary "no option can be taken off the table" Clinton.

I believe that the US government should avoid aggravating other countries, not looking to start one more war and Obama doesn't sound to me like he has a commitment to less preemptive wars like Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Gravel or Mr. Ron Paul do.

The mindless sheep in america need to wake up and do some research! find out what very basic freedoms that have been already stripped away from us in the last 5 yrs! Do you not believe the Constitution and the bill of rights? We go to war on the idea of giving freedom and liberty to other nations but fear fighting freedom and liberty in our own country. It amazes me how much americans are allowing to be taken from us. We need a TRUE PATRIOT and leader like Ron Paul to restore our constitution. www.jointhefightforfreedom.com

Apologies. It was "who's the revisionist" that posted the rebuttal to lioness.

I'm pretty much done playing devils advocate.

Bsimon, you had excellent rebuttals to each of my points. I couldn't agree with you more if I tried. What Clinton and Edwards did was a betrayal of their constituents best interests. Should that bar either from the White House? Probably not. It was a hard decision that they handled badly.

However, I stand my opinion that Obama's against the war from the start stance is a little on the weak side. I agree that judgment can be better than experience but he didn't really make a judgment call. He opposed the decision of the people that were really making the calls. He's not ready for the White House, except in a VP position. The "President" of Canada agrees with me. He told me so.

JasonL--"as Roo pointed out, her position was to authorize the war to give us the strength to form an international coalition like Desert Storm."

I would like to point out that you are misattributing that view, it was not me :) lylepink, probably.

The difference between Clinton and Obama is really quite simple. Obama has the courage of his convictions. He was against the war from the start. Clinton cast her vote for the war so as not to appear weak and unpatriotic bucking a president who was riding high in popularity and favorablity. 5 years later we see courage and conviction trump political expediency. As the saying goes " if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

"as Roo pointed out, her position was to authorize the war to give us the strength to form an international coalition like Desert Storm."

I remember it a little differently. I remember it being shortly before the 2002 elections. I remember the GOP really talking up the 'tough on national security' angle. I remember the President promising to pursue diplomatic efforts first. I remember thinking he was a bald-faced liar. I remember wondering what the hurry was to get this vote completed before the recess & before the election. I remember being disappointed in the Dem party crumbling under this pressure. In short, I saw a bunch of politicians vote for use of force out of fear of the repercussions, rather than standing ground and voting for sane policy. I include Sen Clinton in this group, who, like Sen Edwards, cast their ballots to protect their future political plans, rather than calling the President's bluff. Frankly, from a political perspective, the GOP played it masterfully, though they only benefitted in the short term. That party will suffer mightily for such hubris. It would not bother me in the least if Senator Clinton did as well.

Chris, I am a fan of yours especially on Olbermann - love your work. BUT, as others have taken note here, you are so PRO HILLARY it is bothersome. Obama says what others fear to come out and say. He was attacked by the MSM and well, just about EVERYBODY when he came out and said we need to re-direct our efforts to Afghanistan and Pakistan and then suddenly, everyone agreed with him. He is more than what you are all saying it takes to be a "politician." He is a statesman and a real human being who cares about US and the U.S. I don't feel that way about Hillary or any other candidate for that matter.
Obama is a critical thinker and someone who takes others input seriously. Also, his years as a state senator and a community organizer should not be ruled out - he has been hugely successful at everything he has done, as opposed to our current President who's resume is an embarassment. Brack Obama should be our next President, and if all of us who have sent small donations to his camnpaign go out and VOTE and prior TO that, continue to spread the word - he will win!

But, as Roo pointed out, her position was to authorize the war to give us the strength to form an international coalition like Desert Storm. What we got was a small commitment from a couple of countries, a tiny contribution from a few more and dozens of "no thank you"'s.

I still agree that she should have taken the time to inform herself better, but I think she may have been doing what she thought was best for the country and her political career.

And just for the record. I'm not really an HRC cheerleader or even a supporter. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, and the same for Obama. I'm just sort of playing devils advocate here.

JasonL
"I grant you he made a speech, but what was the danger for him?"

Fair enough. But who was right? And who's been consistent?


"Senator Clinton, already controversial because of her name, was in the ocean with the sharks."

And I think her fear of sharks is what triggered her vote - without doing the appropriate research, like reading the NIE on Iraq, beforehand. Her position on Iraq has been consistent - in that she picks the position that she thinks will make her look 'tough enough' on the bad guys to get elected. In terms of actual policy, she's inconsistent. Compare that with the state senator who was prescient enough to see that a pre-emptive invasion was bad policy. One of the politicians was asking "What's best for the country" the other was asking "what's best for my political future?"

roo-

I don't disagree. Totally fair to judge HRC by the things she's done. It's NOT fair (and plays right into the Rove spin) to accuse her of lying about her record when she's telling the truth.

OK, bsimon, I grant you he made a speech, but what was the danger for him? How deep were the political currents he was swimming? At the time he was another State Senator who would undoubtedly be reelected no matter what he said. I don't dispute that he made the right choice, but he made it in the kiddie pool. Senator Clinton, already controversial because of her name, was in the ocean with the sharks.

Richardson is taking his message that the U.S. must exit Iraq - ALL of our troops - to voters across Iowa. He doesn't tailor his message depending upon the audience. Yesterday, Richardson spoke on ending the war in Iraq at town halls at the National Guard Armory in Council Bluffs and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Sioux City.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/local/a83d26820a94b68186257356000fa318.txt

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS09/709140381/1001/NEWS

JasonL writes
""Sworn into office January 4, 2005, Senator Obama..." -Senator Obama's website

I'd have more respect for Obama's "I've been against the war from the beginning" statements if he had been in the Senate since the beginning."

That's a valid point, worthy of followup. On the one hand I agree - and your analysis is equally applicable to the likes of Edwards and Richardson who call for immediate withdrawl of the troops, or cutting off the funding. Its easy to say when you're not there to cast the vote. Had Edwards not quit the Senate, he'd be there to do something about it - wouldn't he?

But back to Obama. One reason I give him a pass on the rhetoric about being against the war in 2003 is because he can proove it. Go look up his speech from 2003, when he did the politically unpopular thing and came out against the war. Its an impressive piece, believe me. Yes, he wasn't in the Senate to cast a 'No' vote, but he's had a consistent approach since Day 1 on the Iraq war. Which other candidate can say that? Who else had the foresight in 2002/2003 to see that this thing would turn out the way it has? Not Hillary, and not Johnny Edwards, for starters.

"Sworn into office January 4, 2005, Senator Obama..." -Senator Obama's website

I'd have more respect for Obama's "I've been against the war from the beginning" statements if he had been in the Senate since the beginning. The fact of the matter is, it's a lot easier to be against a war that (it seemed at the time) every American wanted to be fighting in. Senators knew that if this thing went well and they hadn't voted for it, they'd be cast as unpatriotic. Hell, even in '04 when the war wasn't going well, you were still bashed as not supporting the troops if you said one bad word against the war.

It's easy to make national decisions reading the newspaper in Chicago. It's a lot harder when you're reading the NIE (which HRC should have) in D.C.

NYT: " Bush Has No Strategy To End His Disastrous War"...LA Times: "Word 'Victory' [Has] Quietly Disappeared" From Bush's Vocabulary...SF Chronicle: "No One Should Be Fooled" By Attempt To Repackage Policy...NY Post: Bush "Consigning The Future Of Iraq" To The '08 Elections

someone (Judge?) asked
"Oh, bsimon, if you're a Bloomberg fan what do you think of his reward program for the underprivileged in NYC?"


I don't know jack about the Mayor's policies in NYC.

vwcat's 9:17 post (last night) is too good to be overlooked. I agree with his observations, though it is far from clear who will convince the voters to support him/her.

And although Bush said some troops would be home by Christmas, and others would be back by July, according to his plans the number of troops in Iraq could be higher in the summer of 2008 than it was in the fall of 2006 before the surge began. It is a very special kind of reduction where the quantity goes up instead of down. It takes a special vision to view troop reductions this way... Bush's Vision.

I think Bush has lost his mind. The world that he sees and whose existence he tries to show to us, does not exist for anyone else. And while Republicans, through the sheer political will power of Party support, still bolster his Presidency, they are falling away in flakes, like paint chipping off an old house. One day there will be nothing but exposed wood and we see what has been underneath all the time.

We press on with a madman in charge, ready to push his legacy upon us.

WASHINGTON -- Eight months after President Bush made public a plan he hailed as the "New Way Forward" in Iraq, he's announced a new plan, this one called "Return on Success."

The new plan was reminiscent of last year's "Operation Together Forward," which called for U.S. troops to secure neighborhoods in Baghdad and hand them over to Iraqi security forces. It bore similarities to an even older plan commonly articulated with the catchphrase "as they stand up, we'll stand down."

it's a war of slogans.

The Washington Post has always been a stalwart advocate of America's idiotic attempt to rule the world by eradicating left-leaning governments anywhere they raise their ugly heads. But this is getting ridiculous.

They need to admit failure. If you really think about it, Bush's failure signifies a failure of our entire post-Cold War foreign policy. You can blame the neo-conservatives for taking our Establishment off the rails, but the Washington Post waved their pom poms as the Establishment built the apparatus that enabled the neo-conservatives.

Even now they are cheerleading an attack on Iran. The sad fact is that any genocide or regional conflagration that occurs in the Middle East as a direct result of our policies is going to be justifiably blamed on the people at the Washington Post that advocated those policies. And they recognize this. That is why they will do everything in their power to forestall the day of reckoning. And that means that they will advocate a 10-year occupation of Iraq. Because if the day ever comes when they have to account for what they have endorsed, no one will ever listen to them again.

The LAT fronts an analysis piece describing how Bush used to say "victory" to describe his objective for Iraq. Now, it has been "replaced by a slightly more ambiguous goal: 'Success.'" Although Bush still spoke about how Iraq is vital to America's security, the fact remains that most Americas don't think "victory" is possible and even Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker "described more modest goals" earlier this week. In a piece inside, the NYT also notices the vocabulary shift and says Bush's speech "once again raised the question of what America's mission in Iraq really is-and how long it will last."

'The WSJ says children who collect high-end art "are emerging as one more niche" in the growing global art market. Some children (of incredibly well-off, art-loving parents) are amassing art collections of their own that include works by the likes of Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol. Although the trend is clearly not widespread, there's some great stories, including the 10-year-old who bargained $200 off a $3,200 sculpture by Nao Matsumoto and a 9-year-old with a 40-piece collection, including an Andy Warhol panda that is "hanging above her tea-party table."

This is what happens when the filthy rich don't pay taxes... money to burn and hopelessly spoiled and distorted children

Try as he might, the fact remains that his and Clinton's Senate Iraq voting record are identical.

"Barack 'I think we should keep all options on the table' Obama - please."

Thane, a hypothetical United States Senator
who favors an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, first; a redefinition of mission second; and "staying the course" least, would have to be prepared to vote for many different options less than "cut all funding" to move policy in his direction.

Dodd's commitment to vote only for Iraq bills with deadlines in them effectively cuts him out of the process and makes him a vote for "stay-the-course" anytime a compromise bill that moves us toward changing course does not contain a "deadline".

Edwards and Richardson have the luxury of not having to vote in the Senate.
-------------------------
I am unable to find a common ground with a
presidential candidate who thinks that military force is not even the last and least tool of diplomacy. I am not even sure DK believes that, although sometimes he makes sweeping statements that imply that he does. I cannot even address "staying out of future wars" unless an adjective like "foolish" or "reckless" is attached to the noun "wars".

I think Obama's position is appropriate.

If you start grading Mr. Obama on a fudged scale being that you only compare him to "top-tier" candidates (definition found no-where) I imagine you could find him to possess slightly more get-out-Iraq spirit than the rest of the "top-tier" Democratic candidates.

Fortunately the American public gets to choose from 8 Democrat candidates, several of whom I trust far more when it comes to their judgement and commitment to leaving Iraq and staying out of future wars (Dennis Kucinich/Mike Gravel/Bill Richardson).

Barack "I think we should keep all options on the table" Obama - please.

I think the Slate presidential mash-up/non-debate was brought up earlier but: http://www.slate.com/id/2173700/

Kuchinich got his made out of brass.

roo, I'll look for the book. Thanks.

Mark--I actually worded it the way I did because I think that is pretty close to the feeling that many of the exact muslims that we would be trying to reach would have.

The West has a huge perception problem--we are, after all, the upstarts if history is concerned. We cannot be perceived trying to educate the savages. Actively trying to affect change would require some type of dialogue but, honestly, we just want them to be more like us right?

I do not think the mainstream even now is too far off "western values" and the danger, specifically, is that interventionism and the type of politics we are and have been playing are driving more and more people towards extremism. If I may recommend a book, Terry Pratchett's "Thud!" beautifully captures the essence of the status quo (yes, he is a satirist/humorist but he is also one of the most brilliant writers of the past century. In your Sci-Fi/Fantasy aisle.)

My preferred course of action would indeed have been inaction. Iran, for example, was rapidly progressing towards a modern secular society until the Shah-installment fiasco. At this point the Western foreign policy mismanagement may have--and likely has--irrevocably injured the process to the point that it is either extended by another fifty years or made irreparable.

Possibly the only peaceable way, now, is to honestly state that this is what we believe in, this is how we want to do things and this is why and by presenting as objective a picture of what we consider universal rights and responsibilities etc. and let them drift towards it (although I suppose we should agree what those are first seeing as there is a sizable christian theocrat movement out there.)

Obama has the potential to beat the experience factor, but he will need to know his rivals in the democratic and republican campaigns. To know is to have the power to overcome. So far, he is too focused on one factor: THE IRAQ WAR AND THE MISTAKES OF BUSH. So in an idea, he is contradicting himself in the statement that tells us to look in the future, and not in the past.

i tihnk senator Obama has a very good point.

roo, you were critical, in a thoughtful way, of my suggestion that we wage a "hearts and minds" campaign against Wahabbism using friendly Arabs rather than European faces.
Don't you think billions of dollars for propaganda/reeducation is a better investment than hundreds of billions for occupation?
You suggested my idea was perhaps culturally snobbish or imperialist. Would it not be far more true to our values to try to sell them in the marketplace of ideas?

Clinton has been copying Obama and what he says and does for a year now. However, he still stumps her.
he is a clever politician and knows how to play this game of chess better than anyone in the beltway realilzes. To his advantage that all of you underestimate the man. And overestimate Hillary. also overrate her.
Clinton has been running a sprint. Obama, a marathon.
But, his biggest problem is not Hillary but, the media.
he thinks outside the box and gives common sense answers and all you guys inside the beltway are quick to say gaffe, rookie mistake.
You never realize he is purposely running his own way. Not according to cw.
I feel the media focues way too much on every little thing Hillary does and gush over it.
You guys do not explain to people where a candidate stands on issues so they can learn. this is espcially true with on air news. They need to highlight a candidate a week and look in depth at them so people can get to know them and what they are about and where they stand. this is important for those who do not have time to go and read the internet and research.

Bokonon - Thhanks for the kind word; of course I agree. I actually watched the whole speech on public tv - thought it was so great that I relistened to it at BBC online.

Even his opponents still say it was Blair's greatest speech, which reduces my sadness at having bought it ever so slightly.

My son-in-law, in Bath, was against the Brit intervention, but loved that speech.

Mark, I wouldn't slam PBS + BBC too hard - I think they're about the most considered and intelligent news available. I don't remember what they said about Blair's speech, but I do remember that they were not so gung ho about going to war.
The UK - and Blair (and the BBC, and NPR, and all of us) - got a lot of their info from the US government, and as we now know, that wasn't as unbiased as we all (me too) assumed it was. So they should have been more suspicious/reluctant about it, and so should we all have been, but only a year and 1/2 after 09.11 it was all too easy to believe, for everyone.
Funny - I have a good friend who grew up in Moscow, and he was skeptical from the get-go because he had learned NEVER to take any information from the government without a grain of salt, and in this case (he said) Bush and the Bushies did not strike him as trustworthy in the slightest. I was skeptical too, but that was just because I didn't like Bush - I would never have imagined the degree of duplicity that was actually going on. It was a weird experience to get a lesson on what was believable on the nightly news from someone who grew up watching Soviet propaganda. I am more cynical now - aren't we all?

roo, your timeline is great. Thanks. It reminds me that when Iraq said it would comply with inspections 4 years after the inspectors were gone GWB would not take "yes" for an answer. It does not make me feel smarter to be reminded of that.

We did not wait for the inspectors to finish and if there were chem weapons we had Saddam in a box, anyway.

i think judge C. summed it up best in that it is a roll of the dice in the cauldron of the electorate. the dollars are pretty even. they both have a good set of humans helping. the random nature of the campaign and the roll of the dice with the voters.
damn! gotta love it!
and it is early yet

Right, and more. As it turned out according to our inspector after the we marched into Baghdad, Saddam's chems were destroyed right after the first Gulf War AND Saddam may not have known that; or else Saddam wanted to maintain the fiction against Iran, as you said.

Remember that UN did have inspectors in until '96 [from my memory].

I still kick myself for not having listened to Graham and Levin, whose voices I strongly respected. I have said here before how I bought Blair's great speech to Commons, hook, line, and sinker. So much for getting my news from PBS, BBC, and "The
Economist".

On the similarity between Petraeus words and GWB's: I think the critics of the General have it backwards. The General published much of this in a previous letter and I am sure the DOD got a brief from Petraeus before the testimony was given, as a matter of course.

Thus, I think, GWB took what he liked from Petraeus' report and Crocker's regular briefings to make what they told Congress the root of his policy.

I do not think GWB could come up with the policy, first, and tell them how to testify. I do think it likely he took what regular briefings would have made clear was going to be their testimonies, and parrotted them.

Ep, sorry, the above is obviously to "who's the revisionist?" who was responding to Lioness.

Lioness--"Now, Bush was obviously lying about his goals and intentions, but few Democrats were willing to come out and say that."

And that is really all that is necessary to say about that topic.

Obama did. Kuchinich did. Clinton did not.

Lioness, and others who claim HRC is trying to re-write the history of her vote on the war:

Take a look at the actual press coverage leading up to the congressional vote for authorization for the use of force in Iraq. The Bush/Powell line was: We want to get UN cooperation, but we won't get it until they see that the US is serious, and will act with or without the UN. We need this authorization because that will prompt the int'l community to fall in line (as in Bush War I). We're not going to rush into war, but we need this resolution as a bargaining chip. Levin's amendment would not have met that stated goal, since it would have been contingent on UN action/resolution.

Now, Bush was obviously lying about his goals and intentions, but few Democrats were willing to come out and say that. Remember, the post-9/11 "unity" had frayed, but we were not as polarized as we are now. And we have learned a lot since 2003 about how far Bush was willing to go in distorting the truth. Things looked different in 2003.

Hilary's current description of what she favored is consistent with her statements and vote in 2003. I thought it was wrong then, and I still do, but she is not lying about what she did. She may not be telling all about her motives, which probably involved a lot of political calculation, but she's not revising history.

Go back and look at the contemporaneous news coverage. Don't count on the MSM to do it for you, because they are rightly embarrassed about their own complicity. Same for lots of Democrats who were convinced by Powell, Blair and others.

Obama's anaylsis then was right, but he was a bystander. We'll never know how he would have voted, on a matter of national security in which the overwhelming majority of the voters -- the people legislators are supposed to represent -- were in agreement with Bush.

Mark, as it turned out, didn't he have a bunch of chemical munitions that had degraded and were useless? What I remember is that experts at the time said that because of his rivalry with Iran next door, he could not afford to admit that he no longer had "WMD." Eventually, of course, he did say that, but by that time Bush was halfway to war already. But point taken and you're right - everyone already assume that he did have them, and nobody panicked because he was stuck in Iraq with no way to use them against us. This is a problem that WE created where none needed to exist.

off topic (also a question for DCAustinite,) I don't suppose you ever saw Danny Gatton? One of my musical heroes, although like many people in the north I didn't know much about him before he died - just that he was an amazing underground guitarist who could play practically anything. I'm assuming he played Austin more than once, though...?
did you ever see/hear "the Redneck Jazz Explosion"?

I am not an Obama supporter. However, Obama and Paul are the only two candidates to have voted against the war in 2003. HRC is providing a revisionist view of the war.
Obama's thesis of using the UN has merits. It would help with the cost and the manpower to keep Iraq stable. President Bush pretty much told the UN to stay out of Iraq after the initial downfall of Saddam's government. This country is a charter member of UN. The UN was born in San Francisco after the greatest war of human history. The UN's headquarters is in New York. Why Americans' do not want to participate in collective security has always bewildered me.
Obama can make the case to share the load of Iraq with the other countries of the world. People will be quick to say that idea is wrong. My response is to involve the countries of the world to ensure that the humanitarian and military crisis in Iraq is not only America's problem but a world problem as well.

40% of Republicnas still think Saddamm was behind 9/11. roo

Mark--"But everybody thought Saddam had chem weapons because he used them previously and would not even say he destroyed them."

I disagree with this statement--I did not, at any point, think there was a 'WMD' threat.

But it was not just me either: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=blix+iraq+wmd&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2002&as_hdate=2002&lnav=d3

go rudy--"'Character assassination' is one thing when it's politician on politician, Giuliani said. But you don't do that to a general. 'You have no right to...put his integrity into question.'"

We have every right to question his integrity. Facts state A, General says B. Therefore, the General is either incompetent or untruthful.

Bokonon, hi -

Graham and Levin did not believe that an invasion would give the "neighborhood" more protecion than the no-fly zones and nothing in the NIE really said it would. But everybody thought Saddam had chem weapons because he used them previously and would not even say he destroyed them.

The whole "mushroom cloud" thing was b.s., however.

My point was that even critics thought he had chem weapons. But they thought he had 'em since '91 and nobody panicked about them til GWB.

I *hope* Obama can do it. Clinton is as bad a swine as Bush and no self respecting Democrat will for for her. If the choice Guliani vs. Clinton, I'm voting third party....and I'll *against* every Democratic running, across the board. If the feminists and their grubby corporate alies success in foisting Clinton off on us, I want to make sure it drives a truck though "choice", gay rights, and every other position they hold near and dear. Clinton is as much an enemy as is Bush and this is all out war.

"Wash. Post media critic Kurtz said Fox News is "entitled" to be a Bush "cheerleader" and "misinform[] our society"
Summary: On Glenn Beck, Howard Kurtz said that Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
During the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Washington Post media critic and CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz said that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."

Kurtz has a history of ignoring Fox falsehoods and ignoring criticism of the cable network. In his April 19, 2006, profile of Fox News host Brit Hume, Kurtz presented Hume as the "Low-Key Voice of Conservatism on Fox News" but largely ignored the numerous false and misleading statements Hume has made during his tenure. Media Matters also documented Kurtz's response to a September 19, 2004, column by New York Times columnist Frank Rich, in which he referred to Fox News Channel as "G.O.P. TV." On the September 26, 2004, edition of Reliable Sources, Kurtz asked Rich if that label was "fair to [Fox] correspondents like Carl Cameron and Jim Angle and Major Garrett ... who are trying to do a straightforward job." But Media Matters has documented numerous examples of reporting by Cameron, Angle, and Garrett that belie Kurtz's statement that they are "trying to do a straightforward job."

Kurtz made his remark on Glenn Beck in the context of discussing Olbermann's comments quoted in the October 2007 issue of Playboy: "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Fox News is reportedly the most-watched cable news network in America. The New York Times reported on August 2 that "Fox News remained entrenched in first place" in the July 2007 cable-news ratings race, while rivals CNN and MSNBC battled over second place. Moreover, a 2003 study conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks that was based on seven U.S. polls conducted from January through September of that year found that "Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions [about the war in Iraq]" The study gauged misperceptions on the following issues: "Evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found," "Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq," and "World public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq." The study also found that "Fox News watchers were most likely to hold misperceptions -- and were more than twice as likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions."

From the study:

From the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

KURTZ: Look, I'm not -- look. Keith Olbermann is somebody who interviews people and spouts off on cable and has had some success doing it. And I think he's very talented. But I think those comments -- Al Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan -- are so over the top, it's just beneath him. It's beneath the kind of erudition I would expect from him.

BECK: Do you -- do you even understand what he was talking about?

KURTZ: I think the argument that I've heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News -- it's not an argument that I embrace -- is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation --

BECK: But that's what he's doing!

KURTZ: -- and is -- is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it's misinforming our society. But you know what?

BECK: Howard --

KURTZ: They're entitled to do that.

BECK: Let me ask you this question. Who makes you weep more for journalism: Keith Olbermann or me? That's quite a question.

KURTZ: I think you both have plenty of opinions and are both paid to spew them on the airwaves.

BECK: At least I admit it. Howard, thank you very much.

--K.H.
"

Chris has a point about Obama's need to focus on the future as opposed to his past views on Iraq. If there has been one consistent them in presidential politics since 1980, it's focusing on the past is of little use to voters. Reagan won in 1980 and 1984 by focusing on a positive image for the future of America ("Morning in America"), rather than the stagflation of the 1970s. Clinton successfully sold a "Bridge to the 21st Century" instead of returning whole heartedly to the "economy, stupid." In 2000, Gore asked voters to consider the economic success of the 1990s; Bush asked voters to bring a new "compassionate" conservatism to Washington. In 2004, Kerry tried to rely on his military service in Vietnam to no avail. Voters want to know what will happen to them tomorrow, not how yesterday may help them tomorrow.

Mark, interesting, but I notice this is "excerpts from," and I seem to remember reading that the excerpted version released to the public did NOT contain many of the doubts which were in the full text - ? And what I keep remembering is that Bob Graham - no shrinking violet himself - felt that the case for military action was NOT made, after he read the whole thing - ?

Oh, bsimon, if you're a Bloomberg fan what do you think of his reward program for the underprivileged in NYC?

"They argue that once the issue is fully debated on the stump and on television, voters will get the differences between their candidate and the other candidates in the field. Perhaps. But..."

Perhaps my left testicle. Policy/planning aside, Obama and Clinton on the stump are night and day from each other. As much as I admire HRC's background and her political evolution, she doesn't come across nearly as well as Obama. R's in Iowa like him because of his Reaganesque/MLK-esque speaking abilities. What he says is not going to differentiate him from HRC as much as how he says it. Some time before the last ice age, 'issues' became less important than perceptions.

Face facts: HRC is not going to make any mistakes. What will happen is that Obama will publicize his own personality using all that money they've taken in lately. The campaign is going to roll the dice and hope that the contrast between the two candidates is enough to siphon off some of HRC's polling numbers. We'll find out if this strategy is going to work.

Clinton and her croonies are manipulating Democrats into thinking she is the most experienced candidate. Its too bad a lot of Democrats are drinking the Kool-Aid. Who cares about her alleged experience, when she did not even read the National Intellegence Estimate on Iraq prior to her vote, and showed her poor judgement in supporting the war and George Bush. If Democrats are looking for experience they should vote for Joe Biden, not the phony representing New York in the Senate.

proudtobeGOP--Petraeus was not sworn in for his testimony, by the way. Does not mean he lied or misrepresented the truth but you do a disservice by distorting the objective truth yourself.

drindl, I read the NYT article and thank you for the reference on the previous thread.

This much is clear:
-------------------------
"Somehow negotiators managed to strike that balance, but soon after, the agreement began to crumble.
...

When the draft emerged from that council, the members of some parties, particularly the Kurdish ones, thought that the careful balance struck in the draft had been upset.... Then the law languished in Parliament and, ... the Kurds decided to send a signal that they would not wait indefinitely and signed the contract with Dana Gas.

It served as a reminder: 'If you keep stalling, life goes on,' said Mr. Zebari, who is Kurdish."
-------------------------
The Kurds share our impatience with the Baghdad. If the Texans were encouraged to negotiate with the Kurds by the Admin, it may be another signal meant to show our impatience, but which could, once again, have unintended consequences.

I have no way of knowing if the Admin actually encoraged or wanted this, or if it was simply TX indies jumping on an opportunity that Exxon saw as too risky [my Dallas MN post, yesterday].

Obama's winnng the Iraq debate among the Dems. Hillary needs to work on that.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Boko - What I knew about the NIE in 2002
sounded like this:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

It was repeated by French, Russian, Brit, and American sources everywhere.

Everyone already knows the NYT is a shill for the extreme left. now there is no doubt left at all. and it seems money is no object. even if the stock plummets and the owners go under, the editors will continue on with their leftward slant. go the way of Air america NYT.

Slogan again H.R. Clinton, "It's our nation's future, stupid"

To all those who think there is some sort of conspiracy with move on's rates for the ads, go and work for a newspaper. There's is a lot of fill space in a paper, and it's not like that ad knocked another ad out or the Nytimes took a loss to put that ad in there.

It works this way: Nytimes can insist on the going rate and not get that ad in. Benefit? None. they get 0 dollars for that. There's no other ad to replace it. Even if there is, they simply put both ads in. So by taking it, they get revenue. No conspiracy here. Anybody who says there is is being disingenuos at best, a partisan liar at worst.

It's not every day that sees a four-star general, a Princeton Ph.D., a recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and the chief author of the Army's definitive counterinsurgency manual testify before Congress.

But in Gen. Petraeus, my colleagues were presented with every bit of that assembled expertise in the form of a single man -- giving those who wanted it a chance to supplement their knowledge and gain valuable insights into how best to accomplish our goals of a secure and stable Iraq.

But when faced with the opportunity to set politics aside and educate themselves on a vital matter of foreign policy and national security, too many of my Democratic colleagues decided the more prudent course was to dismiss, denounce, or flat-out defame the commander they had demanded fly in to brief them.

What was said this week in an effort to impugn the personal and professional integrity of our top military commander in Iraq may have been shameful, but it was perhaps even more of a disgrace that so few Democrats stood up to MoveOn.org when it unveiled its despicable, full-page ad in The New York Times likening Gen. Petraeus to a national traitor.

From the party's top candidates running for our nation's top political office, to the caucus's most junior members of the House, most Democrats refused to repudiate the personal slur that MoveOn.org leveled against Gen. Petraeus -- an ad for which the leftist advocacy group reportedly paid at least $100,000 less than the newspaper's posted rate.

"This hurt comes from the honest word"

"And your accounted for. Everything that you heard.

Do not speak to fools. They scorn the wisdon of your words"

"Heaven shines light on those, innocent to how the world goes"

"What's a wicked nation? One with blind men. Not taking charge of the situation."

I am

Hillary can try to do all the blurring she likes, but there is no mistaking Obama for a liar, and Hillary is a pathological liar.

Here is Clinton's lie on Iraq in the Yahoo mashup:

She said:
"I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority."

Here is the truth, as repoted in The New York Times Magazine earlier this year:

"Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting -- and that she now says she had favored all along.

"The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. Senators knew full well the wide latitude that they were handing to Bush, which is why some tried to put the brakes on the march to war. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, ''urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution.'' That resolution would allow the president to wage war as a last option."

Colin asks
"it almost sounds like you could vote for Obama. Does that mean we democrats have a chance of winning your vote away from a third party this year. :)

Incidentally, what's your take on the MN Senate race?"

Obama is a candidate I haven't ruled out. Unlike Clinton & Edwards. I wish there were someone as interesting on the GOP side; Huckabee is the least annoying, but still has that pesky bible-over-science problem. Too bad Kemp disappeared after the debacle with Dole.

On Coleman v Franken or Ciresi. Too soon to tell. It looks to me like Coleman is making the predicted move towards the middle. Its not yet clear if he'll get away with it. The rumor mill has it that the press is trying to pin down Franken on his prior support for the war - that could put a dent in his support. Ciresi may have an opening if Franken stumbles with the war thing. I think its going to be close - Coleman has to reinvent himself to appeal to swing voters in what is likely to be an off-year for the GOP. Yet the likely DFL candidates might also have trouble with the swing voters. The press has been quiet on the subject, so nobody's really paying attention anyway.

I'd like to see Coleman out, but haven't yet found a candidate to support.

Obama took the time for his questioning to simply pontificate and lecture, and make campaign speeches, and then he started whining and moaning that he didn't have enough time for questions.

He never intended to ask any questions, because he was at least smart enough to figure out that Petraeus would run rings around whatever questions he asked.

So he just kept pontificating and saying things, and General Petraeus sat there while they called him a flat-out liar in so many words.

I think Obama is taking the right tone with his speech the problem is that he isn't using the right mechanism to communicate it. Edwards's plan to run a two minute commercial after the speach is brilliant.
He gets to basically give the Democratic response to the president. I know it is probably costing him a good amount of money, but it is well spent IMO.

The real slap at Hillary is this line: "Too many took the president at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves." Look for Obama to get more specific as time goes on.

bsimon, it almost sounds like you could vote for Obama. Does that mean we democrats have a chance of winning your vote away from a third party this year. :)

Incidentally, what's your take on the MN Senate race? I believe you're local out that way and I'm curious whether you think Coleman will survive. Regardless, should be an expensive nasty race -- as either Franken or Cireci will be able to fundraise with Coleman. I, for one, wish Coleman was up in 2010 so Tim Waltz could have run against him.

Chris writes
"They argue that once the issue is fully debated on the stump and on television, voters will get the differences between their candidate and the other candidates in the field. Perhaps. But, with Clinton's campaign doing everything they can to blur the differences between the two candidates on the issue, it won't be easy."

I tend to agree, the Obama campaign seems to be promoting their candidates' ideas and a new vision for US policy. The Clinton campaign, by comparison, seems to be maneuvering to react to Obama & the GOP candidates. Which tactics represent better leadership?

When it comes to picking a new leader for this country, we should be looking for a leader capable of taking a principled stand and sticking by it; not one who picks their ground based on where others are standing.

I am just so interested in all this gay stuff. It helps me to get to know myself, especially after I got kicked out of the Army for it. I am not so strange after all, am I?

Chris writes
"Second, he needs to find a way to convince voters that he is the candidate of the future, the candidate with the vision and judgment (if not the experience) to extricate us from Iraq as well as change the overall nature of partisan politics."

Could be rephrased as
He needs to find a way to convince voters taht he is the candidate of the future, the candidate with the vision and judgement, without the baggage.

After learning about the sweet discount MoveOn got for their "abominable" "Betray Us" ad, Rudy Giuliani asks the New York Times for the same rate for an advertisement in tomorrow's paper.

"We believe, unlike Hillary Clinton, that General Petraeus is telling the truth," the former mayor of New York told reporters this afternoon, in Atlanta, Georgia, while asking MoveOn, Hillary Clinton, and the New York Times to apologize to General Petraeus. "We believe that her attack on General Petraeus was a follow-up to the MoveOn attack," Giuliani said.

"Character assassination" is one thing when it's politician on politician, Giuliani said. But you don't do that to a general. "You have no right to...put his integrity into question."

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2933

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=D6F88210BAB0548448BD8811209D800D?diaryId=2953

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audio from the Signorile show on Patrick McHenry and the latest sordid GOP gay scandal
by: pam
Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 13:00:00 PM EDT

Many thanks to Mike Signorile and producer David Guggenheim for access to the audio of my segment yesterday on Mike's satellite radio show on SIRIUS OutQ 109.
We tried in 20 minutes to untangle the latest GOP gay scandal involving Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC10) and a cast of characters involved in a bizarre Florida murder-suicide. It's a murky, pretty depraved mess that is crying for mainstream media to pick up.

Have fun listening.

"

I think Obama can do it, Clinton's stance in 2002 - along with most of the Hill's Dems - was pathetic. They caved into a blatantly impearialist war without bothering to look into the situation in Iraq. Anyone who did could tell there were ethnic tensions simmering below Saddam Hussein's tight lid. Like Tito before him, those in the know knew once he was gone the killing would start.