Monday, February 19, 2007

We were led to believe he was plainspoken, but who knew the President also had a penchant for talking like a convict?  Anybody else embarrassed?

RM
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:31:13 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  |  Trackback
 Monday, February 12, 2007

In September 2002, just before Clinton and every other Democrat who hoped to run for president voted to authorize the war in Iraq, Gore gave a no-holds-barred speech inveighing against the invasion. "The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq," he warned, "could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

At the time, recalls Carrick, Washington insiders dismissed the speech as sour grapes. "The Democratic establishment all said, 'Oh, Al's just out there doing this because he's bitter. This just proves he's never going to run again.' But they all proved to be wrong and he was exactly right. There's nothing more powerful than that."

Gore's deep ties to online activists could neutralize Clinton's greatest advantage: her fund-raising prowess. Gore retains a network of big-dollar donors from his 2000 campaign, and many of the party's biggest funders are reportedly sitting on their checkbooks, waiting to see if he enters the race. "If Howard Dean could raise $59 million on the Internet," says Carrick, "the mind boggles as to what Al Gore might do." Joe Trippi, who managed Dean's campaign, believes Gore could raise as much as $200 million on the Internet: "Gore may have more money than anybody within days of entering the race."

I have the good fortune to work with someone who had a perch in the West Wing and the second Clinton campaign who has seen Hillary, Bill and Al up close.  He says that people underestimate Gore's role behind the scenes with Bill Clinton.  He said that Al Gore was smarter than Bill Clinton.  I think that with Gore, a Democratic landslide presidency is something that can really be thought about seriously.

RW
Monday, February 12, 2007 11:22:06 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Friday, February 09, 2007
 Wednesday, February 07, 2007
 Monday, February 05, 2007
 Sunday, February 04, 2007
 Friday, February 02, 2007

"Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

 

What's the point of us being there?  Our "best friends" there are allied with our current no. 1 enemy.  Our enemies hate our no. 1 enemy.   Why?  All for the sake of internal U.S. politics.  From the beginning this war was about Republican dominance under the leadership of Bush.  They selected a war that they knew would split the Democrats.  Of course all of that has changed and its about saving the political ass of George W. Bush.  One thing it isn't about is the interests of the Republic. 

RW
Friday, February 02, 2007 6:58:58 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, January 31, 2007

There was a time when if you suggested that the Iraqis made poor soldiers, impossible to train or motivate and unlikely to "stand up, as we stand down", then you were a racist or not paying attention to all the progress being made.  Now, if a group of Iraqis show an incredible amount of planning, tactical and weapons sophistication in pulling off a daring raid, then they are either Iranians or trained by the Iranians. 

I don't know who pulled off the Karbala raid and I don't rule out Iranian involvement, but reading Thomas Ricks book Fiasco has impressed upon me that you can't entirely discount the Iraqi insurgency which has shown unacknowledged levels of operational and tactical sophistication that has never adequately been explained to the American people by the Pentagon except in the increasing numbers of US dead.  Given the bent of the White House and Pentagon, I'm not surprised they are quick to point to Iran but what happens if we're talking about some rogue interior ministry or Iraqi special ops troops trained by us?  Spoke some English?  American uniforms?  Knew our security procedures and how to exploit them with a little inside help?  I'll wait to see the evidence but it seems that scenario isn't entirely improbable either, is it? 

RM
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:23:56 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback