Troops Before Policy?

GOPolitico Joe Klein. Its who they are. If you want to know why you shouldn’t link to Politico without verifying their stuff read this piece in The New Republic about how they run their shop. Its aptly titled “The Scoop Factory” And this is from the horses mouth so its very enlightening. When “news folks” tell you they strive to be linked to by Drudge you should listen to them.
.
Second I don’t know why its troubling other than having egg on your face. The troops are needed for breathing room to craft a viable strategy. It is what it is.

In the future, I’m going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.
.
I will refrain from taking the obvious cheap shot and instead point out that one of the things that scares me most is the degree to which members of the military and intelligence feel immune from the responsibilities that stem from serving in a free democracy.
.
There are very important reasons that our Constitution was set up with the military being held under civilian control. Even the notion of a permanet standing army was seen as a danger to freedom and that is why all military appropriations have a term limit of two years.
.
With that in mind, I find it very troubling that there be any hint that people within the Pentagon may be interested in undermining the President’s authority. We used to refer to places where that happens as “Failed States”

Joe-What about the fact that our lack of boots or the ground is causing our forces to rely primarily on air power and predator drones which in turn is causing a lot civilian deaths because we can’t clearly identify who we are actually killing? Could that be a factor?

So this is all about getting your tiny feelings hurt.
Remember Politico —-> Drudge —-> Rush.

We didn’t have a policy in Iraq and I don’t remember your gnashing your teeth or rending your garments.
Of course we expect Obama to do better but the troops haven’t arrived in Afghanistan yet and the president has time to clearly enunciate what his policy will be there.

“In the future, I’m going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.”
.
I bet you will. Not holding by breath.

From what I’ve read; a larger number of troops were wanted but instead the administration simply diverted troops bound for Iraq to Afghanistan. This allows for the generals to get some extra troops; solidifys and signals his intent to draw down in Iraq (which people in the Pentagon DO seem to be opposing; and allows the review to be completed and analyzed.

I don’t think Cloud was wrong; I think this was a tactical decision that actually supports the administrations goals of getting out of Iraq and beginning to address Afghan/Pakistan issues.

JMHO

“We don’t have a policy there yet” – Says who? Don’t tell me the bug you have planted under the President’s staff meeting table is on the fritz again. Just because the Republicans buy theirs at Radio Shack…

Joe:

Aren’t you SUPPOSED to confirm things before you quote/cite/link to them? Would that not be the responsible journalistic thing to do?

As far as the troop deployment – can we get you a fainting couch? Obamma has been saying for months that he would do that, and for all you know it is part of the policy that you simply have not been informed about yet. Or were you waiting for Politico to tell you what that policy is?

My brother is one of those troops heading for Afghanistan and already has a good idea of his mission there. It is not like these troops will land today- they will have time to finish up a plan as these troops and equipment are on the way. Turn around the pullout time for Iraq and understand how long it takes to deploy these troops. Mr. Klein needs to stop shooting first and asking questions later.

President Obama should not get a pass on Afghanistan.
.
There has not been a clear war policy but forth by any administration for conducting a war since WWII.
.
Without a clear war policy the military can not put forth a viable strategy for winning.

In fact, there’s been a steady stream of unreliable leaks coming out of the Pentagon–about troop levels, about the Defense budget–that seem to be emanating from a cadre that opposes the Obama Administration

.
Joe Klein if you want to learn more about that “cadre” here is a story you might just want to link to instead of Politico.
.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

Before I get accused of defending the military, I believe if a clear war policy is put forth by President Obama, it is doubtful that the military is capable of drafting a winning strategy.

d3vt: God speed to your brother.

There’s that peculiar use of the word ‘winning’ again which assumes that warfare is a game with rules and a final outcome. The debate over how to deploy our troops where they will do the most good gets distorted to near-insanity when the undefinable notion of ‘winning’ gets thrown into the mix. We “won” Iraq after less than a week. The notion that we acheive victory over the isolated terror cells and loose networks of people who wish to harm us can only lead to a disproportionate response which will inevitably do more harm than good.

Remarkable. Klein assumes Politico knows exactly what it’s doing, but Obama is just taking random actions with our military.
.
I’ll give you a topic: one of these assumptions may be more incorrect than the other. If so, which one? Discuss.

Foxnews.com has an article on their website: Hitler Had Terrible Table Manners. Whoda thunk?

Between the last post regarding Cheney and this one (and particularly sg’s link), it would appear that the press getting deliberately played by people to spread disinformation and advance personal agendas appears to be a running theme for the day. In the current environment double-checking anonymously sourced stories is the absolute minimum requirement.
.
We know you’re tight with Gen. Petraeus. How asking him to rebut this charge:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720

” .. We don’t have a policy there yet. We don’t know what the goal is – ..”

All options are on the table.
Goal? Why do you ask – just so that we can debate it?
There is the Nixonian thing: We can bomb them back past the stone age. Then there is always the My Lai thing: That we save Afghanistan by killing everyone/everything there ..
[Save your outrage: The people who did it still walk tall and proud among us ..]

When is the last time you moaned the demise of North America’s Indian tribes? Or the Aztecs and Incas and etc ?

.

31 – - Days we have been waiting for the president to officially declare the KKK and “Aryan Nation” as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Any success in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or even Lower Splevobia can only come about if the folks living there want stability because they’ve figured out how to make their lives better in that environment. In other words, the people of the middle class who have a hope of being rich but don’t want a missile or roving gang ruining their chances at an adequate life.
-
If the troublemakers are seen as more of a problem than our troops then we’re “winning”. If “Join the Taliban or we’ll slit your throat” is the most popular bumpersticker then we have a lot of work to do… or we should leave.
-
If Obama stays with his belief in the power of a strong middle class for all situations needing stability then I don’t think he can go too far wrong. In some cases, however, the middle class won’t grow back for generations.

In the future, I’m going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.
.
Does this mean that Pete Hoekstra is going to have to get a second Twitter account?

CENTCOM wanted 30,000 more troops in theater, minimum.

So the obfuscating MOOP approves only 17k (about 1 division less logistics).

THAT, Say Joe, IS the problem.

Meanwhile, back at ACORN HQ…

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1

” .. 31 – - Days we have been waiting for the president to officially declare the KKK and “Aryan Nation” as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. ..”

These groups of ‘hateful ideologies’ have terrorized good Americans for decades and are responsible for the gruesome deaths of more Americans than those who died on 9/11.

Their members are terrorists and those who pall around with them and provide them with succor and comfort are suspected terrorists who are to be considered and dealt with in the manner we deal with such people.

To answer Paul Dirks I probably should not of used the word winning strategy, but in my defense I am defining a winning strategy as a strategy that results in achieving the stated policy.

cfukara
… …

Have you or Eric Holder EVER been to Gettysburg?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E4E781&show_article=1&catnum=-1

Move On, indeed.

Hula, did CENTCOM suggest the troops wear boots on their hands and walk on all fours to “double” the boots on the ground or are we going to get a loan from the Chinese army? I believe the Republican’s are in charge of the “start war first, find troops later” strategy. And what if the Taliban whips out their big magnifying glass and melts them… you know, like what happened in your sandbox yesterday.

“Any success in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or even Lower Splevobia can only come about if the folks living there want stability because they’ve figured out how to make their lives better in that environment. In other words, the people of the middle class who have a hope of being rich but don’t want a missile or roving gang ruining their chances at an adequate life.”

… …

If the thugs are the only ones with the guns and willingness to use them, no economic tweaking much matters. [See HITLER, MAO, CHE, HO, CHAVEZ for related background.]

People do in fact have to take things into their own hands from time to time, to include defending the free and freeing the slaves by force of arms and not law suits alone.

Greg Sargent has an interesting post on the tiff between Politico and the NYT.
.
All worth reading, but the money comments from my POV.
.
Just to add my own take, I think that there are actually two Politicos. There’s the good Politico, which offers big-picture, reported pieces that genuinely change the conversation, and boasts bloggers who regularly offer useful info and valuable insights. The good Politico is doing a better job of using Web-based journalistic techniques in a “non-ideological” setting than the Times.
.
The other Politico does, in fact, play the “inside game” in unsightly ways. It fetishizes Drudge and consciously strives to break the kind of catty gossip that will reverberate inside the cable bubble. It’s worth distinguishing between gossipy pieces that get talked about and pieces that drive the cable conversation because they’re genuinely saying something new. What Drudge links and whatever gossip cable chatters are obsessed with are both highly overstated as markers of journalistic influence in the new media world.
.
The second Politico may be seen by the pub’s editors as an integral part of the pub’s business model, but it’s hard to see how it doesn’t detract from the site’s better half. That said, Keller’s case strikes me as simplistic and overstated and too dismissive of Politico’s genuine achievements.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/politico-versus-new-york-times-john-harris-hits-back-at-bill-keller/

I get it now, Joke Line doesn’t think his blog posts should get the same attention as his columns in the dead tree edition. I mean how else can you interpret this line.
.

Also, and predictably enough, commenters are slagging me for a) trusting Politico and b) not double-checking everything I link to here…which is ridiculous, of course.

.
Makes you wonder why he blogs at all. But a question to mull over, if some nameless blogger linked to a totally bogus story and people actually believed it, what would Joke Line think of such a person for spreading lies “anonymously” on the web? One wonders….

@Joe,
I don’t think it’s fair to say that you are being slagged by the commenters. It is after all, a blog post and the error is noted by your own admission. That’s precisely the self-correcting phenomeon that the internet helps enable.
.
I think we all can agree that the close relationship between reporters and sources can often result in those reporters being used as conduits for misinformation. You’ve just noted the phenomenon and we’re specifically asking you to help address it – some more kindly than others.
.
I look forward to your additional reporting when you return.

“…I believe the Republican’s are in charge of the “start war first, find troops later” strategy…”

… … …

Was that in Japan, Korea, Germany, Vietnam, or Cuba?

Go back to your box, boy.

In the future, I’m going to double-check the stories that use unnamed sources at the Pentagon before linking to them.
.
You’re crazy, man.

Uh oh.

Jihad Joe just realized that he helped elect a MOOP.

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

David Cloud, who came to Politico from the New York Times, is a responsible and well-regarded defense reporter, someone whose work–like Tom Ricks, Yochi Dreazen and Thom Shanker–I find eminently trustworthy on military affairs.

.
Shorter Joke Line
.

I believe everything they say without the need for any fact checking

.
Tom Ricks who by all accounts is a reputable journo on the subject of military affairs says that Odierno came up with the surge strategy but others have pointed to retired General Keane as having passed on the strategy to Gen Petraeus. I wonder who is right but I have no doubt who Joke Line will believe.

Interesting article, PD & sg. So, Obama’s got Jones as national security adviser. His butt should be covered. My first reaction to hearing of Petraeus’s “deriliction of duties,” so to speak, is for Obama to pitch the guy. Either get with the program, or leave. This petty backstabbing should not be enjoined in the first place, but it certainly should not be tolerated.

There’s been a steady stream of unreliable leaks coming out of the Pentagon–about troop levels, about the Defense budget–that seem to be emanating from a cadre that opposes the Obama Administration
.
Joe Klein:
.
Rather than “slag” you for admitting that anonymous sources are often agenda-driven, and their “information” flawed, I have a few questions:
.
How do you know this?
.
Why does it “seem” this way to you, given that the leaks are anonymous?
.
How would you go about verifying that these leaks are indeed “emanating from a cadre that opposes the Obama Administration“?
.
How would we readers know whether your impressions of these leaks are accurate or not?
.
Unless and until you put forward a decent rationale for your impressions of these anonymous sources, aren’t you guilty of rank rumor-mongering?
.
What do you know that we do not about other journalists’ anonymous sources at the Pentagon that leads you to characterize the situation as a civilian authority-undermining cabal?

stuart, thanks for asking those questions. I didn’t know if I was missing some obvious inference but it appears I was not.

“Was that in Japan, Korea, Germany, Vietnam, or Cuba?”

We didn’t start any of those and Republican’s certainly didn’t finish them to anyone’s satisfaction when they had the chance.

Bush or Stalin? Is there a difference? Are your soldiers green or red, huletski?

Remember that Obama is privy to sensitive information we don’t have access. He, more than anyone, hates having to do this. I know it must weigh on him heavily.

@stuartzechman:

What do you know that we do not about other journalists’ anonymous sources at the Pentagon that leads you to characterize the situation as a civilian authority-undermining cabal?

I can’t speak for Mr. Klein; but I have the same impression. In several instances the administration has had to go and clean up stories that originated and were sourced to the DOD and Pentagon and Military commanders and contradict/clarify the president’s position and the sources understanding.

Funny. Stuart and Rose, but this looks like progress to me. Realizing that the Politico has a history of inaccurate premature reporting based on anonymice is an improvement.
.
I agree, Stuart, that getting more details about the identity and motives of these people is a good thing to do, but that seems to be what Joe is saying he is going to do.

jayackroyd and greenlyfe, I can’t speak for stuart but my problem is with Joe’s suggestion that there is some anti-Obama cadre in the Pentagon that is leaking inaccurate information in order to damage him. It seems like that’s a big leap from “Politico’s anonymous Pentagon sources are providing inaccurate information.” Maybe these sources are clueless. Maybe Cloud is misquoting them. I have no idea. But speculating about anti-Obama leaks in the Pentagon does seem like “rank rumor-mongering.”

greenlyfe:
.
In several instances the administration has had to go and clean up stories that originated and were sourced to the DOD and Pentagon and Military commanders and contradict/clarify the president’s position and the sources understanding.
.
Isn’t it a clear case of speculation to assign to this these situations an organizing theme complete with motives (“…a cadre that opposes the Obama Administration…“)?
.
So in several cases there were unnamed, unaccountable sources who gave reporters different information than the Obama Administration put out. So what? How could anybody possibly know of– or even reasonably suspect– an “anti-Obama” cabal from that set of facts?
.
Isn’t a simpler explanation that Politico’s tabloidism and the constant practice of quoting unaccountable, anonymous sources leads to bad communications and corrections?
.
Where do rebellious motives and conspiracies come in? How are they so easily assumed?

greenlyfe Says:
.

@stuartzechman:
.
What do you know that we do not about other journalists’ anonymous sources at the Pentagon that leads you to characterize the situation as a civilian authority-undermining cabal?

.
I can’t speak for Mr. Klein; but I have the same impression. In several instances the administration has had to go and clean up stories that originated and were sourced to the DOD and Pentagon and Military commanders and contradict/clarify the president’s position and the sources understanding.”

.
Wasn’t stuff like this going on in the last administration – only, in those cases, the leaks were to provide support for a position they agreed with?
.
As an ex-military type, my opinion is that the proper method of disagreement is to do it in private – regardless of the merits (or lack of) for the position you are taking. Once the meeting is over and the final decision has been made, you either support the decision publicly from that point on, or you resign if you can’t.
.
You do NOT undermine those above you in the chain of command. Do that and discipline is gone after a while.

More from Sargent on Politico and their mission statement.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/more-on-politico-and-the-inside-game/

Jay Ackroyd:
.
Funny. Stuart and Rose, but this looks like progress to me. Realizing that the Politico has a history of inaccurate premature reporting based on anonymice is an improvement.
.
God, yes, absolutely. It actually seems somewhat inadvertent, LOL!
.
…getting more details about the identity and motives of these people is a good thing to do, but that seems to be what Joe is saying he is going to do…
.
Yes, but how? Is Joe going to call up his buddies at Politico, and then just get them to describe their anonymous sources’ credibility? Is he going to ask those reporters to reveal their sources confidentially to him?
.
Either of those to “checking” solutions seem to perpetuate the idiotic lack of transparency that’s got us in this mess. So the solution is for Joe to just “get back to us” with something like “I’ve looked into it, trust me“?
.
But you’re right…this is an improvement. Normally mainstream journos won’t even admit that anonymous sources can be anything other than creditable, as long as the other journo doing the quoting is a fellow Villager.

Perhaps it’s just a sign of my prejudices but I have absolutely no trouble believing that there are leaks emanating from within the Pentagon designed to make it difficult for Obama to change course too rapidly. The record of inappropriate meddling in policy making certainly predates the last election, let alone the inauguration.
.
You have to remember that this is the circle Joe travels in. He routinely travels with the military and is familiar with the characters involved.
.
Even if he’s only stating a gut feeling, it’s a better informed gut feeling than many of us have. Again, I await some actual reporting on the topic.

Perhaps it’s just a sign of my prejudices…
.
Well…?

Sorry, that should have been “credible”, not “creditable”. LOL

I’m sorry for “slagging” you, Joe. I simply expected that you are capable of “reporting” rather than repeating bollensheister you picked up from Politico.

My mistake.

“and predictably enough, commenters are slagging me for a) trusting Politico and b) not double-checking everything I link to here…which is ridiculous, of course.”
.
Joe-have you ever even stop to consider that your commenters are informed and would like to stay that way. Following reporters who for whatever reason think that its okay to accept the word of their fellow reporters without question, pass on information from anonymous sources without disclosing the reason for the person to be making anonymous comments in the first place makes being informed rather difficult.

The topic of Pentagon leakers and potential motivations reminded me of when Gates, Petraeus, and Mullen tried to roll BHO on an Iraq timetable.
.
“The discussion between the president and the three officials was friendly and respectful. However, the president’s determination to implement his stated policy took the officials by surprise, one of the sources told UPI. Petraeus, in particular, had expected the recommendation to extend the period of the withdrawal timetable to be accepted, several sources said.”
and
“Pentagon sources told UPI, however, that the debate over the 16-month timetable is far from over.”
.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/01/23/Obama-Gates_in_tug_of_war_on_Iraq_timeline/UPI-71691232733919/

Joe,
-
If you carry water, prepare to be treated like a waterboy.
-
I won’t go into the rest. You know the drill.
-
blah-blah, blah-blah, blah, blah

As Paul Dirks and others have suggested, this may be more about (Pentagon) politics before policy. Obama is a Democrat so he has a steeper climb to prove his militaristic bona fides and is already under pressure (via calculated leaks) to display his cojones. It may be smart policy anyway and it takes while to move 17,000 troops – plenty of time for the long-term policy to catch up.
.
It’s the bane of good policy that it is dependent upon this country’s abject politics of militarism and the corporatist status quo but Obama took over the country we’ve got, rather than the one we might prefer to have. So far, it looks as if Obama understands the politics well enough to deliver the policy. I plan to give him the benefit of the doubt whenever he seems to be bending to strong political winds until I see where he’s actually going.

OT but another right wing talking point has bit the dust
.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
.

“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

When will conservatives revert to their disdain for “nation building” now that the wars are Obama’s to own?

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

Joe, there is no kind way to say this, so I will be brief:
.
I don’t believe anything you write unless it’s sourced.
.
Simple as that. As a source, you are not credible to me. I’m just here because I enjoy engaging with the other commenters.

…this may be more about (Pentagon) politics before policy…
.
And I may be typing this from my bedroom, but you have no way of knowing.
.
Obama is…already under pressure (via calculated leaks) to display his cojones.
.
You have no way of knowing this.
.
Sigh…whether it’s plausible to you or not, we must suspend judgment on this scenario until evidence can be presented that supports its existence, otherwise we’re speculating –just like the rightist idiots we despise (and Joe Klein).
.
Aren’t we the people who mock others for their credulousness, i.e. acceptance of “truthiness” in reporting? Aren’t we the reality-based community?

Yes, but how? Is Joe going to call up his buddies at Politico, and then just get them to describe their anonymous sources’ credibility? Is he going to ask those reporters to reveal their sources confidentially to him?
.
He’ll work his own sources. Which may well overlap. And I trust that he is going to insist Hoekstra stay on the record.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879176,00.html
~
Good piece. And relevant to this discussion too. I’m sure none of us are shocked that when the Pentagon’s interests are threatened they will fight tooth and nail, waging off the record PR wars, vs. Gates, Obama, or anyone else.
~
I wonder why the Penta-nutters like war? Those cushy MIC gigs awaiting them upon retirement perhaps. Why is war so darned good for business. A parallel to crime–why would the police, the DEA, border patrol, the vast institution of prisons, want to see massive reductions in crime, via legalization or reasonable sentencing practices. If crime went down, if prisons emptied, how would they justify themselves? Or take the mental health industry/drug co’s–if the whole culture wasn’t medicating their ways through life, how would those poor shrinks and pharmo-c@nts make their livings.

Anonymous sources are problematic because sometimes they are the only way to get the truth out (Pentagon Papers) and sometimes they further an agenda (Plame).
.
I don’t know the answer… Journalists need to be skeptical of their sources, and readers need to be skeptical of journalists. The MSM has not always done such a good job on their end. But a public correction from JK is welcome.
.
Tidbit from the book “Legacy of Ashes”: In the ’70s TIME Magazine ran a cover story on Allende at the request of the CIA, as part of the CIA effort to engineer a coup against the (democratically elected) government of Chile.

s_z: I’m with you on asking Klein to validate his sources, but we are still allowed to speculate, and I don’t think it’s speculation that’s the crime of the “rightist idiots.”
.
The crime, at least on the media’s side, is to pass speculation off as solid reporting.
But for most of the commenters here, I feel comfortable that they’re intelligent enough to observe facts and derive a pattern from those facts. We’re not engaging in baseless speculation (usually), just making predictions based on past performance.

There’s a significant difference between speculating publicly about something and passing off your speculation as reporting.
.
The phrase ‘seem to be emanating’ clearly means that this post is an example of the former. I think a little less demand for perfection is in order.

I think the “slagging” of JK here is interesting. On one hand, I totally agree with the commenters, and Joe’s own admission that he should double-check unnamed sources before linking. But on the other hand isn’t it news or blog-worthy to report information that is being leaked regardless of whether it’s true or not if you state that you do not know? Of course I’d rather have all information ever reported to be checked 3 times, but with the speed in which information travels is that even possible? I fear that if we demand complete truth with sources in every case we may miss some of the nuances that come from hunches, ideas and thinking out of the box.
.
I too share the concern that the spread of incorrect info from a popular journalist can be damaging, but I also give most every person credit for being able to separate facts (with sources) from unnamed leaks, opinions, and speculations.
.
Joe I appreciate that you admitted jumping to conclusions.

“Aren’t we the people who mock others for their credulousness, i.e. acceptance of “truthiness” in reporting? Aren’t we the reality-based community?”
.
I can’t speak for anyone else but this community of one has been watching Democrats get punked by militarists and the military (and watching the epic tragedy that usually results) for a long, long time . No credulousness required.

s_z: I’m with you on asking Klein to validate his sources, but we are still allowed to speculate, and I don’t think it’s speculation that’s the crime of the “rightist idiots.”
.
The crime, at least on the media’s side, is to pass speculation off as solid reporting.
But for most of the commenters here, I feel comfortable that they’re intelligent enough to observe facts and derive a pattern from those facts. We’re not engaging in baseless speculation (usually), just making predictions based on past performance.
.
Cliff, I agree with all of this. The only thing I’d add is that Joe is not being clear that he’s merely speculating. That’s the problem. I may have (and in fact I did!) watched yesterday’s recovery bill announcement and decided on the basis of my interpretation of Obama’s body language that he can’t stand Biden and sees him as an embarrassing uncle. I may have further speculated that Obama’s annoyance with Biden is completely justified because the VP is self-obsessed and not taking things seriously enough. However, unlike Maureen Dowd I’m not going to waste everyone’s time by writing a blog post on these speculations and pretend they’re journalism.

I guess this is my quibble–the “left” seems to spend an awful lot of energy engaging with the machine. To me it all amts. to semantics, so much charming rhetorical jousting. I understand the allure–I’m never inspired to comment at blogs I agree with.
~
WTF does it matter if Joe’s sources are anonymous or not, reliable or not? As if Klein, the media writ large or our esteemed leaders couldn’t simply find or create sources willing to shill for their policies, policies that go FWD admin. to admin. clouded by smokescreens of the most virulent propaganda.
~
I watched the Newshour last week (it’s on NHK here I just realized) and f@cking Lehrer had two Afghan experts on–one from Rand and one from the Heritage Foundation! If PBS’s range of viewpoints goes from center right to the wingnut fringe, god help us.

Joe, I could not care less about your sources and whether they are right or wrong in my opinion. Most journalism is just opinion or speculation. I recognize that for what it is.
.
But back to Afghanistan, I state for the upteenth time that the US possesses a miserable history there and reviewing that is the first order of business. I continue to maintain that a real foreign policy breakthrough would be to consult Russia and even invite their participation. I will say it again and again. The squalid history of our involvement in Afghanistan has resulted in great harm, and no good to date.

[...] Joe Klein from Time worries about the Afghan troop surge for these reasons: [...]

” .. If the thugs are the only ones with the guns and willingness to use them, no economic tweaking much matters. [See HITLER, MAO, CHE, HO, CHAVEZ for related background.]“

The subject of your suspected ‘wisecrack’ may as well be the USA to those who have been the victims of USA’s economic sanctions.

.

32 - – Days we have been waiting for the president to declare the KKK and “Aryan Nation” as TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

[...] Klein points out that Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is troubling because that decision was taken without a clear statement of [...]