NOW on to the BUMPING UP of Larry Johnson’s EXCEPTIONAL essay that sensible people everywhere should read. We realize that the KoolAid dipsomaniacs are unable to see, let alone comprehend, but we’ll persist.

By LARRY JOHNSON, originally published on November 11, 2008:

If you enjoyed the George W. Bush era, you are gonna love the Barack Obama regime, because Obama is relying on some of the same folks who helped create the mayhem and failures in the CIA. That’s right, boys and girls. Take a look at today’s Wall Street Journal:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party. . . .

The intelligence-transition team is led by former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik, say officials close to the matter. Mr. Brennan is viewed as a potential candidate for a top intelligence post. Ms. Miscik left amid a slew of departures from the CIA under then-Director Porter Goss.

Advisers caution that few decisions will be made until the team gets a better picture of how the Bush administration actually goes about gathering intelligence, including covert programs, and there could be a greater shift after a full review.

The Obama team plans to review secret and public executive orders and recent Justice Department guidelines that eased restrictions on domestic intelligence collection. “They’ll be looking at existing executive orders, then making sure from Jan. 20 on there’s going to be appropriate executive-branch oversight of intelligence functions,” Mr. Brennan said in an interview shortly before Election Day.

Putting John Brennan in charge of this effort is mind numbing. Brennan was one of the George Tenet toadies who defended the former CIA Director when I, along with a group of other retired CIA officers, demanded that Tenet donate part of the proceeds of his book to the families of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq and to return his medal of freedom.

Brennan was part of the group of the insiders who saw no problem with George Tenet helping cook the intelligence and mislead the American people about the threat in Iraq. Here’s what Tim Shorrock wrote about that dust up:

Tenet’s ties with contractors were underscored last week in a dispute between two groups of former CIA officials over Tenet’s legacy. On April 28, six former intelligence officers wrote to Tenet, saying he shared culpability with President Bush and Vice President Cheney for “the debacle in Iraq,” and suggesting he donate half the royalties from his book to Iraq war veterans and their families. All of the signatories had severed their ties to U.S. intelligence, although three of them, Phil Giraldi, Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro, work as consultants for news organizations, corporations and government agencies outside of intelligence.

A few days later, six recently retired officers responded. They called the first letter a “bitter, inaccurate and misleading attack” on Tenet and pointed out that it was drafted by officers who “had not served in the Agency for years.” Tenet, his supporters said, “literally led the nation’s counterterrorism fight.” And three of its six signatories were directly involved in that fight — as contractors. They included John Brennan of the Analysis Corp.; Cofer Black, Tenet’s former counterterrorism director and vice chairman of Blackwater, the private military contractor; and Robert Richer, the former deputy director of the CIA’s clandestine services. Richer recently left Blackwater to become the CEO of Total Intelligence, a new company formed with Black and other ex-CIA officials to provide intelligence services to corporations and government agencies.

In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 Brennan was in charge of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (which was replaced subsequently by the National Counter Terrorism Center) and failed to give the U.S. State Department the correct statistics on the number of terrorist attacks in 2003. He forgot to count an entire month’s data. I discovered the error and alerted folks at State Department.

Professors Alan Krueger and David Laitin independently discovered the discrepancies and published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Here’s a link for a comprehensive article discussing that intelligence failure.

So you think I am being too hard on Brennan? Sure, anyone can make a mistake. However, he was back in the news in 2005. I learned in March of that year that the State Department was not going publish the CIA stats on terrorism because the number of attacks had dramatically increased and the Bush Administration thought that made it look like they were losing the war on terror. John Brennan was part of that effort to keep the truth from the American public. Here’s the piece I wrote to help draw attention to this issue back in 2005:

The numbers are in and the news is not good for U.S. efforts to contain and reduce the threat of international terrorism. 2004 marked the highest number of significant incidents of terrorism since the intelligence community started keeping statistics in 1968. (An incident is counted as significant if an attack results in the death, injury or kidnapping of one or more persons or property damage in excess of $10,000). Attacks jumped from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004. This surpasses the previous high of 273 significant attacks in 1985.

The bad news kept on coming. One thousand nine hundred and seven (1907) people died in international terrorist attacks last year. This marks the second highest death toll since 1968; falling short of the infamous record of 2001.

Unfortunately, former 9-11 Commission Staff Director, Phil Zelikow, and chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, John Brennan, tried with some success to confuse the press and suggest that the numbers do not matter. In a deft display of obfuscation and spin Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan made several points. It started with Zelikow’s claim that:

The compilation of data about terrorist attacks is not a required part of the report, but traditionally had been provided by the State Department, going back to the years in which the State Department was basically the public voice of the U.S. Government on international terrorism, generally. . . . But what’s important for our purposes is what the law said the NCTC should do. It said the NCTC was the primary organization for analysis and integration of — and I’m quoting from the law now — “All intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism or counterterrorism.” The law further stated that the NCTC would be the United States Government’s “shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups, as well as their goals, strategies, capabilities, and networks of contact and support.” (Phil Zelikow)

State Department’s role as the lead for coordinating international terrorism was established by a National Security Decision Directive signed by President Reagan in early 1986. This was in response to an interagency fight that broke out during an effort to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. While flying over Italy in late 1985 in pursuit of Abu Abbas, a State Department official and a CIA officer argued heatedly over who was in charge of the mission. Recognizing the need for a clear chain of command the Department of State was put in charge of coordinating the efforts of CIA, DOD, and FBI efforts to track and deal with terrorism. The first man put in charge of this effort was L. Paul (Jerry) Bremer.

Mr. Zelikow is misleading the media by asserting that the State Department “traditionally compiled the data”. That is simply not true. The State Department never was in charge of collecting or compiling the statistics. It simply coordinated the process of assembling the data in order to provide the Congress and the American people with a comprehensive view of international terrorist activity. Since 1986 the Counter Terrorism Center at the CIA had the task of compiling the data and writing the narrative analysis. Don’t take my word for it, just ask the former Chiefs of the Counter Terrorism Center starting with Dewey Claridge and ending with Cofer Black.

By splitting the statistics on terrorism from the country reports, Zelikow is creating the kind of stovepiping of information which the 9-11 Commission claimed helped undermine US efforts to detect and defeat Al Qaeda’s effort to launch their suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is nothing in the new law requiring this move.

John Brennan, the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, made the unbelievable admission that when the CIA shifted responsibility for counting terrorist incidents to the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) in the fall of 2003 only three part time people were assigned to the task. Brennan said:

To ensure a more comprehensive accounting of terrorist incidents, we in the NCTC significantly increased the level of effort from three part-time individuals to 10 full-time analysts, and we took a number of other steps to improve quality control and database management. This increased level of effort allowed a much deeper review of far more information and, along with Iraq, are the primary reasons for the significant growth in a number of terrorist incidents being reported.

The American people are asked to believe that nobody at TTIC understood in the aftermath of 2001 that we needed to keep a comprehensive count of terrorist events. Implicit in this criticism is a smear on the good work done previously at the Counter Terrorism Center. CTC did not consider counting terrorism events an afterthought. They used a sound methodology of monitoring news media reports, FBIS reports, and cables from US Embassies and Defense Attaches to identify possible acts of international terrorism. An act of violence did not necessarily mean that terrorism was involved. Instead expert analysts from CTC and State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) would meet periodically to review and decide what incidents represented acts of international terrorism.

This process broke down when the responsibility for doing this was shifted from CTC and put under Mr. Brennan’s stewardship at the Terrorist Threat Integration Center in late 2003. Mr. Brennan in fact shares much of the responsibility for the debacle with the statistics that were misreported in the report issued in April 2004. He did not ensure that his part time employees could count.

With the beefed up work force at NCTC we now know that 10 analysts were involved in counting 651 significant international terrorist attacks in 2004. Geez, I guess that means it took each analyst one year to keep track of 65 attacks.

Brennan asks the media and the American people to believe that the rise in attacks is simply the result of better counting by more people. Not true. An independent data source from RAND-MIPT shows a similar dramatic rise in attacks and deaths. This is not an artifice of methodology. Something bad is going on out there.

Two countries account for a major portion of the increased terrorist activity—the Kashmir region of India and Iraq. With respect to Kashmir, it is important to note that since 1998 this area has consistently appeared in the appendix in Patterns of Global Terrorism that described significant incidents. I have used this data in briefing for foreign governments during that period to point out that not only was India being repeatedly attacked by Islamic jihadists (who were funded and trained by Pakistan), but that the people of Kashmir repeatedly suffered one of the highest death tolls of any country in the world from terrorist attacks. The sad fact is that media, and to a lesser extent the U.S. Government, tended to ignore these attacks.

It is worth recalling that the cruise missiles fired by President Clinton in August of 1998 in retaliation for the Al Qaeda bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania struck a camp in Afghanistan and killed members of one of the groups that carried out attacks in the Kashmir as well as two Pakistani intelligence officers. In the war against Islamic extremists Kashmir matters.

Brennan’s response on Iraq is more puzzling:

QUESTION: Do you regard the Iraq numbers that you just gave us — for which, thank you — as comparable? And the reason I ask is that I’ve got to figure that if there’s one piece of real estate that the U.S. intelligence community has devoted enormous resources to in the last two years, it’s got to be — two-and-a-half years — it’s Iraq. Therefore, do you think those figures are comparable, ‘03 to ‘02?
MR. BRENNAN: In terms of what the term you’re using — “comparable” — to sort of denote here, I’m not certain. The rigor that we applied worldwide for the 2004 data also applied to Iraq. So it was Iraq, Kashmir, and others. So that number, I think, is the result of exhaustive search and research on that. Also, as I pointed out, the number of civilians that have come not just from the United States, but also from other countries — the number of individuals who, in fact, are in different places in Iraq that have been involved in some of the attacks that have taken place there, I think that is the reason why, in fact, we’re seeing an increase in that number.

Although Brennan is not certain about the comparability of the numbers we do not have to rely on him. Data maintained by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is reported on at least a weekly basis to the Secretary of Defense, shows clear unambiguous data that the level of terrorist activity in Iraq mushroomed in 2004. In fact, the highest level of attacks ever recorded in Iraq occurred in December 2004.

Iraq is relevant to the threat of international terrorism principally because it is serving as a drawing card for jihadists throughout the Islamic world. I have had recent discussions with senior government officials representing three countries in the Persian Gulf. To a man they were alarmed by the images coming out of Iraq showing US soldiers abusing muslim women and the shooting of unarmed insurgents. The perception of the United States as an invader is inciting terrorism in the region, not quelling it. Several commented on the perceived parallel of the U.S. presence in Iraq as comparable to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan during the 1980s. They worry that we are sowing the seeds of future jihadist terrorism.

The real news from the press conference of Messrs. Zelikow and Brennan is that they have not finished counting the incidents from last year and that the numbers are likely to go up when revised statistics are issued in June. Moreover, both conceded that events in Russia and Philippines, where several hundred were killed, were excluded from the data.

I welcome Mr. Brennan’s commitment to look at the methodology and recommend corrections. The failure to count attacks inside Russia by Chechen separatists, for example, needs to be re-examined. While ten years ago there was no evidence that the Chechen were receiving outside assistance, that is not the case today. In fact Chechen fighters in the battle of Anaconda in Afghanistan in March 2002 killed American soldiers. The Chechen movement has clear economic and military ties to international jihadists. In future reports it would be entirely appropriate to classify as international attacks something carried out by any group with established ties to groups outside of their country.

There is no single statistic that can tell us what is happening in the war on terrorism. Reporting multiple attacks does not necessarily mean that casualties will follow. As Brennan and Zelikow correctly note most of the casualties were caused by a relatively small number of attacks. But, those attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists that have clear ties with Al Qaeda.

In light of this it is breathtaking that someone with Zelikow’s intellect can argue that numbers don’t matter. The following exchange occurred during the Wednesday afternoon press conference:

QUESTION: Um, 651 attacks in 2004, compared to 175 attacks in your report in 2003. That’s a sharp increase in terrorist attacks. What does that tell us about the war on terrorism — the global war on terrorism and the cooperation? . . . .
MR. ZELIKOW: I mean, the short answer is it doesn’t tell us anything about the war on terror. The statistics are simply not valid for any inference about the progress, either good or bad, of American policy. I think that’s the honest answer. If you just look at what the statistics are and what kind of inferences can legitimately be drawn from them, I can’t come up with a defensible inference.

Here’s the bottom line. Numbers do matter. If more people are being killed in Iraq and India then we need to ensure that US policy for combating terrorism is focused on those areas. To pretend that the threat of terrorism is as great in Brazil as in Iraq is delusional. And to pretend that objective facts say nothing about the reality of terrorism perhaps shows us why the US effort to deal with Islamic extremists is going in the wrong direction.

Friends in the intelligence community tell me that Zelikow, when confronted with the higher numbers, tried to have those numbers suppressed. Once word of this leaked out Zelikow shifted gears to damage control and constructed the artificial and misleading explanation that NCTC is now doing something new that was never done before. Oh yeah, and it is mandated by law.

Sadly this simply shows how uninformed Zelikow is about the history of counter terrorism policies and procedures during the last 25 years, notwithstanding his post as staff director of the 9-11 Commission. Maybe this explains why the Commission had such difficulty identifying who failed in their duty to prevent those terrible attacks in September 2001. Phil Zelikow by his own admission has trouble making sense of numbers.

So you thought Barack Obama would bring change to the abuses at CIA? Think again. He’s relying on folks who helped debase and embarrass the CIA. That’s not change I want to believe in.

Riffing off of the Newsweek editors’ quesiness over the cult of personality surrounding Barack, let me just add that I too think the worshipful descriptions of Barack as a new kind of Messiah is creepy. Guys feeling a tingle up their leg when he talks, swooning women, and fawning reporters is not a healthy situation in a democracy. I was watching the BBC earlier today with the sound off. They played a clip of the former Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung, walking among his people, who cheered and wept at his very appearance. Now, I’m not saying Barack is a Korean dictator, but the mindless praise is eerily similar.

I am amused by the innocent, naive belief by many “Progressives” that their messiah has come and the new era of progressive politics is upon us. One of my Progressive friends sent me the following analysis from Think Progress claiming it is a myth that America is Center-Right:

My friend, who lives in California, was earnest and sincere in sending this along. I sent back a respons–”You have got to be shitting me?” Why? The first piece of evidence is Proposition 8. California, the so-called land of moderate progressives, passed Proposition 8 last Tuesday banning homosexual marriage. Now if that happens in California, what do you think would happen in Kentucky, Kansas or Iowa? At least on the matter of personal sexual conduct when it comes to homosexuality America is very, very conservative.

Personally, I don’t understand why conservatives want to have government regulating conduct between consenting adults. I guess I am a libertarian conservative. I believe that sexual relations between consenting adults is not the business of any government. Worrying about erecting barriers to prevent homosexual men and women from getting married is a silly distraction in a world where we have real problems before us. I am betting that Barack Obama and his team are not going to get out in front of this issue. They will follow the popular will. Rather than try to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the case that homosexual adults are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual adults, I am betting team Obama will be silent. I think there is some more disillusion coming for the Gay/Lesbian community on this issue.

Looking for a quick withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think that is going to happen either. In fact, look for team Obama to start making the case that the situation has changed on the ground and that the Iraqi government wants us as a partner to help rebuild their society and infrastructure. Truth is the actual substance of U.S. policy in Iraq is not likely to change. At the same time look for the boost in U.S. combat forces going to Afghanistan and continued covert cross-border raids into Pakistan.

As I noted in an earlier piece, Rahm Emanuel is no pacifist. To the contrary. He was an uber-hawk on Iraq. We are witnesses to a fascinating split in the American Jewish community. The Jewish community is no different than the Christian community. It really is not a community and represents diametrically opposed points of view. Barack Obama and Emanuel have both been backed financially by very wealthy Chicago jewish families–the Crowns and the Pritzkers. They are not in sync with the more conservative neo-cons embodied by the likes of William Kristol. They are pro-Israel but anti-likud. Prospects of war with Iran are probably reduced with this crowd.

Last year I participated in a war game looking at the future of the Middle East. The assembled experts agreed at the end of the game that the one policy move that could put Iran on the defensive would be an agreement between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights. Up to now the Bush Administration has opposed such a move. If the Obama team goes in that direction they might get a breakthrough in the Middle East that has seemed so elusive. That would be good news and might help Obama calm the fears of his Palestinian supporters who see him stacking his Administration with prominent Jewish Americans who carry pro-Israel credentials.

What about ignoring FISA (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)? Now that this power is in the hands of Democrats will they relinquish it? I don’t think so. I would like to see a full restoration of FISA and a requirement that no serveillance is undertaken without having judicial review. Someone other than the Executive Branch needs to have a say in this matter.

Finally, there will be the economic policy front. Will Barack and company embark on a massive public employment program or seek to invest in the private sector and promote jobs thru some form of capitalism? If it is the former the Progressive will rejoice. But, if it is the later, Progressives will chalk up another example of a politician promising them one thing but delivering the opposite. It does look that Barack and his team recognize America is Center Right and are going to play to the element. For a guy who hung with Tony Rezko and dissed Hillary (bonehead moves in my book) Barack could establish himself as a very smart pol. We’ll see.

Here is one couple’s way of acknowledging the contribution our veterans have made:

Obviously, most of us cannot put a bunch of veterans up at lavish hotels. But we can thank them for their service, give to Paralyzed Veterans, SLDN, or other worthy organizations that serve them (suggestions welcome), give them a call, or send a note of thanks. And we can call out the names of those whom we know:

My dad, Tom, now deceased - Navy; my uncle, Jerry, now deceased - Merchant Marines, Marines, and Army; my uncle, John - Marines; my uncle, Nick - Marines; my nephew - Marines; my dear friend, Mac - Navy (served in the same fleet as Jack Kennedy during WWII); my former sister-in-law, Liz - Navy; her husband, Kenn - Navy; and my partner’s father, a retired 3-Star Army general.

To all of our veterans, I say thank you. Thank you for your service, your commitment, your courage, and your valor.

You are welcome to list family or friends who have served our country in uniform.

Thank you to the alert reader who mentioned today is the 233rd Anniversary of the United States Marine Corp. To celebrate that anniversary, I give you this video:

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along - same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

That being said, our military has performed as well as could be expected under very dangerous circumstances. We have lost brave people, courageous people, to this war. Many of our service people have physical disabilities as a result of being there, and many more have psychological trauma that affects them, their families, and their friends. Our military has given a great deal. They deserve our appreciation, our support, and our respect for what they have done in service to our country.

And, since we are there, how we leave is important. We can’t just pull out all of our troops willy nilly. That would be tremendously irresponsible of us, in terms of the Iraqis who will be left behind without sufficient infrastructure in place, and it will diminish the efforts of our military, and the memory of those who paid the ultimate price.

Below are two videos of two different Iraqi war veterans, both of whom endorse McCain. The first is a sergeant who gave his Purple Heart to McCain:

To say the least, these are two very powerful pieces from those who know first-hand what our being in Iraq means. While I know there are others in the military who do not support McCain, their reasons for doing so speak for themselves.

Finally, there was the following endorsement in my local paper. Now, I have to say, I was stunned. SC is a red state, to be sure, but the city from which this paper comes is not. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw their endorsement of John McCain in this editorial: John McCain For President because they, like many in the MSM, have printed primarily pro-Obama, negative or not-so-pro-McCain pieces. But they nailed it with McCain:

John McCain has served our nation with extraordinary distinction for more than 40 years. But his best service should be yet to come. He understands where America has been, where it is today, and where it must go to fulfill its potential. His proven courage, experience, knowledge, judgment and capacity for working across party lines make him the best choice for the presidency on Tuesday.

Mr. McCain’s habit of delivering blunt “straight talk” represents a refreshing departure from modern political spin. For a quarter century in the U.S. House (1983-87) and Senate (1987-now), the Arizona Republican has applied sound principles of fiscal responsibility and strong national defense on a case-by-case basis.

The self-proclaimed “maverick” has dared to be his own man by taking unpopular positions on tough topics that sent most politicians retreating toward pandering generalizations. He repeatedly, and accurately, points out that he will win no “Miss Congeniality” awards from fellow federal lawmakers — due in large part to his relentless opposition to wasteful “pork” spending.

He has drawn the ire of presidents from his own party and ideological purists on the right by deviating from Republican orthodoxy. Yet his voting record affirms his credentials as a common-sense conservative. And any fair assessment of his record will affirm his prescience over a wide array of difficult issues.

Campaign propaganda to the contrary, Sen. McCain has often opposed President Bush on both the domestic and foreign fronts. He has consistently urged the president to veto spending bills filled with “earmarks” that lacked sufficient legislative scrutiny. He has rightly opposed the folly of wasteful agricultural and ethanol subsidies. He correctly warned, two years ago, that insufficient regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risked a colossal mortgage-industry meltdown.

And why is it, pray tell, everyone thinks OBAMA is going to do anything positive with the mortgage crisis when he is a part of the problem? I just do not get that one - such a shocking lack of logic involved there…

As to the war:

He was an early critic of the failure to send enough troops to Iraq to consolidate our initial victory in the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Along with trusted Senate colleague and close friend Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. McCain was an early and ardent advocate for a “surge” of U.S. troop levels in Iraq, an overdue move President Bush finally ordered in the spring of 2007.

At that time, prominent Democrats in Congress — including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, now his party’s presidential nominee — predicted that such an increase in American forces would fail. A few months later, with the surge’s outcome still in doubt, most pundits decreed that Sen. McCain’s bid for the GOP presidential nomination already had failed. The Democrats were wrong about the surge. The pundits were wrong about the nomination.

I admit - I was one Democrat who was wrong about the surge. I honestly thought it was going to be a disaster. I acknowledge - I was wrong.

Unlike Obama, one cannot deny, McCain has character:

Even Sen. McCain’s detractors must acknowledge that he has shown remarkable backbone by bucking his party’s base on many controversial issues, including:

Illegal immigration: He recognizes it as a problem that demands comprehensive reform, not just a border fence.

Judicial appointments: Along with Sen. Graham, he helped forge a compromise that broke a senatorial stalemate blocking President Bush’s court nominees.

Man-made climate change: He recognizes it as a real threat that must be addressed.

Torture of terror suspects: He vigorously criticized the administration for condoning interrogation abuses that undermine our nation’s moral standing.

Such bold stands have given Sen. McCain considerable credibility as a powerful force for cross-party cooperation.

Now, this is where the Post and Courier pushes the meme about Obama. Honestly, how people can still push this BS is beyond me, but here it is:

We are impressed by Sen. Obama’s positive ability to inspire a broad range of Americans, and by his historic role as our nation’s first black major-party presidential nominee. But he falls far short of Sen. McCain on the decisive question of experience — an especially critical consideration in regard to foreign policy.

And though Sen. Obama promises to foster bipartisan accords, unlike Sen. McCain he has not taken on his party’s base. Sen. Obama chides Sen. McCain for frequently supporting President Bush. However, Sen. Obama has voted with his party’s leadership at an even higher rate. His 2007 voting record was deemed the most liberal in the Senate by the National Journal, which is not a right-wing publication.

Most of Sen. Obama’s positions fall well to the left of the national mainstream, including his push to provide “tax cuts” for many Americans who pay no income tax now. Sen. McCain’s prescription for the ailing economy includes tax relief, but it’s based on practical, free-market fundamentals rather than counterproductive attempts to “spread the wealth.”

Sen. McCain proposes reforming health care via private-sector incentives. Sen. Obama proposes public-sector mandates.

Sen. McCain favors free trade. Sen. Obama increasingly backs protectionism.

Sen. McCain strongly supports school choice. Sen. Obama, despite some lip service, does not.

Sen. McCain has long pushed for entitlement reform. Sen. Obama has not.

Sen. McCain would appoint constitutional constructionists to the federal bench. Sen. Obama would appoint liberal activists.

With strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate certain, a victory for Sen. Obama would assure a lopsided edge for liberal government.

Back in the day, say before 5/31/08, if someone said we were going to have a liberal government, I would have been ecstatic. But I have seen the light - at least in terms of how the Democrats really act. The way the Democratic leadership and the Democratic Party have treated women this way is simply abhorrent. There is nothing liberal about the way they have acted at all. And frankly, who the hell knows for what Obama really stands considering he has flip flopped on just about everything during this campaign? So, yeah - now, I don’t trust them to have that much power. No way in hell. The editors continue:

A victory for Sen. McCain would assure needed balance between a conservative president and a liberal Congress. More importantly, it would assure a steady, capable and brave hand to guide us through the looming crises sure to come.

As for concerns about Sen. McCain’s age (he turned 72 in August), he has kept a demanding campaign schedule and has routinely kept his lively 96-year-old mother nearby to remind voters that he comes from a family known for healthy longevity. Similar worries were expressed about Winston Churchill, nearly 77 when he began his final stint as British prime minister in 1951, and Ronald Reagan, 17 days shy of his 70th birthday when he became U.S. president in 1981. That’s awfully good septuagenarian company.

And despite misinformed assertions that Sen. McCain would too quickly choose military options, the former Navy fighter pilot knows far better than most that the horror of war should always be a last resort.

No kidding. I have tried to say this to people. Military people always choose war last because they KNOW what it is really like. Never mind that both he and his running mate have children in the theatre currently - he knows, far, far better than Obama possibly could.

Finally:

His reputation for courage long preceded his first run for office. He gallantly endured more than five years as a prisoner of war, including torture, after being shot down over Hanoi. He refused to accept early release after his communist captors discovered his father was the U.S. Pacific commander.

John McCain has demonstrated a strong commitment to principle in the political arena, too. His exemplary qualifications for the White House are clear.

I agree - he is far, far more qualified than Obama could dream of being, he has good character, a backbone, and truly loves this country, all things I cannot say about Obama. I agree with the Edistors of the Post and Courier. They are right - McCain is the clear choice on Tuesday.

Aren’t I BENEVOLENT???” Woohoo!!! Where do I sign up? Well, I suppose I could vote for the Authoritarian Socialist in the election and have these dreams (cough, choke) come true! Yes, you, too could have your hard earned dollars go to spread the wealth around, apparently something the Civil Rights Activists didn’t work hard enough to do, according to Obama.

Oh, yeah - surely by now you have seen the video of Obama from 2001. A whole bunch of intrepid writers at No Quarter have dealt with this video and story in a most awesome fashion(Uppity Woman, LisaB, Matthew Weaver, Ani, to name a few), but someone else has weighed in, too. And I don’t mean me.

Well, except to bring you this, someone of whom you have surely heard - Johnny Mac. Yep, there’s a brand new Mac Attack on Obama’s long-held ideology of “spreading the wealth.” I might add, Obama can just feel FREE to share his millions of dollars any ol’ time he wants, though judging from the donations on his released tax returns, like so many other issues, he is ALL TALK and NO ACTION. What the hell else is new?

Anywho, Senator McCain was speaking in Ohio, land of the fraudulent votes by Obama staff (oh, McCain wasn’t talking about the fraudulent votes and ACORN, though I reckon he could have thrown that in there - maybe another day), and focused on the whole “lemme have your money and I’ll dole it out the way I see fit” mindset of Obama:

It’s been a long campaign and we’ve heard a lot of words, and great campaign trail eloquence. The amazing thing is that we’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years. It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. He told Joe the plumber right here in Ohio he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.” It’s always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments, and today we heard another moment like this from Senator Obama.

In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote — “tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, “One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Good googly moogly. Did Obama REALLY say that? OUT LOUD?? Whew - “coalitions of power” has GOTTA mean ACORN, right? I mean, really, who else could it mean but the organization for whom he worked, to whom he has given almost a cool million from his own funds, and tons more from all of us. The one working overtime to amass so many voter registrations, legit and not, that they overwhelm election boards so they can’t POSSIBLY find all of the fraudulent ones…Just a guess on my part, though, since he didn’t SAY, “ACORN, the political and community organizers on the ground who can put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” Ahem. Nothing like that. Right.

But since Obama has been a bit unclear on what he actually MEANT by his whole Hope/Change thing, McCain can clear that up for you:

That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Pretty much! Hey! Guess who else holds these kinds of beliefs? Are you thinking who I’m thinking? Yes! Bill Ayers!!! The Marxist/Anarchist!

McCain then raises the Obama tax plan:

We’ve all heard his campaign trail promise: he says he only wants to tax the rich. But these unscripted moments and his record tell a different story. He supported the Democratic budget plan passed just this year that called for raising taxes on people making just 42,000 dollars per year. And Senator Obama has voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts.

Senator Obama may say he’s trying to soak the rich, but it’s the middle class who are going to get put through the wringer, because even the tax increase he admits to misses the target. To pay for nearly a trillion dollars in new government spending, his tax increase would impact 50 percent of small business income in this country, and the jobs of 16 million middle class Americans who work for those small businesses.

Whether it’s Joe the Plumber here in Ohio or the working men and women across this country, we shouldn’t be taxing our small businesses more as Senator Obama wants to do, we need to be helping them expand their businesses and create jobs. America didn’t become the greatest nation on earth by giving our money to the government to “redistribute.” In this country, we believe in spreading opportunity, for those who need jobs and those who create them. And that is exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when Obama says $250,000, he REALLY means more like $164,500, since that is when the tax hikes will kick in. There’s more:

Mr. Obama’s most dramatic departure from current tax policy is his promise to lift the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $102,000, a level that is raised for inflation each year. The Obama campaign says he’d raise the payroll tax rate on incomes above $250,000 by as much as two to four percentage points — though it’s unclear if that higher rate would apply to the employee, the employer, or both.

In any case, lifting the cap would change the nature of Social Security from an insurance program — which pays out based on how much you paid in — into a wealth-transfer program that is far more progressive.

Huh - that seems to be a theme with Obama. Sharing the wealth. Oh, no, wait - sharing YOUR wealth however he sees fit. There is much more about his tax policy in the WSJ article (h/t to a No Quarter reader - sorry - can’t find your name now!). McCain adds:

My opponent’s massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes…

I’m not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I’m going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We’re going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

Exactly. There is more in Senator McCain’s address to Ohio today, including more on the economy:

If I’m elected President, I won’t spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can’t do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I’m going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I’m all for keeping an eye on the $700 BILLION bailout, especially with reports coming out today that bankers are planning billions - yes, I said BILLIONS - in bonuses to the very people who helped to get us into this position, as well as raises to employees, and maybe buying some more banks - with YOUR MONEY!!!! Maybe that whole oversight wasn’t such a bad idea after all…

McCain continued, saying:

Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s eight days to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap … someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

Obama has been claiming victory almost from the day he got into this race, if you ask me. For some reason, he refused to be held to the same standard as any other potential nominee EVER, refusing even to be properly vetted (see Larry Johnson’s excellent presentation by a former FBI agent on this very issue). What was more amazing is that he was allowed to get away with it, so we are just now - a WEEK before the election - getting some information that has been available for SEVEN YEARS. Wow.

We do know John McCain, though, and we know he is telling the truth when he says:

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

As a lifelong yellow dog Democrat until 5/31/08 (when the RBC/DNC took votes cast, and certified, from Clinton and GAVE them to Obama making it clear the fix was in, and the DNC was no longer democratic), I knew all about Senator McCain. One may disagree with his policies, but one cannot, with any credibility, challenge his patriotism or his dedication to the country he serves. He concludes:

I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.

Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.

Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.

Could you please add, “Fight for free speech” while you are at it, Senator? That seems to be something the Obama camp would like to curtail. I, for one, think it’s mighty important. Just sayin’. Ahem.

Don’t you feel like McCain is channeling Hillary Clinton? Seems that way to me, anyway. I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I do think he is a man of honor, of integrity, a public servant burning with a passion for this country and her well-being, thus OUR well-being. Obama? Not so much. Obama seems in it for him and him alone, with an eye to imposing his true ideology and beliefs on this country once he has bamboozled and hoodwinked enough people to get him in (one way or the other - see comment regarding ACORN above) for HIM, not us, HIM. McCain seems to see Obama for who he is, and is fighting for this country to not fall into the hands of one who wishes to “redistribute the wealth” of the citizens any more than it already is (think Social Security), or to put our economy at greater risk.

Like I said, Obama - redistribute your OWN wealth, if you want (hey, maybe your buddy Warren Buffet will let you spread HIS around), but leave mine the hell alone.

But first, I do want to point out that a lot is going on AGAIN with ACORN. Sen. Cornyn of TX (R) is pushing legislation to stop all taxpayer dollars to ACORN. Yes, it seems that since 1998, ACORN has received $31 MILLION of YOUR taxpaying dollars. You read that right - this very partisan organization (despite their claims) has received $31 million TAXPAYER dollars.

See, I don’t want ANY partisan organization to receive taxpayer money. Not ACORN, not Faith-based organizations, not any partisan organizations. Non-partisan only, I say.

Now, Senator Cornyn isn’t sure he can get our money BACK, but he does want to staunch the flow. Remember that Chris Dodd also tried to get 20% of the bailout repayment to go to ACORN, National La Raza, and the National Urban League. Do the math - 20% of $700 billion dollars = $140 BILLION dollars. OF YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Thank heavens that got kicked out, but what does that say about what ACORN really does that Dodd and others wanted to funnel them that kind of money?? Mighty suspect, if you ask me.

Oh, and more misogyny with Sarah Palin as the target has been out this weekend, especially a YouTube video. I refuse to give it any more play, but it featured a former NFL football player knocking Gov. Palin to the ground and rendering her unconscious. Again - the attacks on her are attacks on women, pure and simple. There is no other way to paint it. They aren’t attacking her POLICIES, they are attacking her GENDER, same as they did to Senator Clinton. Why women would still support a party that treats them so shamefully is beyond me, but that’s just me. There us an excellent post at No Quarter entitled, “Dear Sarah, Dear Sister” on this topic that is WELL worth reading.

Okay - now for a light moment. My mother read this to me from the Charlotte Observer, her local paper. My mother had five children, a pertinent piece of information for this article, which is entitled, “Are We Really Sure Deep Throat Wasn’t A Woman With Kids?”

They say talk is cheap, but not when it comes to talking on the phone when kids are around. Its author is Tracy Curtis, who apparently knows whereof she speaks when she writes:

If they hadn’t revealed who Deep Throat was back in 2005, I would swear it was a woman. A woman with children.

That would have explained everything. Why she couldn’t talk on the phone with the Washington Post. And why she had to secretly meet the reporter in a parking garage.

And it wouldn’t have been because she was afraid her kids would hear her spilling secrets about the Nixon administration. It’d be that Bob Woodward couldn’t hear a word she was saying because of all the kids screaming in the background.

I think my mom could agree with that. In my family, there are three boys and two girls, all about two years apart. Oh, we could get into some trouble, I’ll tell ya.

Why is it that every time a mom gets on the telephone, the world around her crumbles? And I can speak for all moms, because when I talk to another mom and I’ve got my kids all around me, I can hear her kids all around her. In fact, every conversation I’ve had this week has ended with a blood-curdling scream in the background and then “I gotta call ya back.”

I know THIS is true. When Mom would get on the phone, we’d stand there going, “Momma, Momma, Momma, Momma…” What am I saying - we STILL do that!

Any normal person would call the police. But if you’re a mom, you just hang up and finish making dinner. No biggie.

My initial theory was that I call too much attention to myself when I get on the phone. I’m too obvious. I’m too happy and excited to just be having conversation beyond which Power Ranger is the strongest. And my kids can’t handle it. They have to be right under foot with my full attention.

I’m imagining that a lot of you moms out there are nodding your head up and down at this point. I reckon it must be true, because I know WE did that, too. I bet we could have been out in the yard, up in a tree or something, and as soon as Mom got on the phone, there we’d be! “Momma, Momma…”

So I started sneaking off to make calls. Bathrooms and broom closets became my regular haunts. Dial quickly and quietly and speak in low, robotic tones that won’t be picked up by ears conditioned to “Sesame Street.”

And it worked. For a while. Until somebody had to go really bad and I had no choice but to let him in. And turn on the lights.

Ms. Curtis is lucky. She has the benefit of CELL phones!!! Mothers of people my generation (and older) weren’t so lucky. About all our moms could do was say, “I gotta go kill one of my kids now,” and hang up the phone attached to the wall.

There are lessons to be learned from Watergate. Particularly if you’re like me and you desperately need to have a conversation. They knew it back then and I know it now. You gotta have a plan.

When Bob Woodward wanted to talk to Deep Throat, he’d move a flower pot with a red flag on the balcony of his apartment. And Deep Throat scheduled meetings by inking a clock face with the time on page 20 of Woodward’s copy of the New York Times.

So now, when I want a call from a girlfriend? I stick my husband’s Clemson (Clemson? Ugh. Not even UNC?? Sorry - longstanding NC v. SC university rivalry!) flag in our azaleas. Then my girlfriend confirms the meeting with a smiley face on page 20 of my Parent Magazine. And then we meet at the farmers market, in the shadows, by the cantaloupes.

We don’t share government secrets and we don’t rat anybody out. But for the lengths that we go to, to have a complete conversation, 10 minutes of uninterrupted gabbing is plenty exciting. tracyobserver@yahoo.com

No doubt - I think my mom’s best opportunity to get some peace and quiet was when we all went to school. That was about it, until we went to college. It didn’t stop us from being bratty whenever we came home, though. I guess some things never change…

Therein lies the comic relief from me for the time being. I hope it gave you a smile as you ponder why the Obama people are giddy that Gen. Colin Powell, he of the “white powder” before the UN to get us into the Iraq War in the FIRST damn place (and another excellent article which I recommend to you, “Powell Endorses Obama, and Supporters Pee Their Pants in Glee.”). Or how many of these multiple-times registered people will be voting in this election, and how often. Or has the NY Times officially become a paper on the lines of the National Enquirer after their smear piece on Cindy McCain? Inquiring minds want to know! Ahem. But for now, I hope you can have a smile for a moment, anyway…

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo - I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran - what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist - even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home - so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.

How are the markets doing? Where are you at on the bailout deal?

OPEN THREAD.

The media has ignored this—the American blood on Obama’s hands, his sabotage of United States foreign policy and military operations, his duplicity and lies, and the likely criminal violation of the Logan Act. Senators Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel, who accompanied Obama to Iraq and likely participated in his dicussions with Iraq’s leaders, have also been silent.

Senator John McCain has rightly called for an explanation:

At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation.

Obama has been virtually silent—likely hoping his traitorous and deadly actions would pass unnoticed.

Only two dismissive comments from the Obama campaign, both on Monday, are reported in the media:

• Obama’s campaign staff traveling with Obama claimed—as either a lie or simply uninformed—that “no such conversation took place”, per Major Garrett for Fox news at 3:23 ET, Monday.
• At about the same time, Ben Smith reported at Politico:

An Obama aide accused Taheri of confusing the Status of Forces agreement with a Strategic Framework Agreement, for which Obama has pushed for congressional review.

Wednesday, Taheri wrote a follow-up in the New York Post (H/T Michele Petys) that not only calls Obama a liar, but accuses him of “trying to derail current US policy”.

1. Even by Obama’s own account back in June, in an interview with NBC, he stated that conversations took place. Further, now saying they were misunderstood reconfirms that they took place. Thus, for the Obama campaign to say that they didn’t take place is a clear lie.
2. The claim that Taheri is confused is also undermined by Obama’s interviews and the additional details provided by Taheri in New York Post today:

The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: “On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it - but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.

“As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress - especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it.”

If there is any confusion, it’s in Obama’s position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can’t have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)

And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.

Here is how NBC reported Obama’s position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: “Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”

In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement - as his rebuttal now claims.

The NBC report continues: “Asked by NBC’s Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, ‘Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that’ s a six-month extension.’”

That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn’ t be separated is clear in his words to NBC:

“Obviously, we can’t have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration — in a weakened state politically — ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain’ s administration.”

Obama also told NBC: “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made…”

This is damning proof that, while in Iraq, Obama actively sought to undermine the United States for his own political gain. Worse than spying, Obama’s actions directly interfere with ongoing American military operations. As IronMan pointed out Monday at NoQuarterUSA, Abraham Lincoln in 1863 addressed traitors in Congress quite directly:

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged”

And Obama’s nutroots supporters have not limited themselves to dismissing everything as ‘horribly misrepresenting the facts’, ‘NY Post article - an unreliable source’, and ‘Reagan did it, why not Obama, too?’ Taheri reports that many have threatened him with death. In the latter, he pleads,

“I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.”

Obama the traitor has the blood of a growing number of dead and wounded Americans on his hands as a result of his unprecedented actions. His supporters’ actions and the main stream media’s silence make them equally complicit in undermining the United States.

Again, Obama’s only defense to date is to split hairs over what he was asking the Iraqis to do. He does not deny urging them to delay agreements that would lead to early, even immediate removal of American soldiers from Iraq. And this for a U.S. military presence that Obama told Zebari was “illegal”.

How many Americans will needlessly die because of Obama’s traitorous effort to delay pull-out for his political gain?!

• July 21-31: 2 dead, 31 wounded (and not Returned to Duty (RTD))
• August: 23 dead, 121 wounded (and not RTD)
• September: 8 dead through the 14th, 32 wounded (and not RTD through the 9th)

The Hope and Change that Obama supporters find so endearing is actually traitorous actions to undermine the United States. This is a damning example of Obama’s patriotism. It is also incredibly two-faced as he publicly calls for an end to military operations in Iraq while negotiating with the Iraqi government to delay that end.

As I wrote Monday in NoQuarterUSA, How fitting, the Democrats put up a traitor against a certified American war hero.

Sources:

• Matthew Weaver, A Traitor In Our Midst [UPDATE: McCain Campaign Issues a Statement], NoQuarterUSA, September 15, 2008.
• Amir Taheri, Obama Tried to Stall GIs’ Iraq Withdrawal, New York Post, September 15, 2008.
• Amir Taheri, Obama Objects, But the Evidence Says I’m Right, New York Post, September 17, 2008.
• Athena Jones, Obama’s Talk with Iraqi Foreign Minister, MSNBC, June 16, 2008.
• Ben Smith, Obama Campaign Contests Taheri Column, Politico, September 15, 2008.
• Andy McCarthy, McCain Responds to Obama’s Reported Undermining of the Commander-In-Chief During Wartime, National Review Online, September 15, 2008.
• iCasualties, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.
• Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim, AFP, September 16, 2008.
• NancyA, Obama’s Iraq Double Talk-Gate Response, NoQuarterUSA, September 17, 2008.