Hartgal
After two days of hearings, this was the key moment for me.

Posted at September 11, 2007 10:16 PM in response to Dave Petraeus and Iraq Kabuki

Hartgal
I like listening to what Zbigniew Brzezinski has to say because of how frank and forthright he is. His endorsement of Obama comes at a critical juncture in the 08 presidential race foreign policy debate. Brzezinski's insight about Hillary's conventional foreign policy speaks to his deep understanding that the US is at a high stakes moment on the world stage. He knows we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the US desperately needs a brand new constructive and engaged relationship with the world.

Posted at August 25, 2007 8:34 AM in response to Brzezinski Endorses Obama; Calls Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy "Very Conventional"

Hartgal
After listening to Nir Rosen's interview on Democracy Now, I am hard pressed to believe that Biden's plan has even a remote possibility of actually happening. Since Rosen sees a regional conflict long underway, and an irrevocably changed Iraq that is now a collection of city states under the control of war lords with their own militas - he makes a convincing argument that there is no more Iraq - and without an Iraq, how do you make a government?

Posted at August 22, 2007 5:46 PM in response to There is No More Iraq

I vote in NYState and have voted for many years now, for many major party candidates specifically on the Working Families Party ballot line because though I am not registered with the WFP - their issues are what I care about.
Hartgal

Posted at July 2, 2007 11:53 AM in response to Spotlight on Fusion Voting: The Lost Tool of American Democracy

Lots of food for thought here -- my favorite is the 5th reason economists often get their predictions wrong: that many of assumptions of classical economics are conservative by nature and to opt for market solutions over government ones -- and that most economists assume that the unfettered market will almost always yield better outcomes -- and any evidence to the contrary, they fail to self correct for.

Hartgal

Posted at July 2, 2007 11:42 AM in response to Predicting with a Handicap: Why are Economists’ Predictions So Often Wrong?

It was refreshing to read Larry's initial comments and it gives me an inordinate amount of pleasure to hear that angry rightwingers have their knickers in a twist about them. As a former member of the MainStreamMedia, it is sadly not surprising that the MSM focuses on the most sensational, and blows the story completely out of proportion. But it continues to happen and we need to continue to call them on it - as Larry has done.
Hartgal

Posted at July 1, 2007 8:58 PM in response to Soiled Diaper Wearers Unite

I believe many people simply cannot believe that things have gone so completely wrong in Iraq. It's too much of a nightmare to contemplate. Ergo, if you don't want to see what a mess it is, you don't even want to go to the place where you need to think about -- we've not only bungled things since we arrived in Iraq, but huge miscalculations were made before we got there. On top of that, really thinking about the lies that got us there -- it's overwhelming. On top of that I think many Americans may fear that a real down and dirty national debate about Iraq will send a message to US troops that they are not supported.

Posted at June 7, 2005 12:40 PM in response to Understanding our National Denial about Iraq

I'd like to point out that using anonymous sources extensively, reporters in the Knight Ridder bureau in Washington, published many stories about the administration's misuse of intelligence leading up to the war.  This reporting took place before the war began, starting in September 2002.

What better time than when a nation is on the verge of war, to appreciate the value of  anonymous sources.

An excerpt from a commentary by Clark Hoyt on the Knight Ridder Washington site:

"Knight Ridder Washington Bureau Chief John Walcott and reporters Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel relied extensively on anonymous sources in reporting more than 60 stories, starting in September 2002, on the Bush administration's misuse of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq and its failure to plan adequately for the aftermath of war.

When most news media gave credence to the administration's allegations about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida, Walcott, Landay and Strobel reported that military and intelligence professionals had no new information indicating that Saddam was a stronger threat to the United States. They later wrote that, because the administration expected Iraqis to welcome invading U.S. forces with open arms, the Pentagon did no serious postwar planning, opening the way for the insurgency that still pins down 140,000 U.S. troops.

Although they relied heavily on unnamed sources, the stories proved true: There was no Iraqi nuclear program. There were no operational links between Saddam and al-Qaida. The administration was relying on unreliable sources of information. Three subsequent U.S. government investigations agreed. "

Link to the full commentary:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11670013.htm

Posted at June 1, 2005 8:39 PM in response to Fair and Balanced?