We are all sorely aware of the position Jews put him in.

Pulitzer Prize alert: Friedman breaks new ground. In a new alter ego Friedman writes himself a letter (from King Abdullah II from the Magic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Previously Friedman has inhabited the minds and pens of generals and diplomats and he has boldly reshaped the world to his liking, winning the war in Iraq along the way. (Suck on that).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28friedman.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012202550.html

What must happen going forward according to Obama: Israeli forces must withdraw; Hamas must stop its rocket attacks. What about the Israeli blockade of Gaza Mr. President?

Where exactly does that put Obama on the political spectrum. Not where I long to be on a cold dark night. In the midst of their editorial today criticizing Obama's stimulus package and particularly the new tax cut he is opportunistically embracing (at the cost of ...well...optimal stimulus), the Times addresses how this repulsive move by Obama reinforces Republican framing and rhetoric, with long term negative effects to our political discourse:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=1

"It also perpetuates the corrosive debate in which taxes are portrayed as basically evil and tax cuts as unmitigated good. That is not a debate that Mr. Obama should engage.

When the economy recovers, the nation will face a far more difficult task than deciding how to spend its way out of a slump. As a nation, we will have to right the country's severe long-term budget imbalance. That will require reforming health care and cutting spending, and -- yes -- tax increases.

Mr. Obama will need to lead that fight too. Planting the idea that tax cuts are not an overarching solution to serious problems is a good place to start."

Just how disappointing is the Obama transition so far?  I certainly expected to be quickly disenchanted. I am speechless that at the very start, Obama has moved to the right of NYT.

Over the last few months, I have attacked Obama's policy decisions on the stimulus and many of his appointees repeatedly. So far I think that criticism is richly deserved. But his reiteration today that engagement must be our starting policy with regards to Iran policy is really welcome, just as his willingness to talk to Hamas, and his reiterated commitment to closing Guantanamo (hopefully he is not just putting it on a slow track). These are glimmers of some positive significant change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html?hp

As the Bush gang moves out and the new administration moves in, there is the pressing issue of how now do we categorize the Bush dogs of the Democratic party?  There is always the time-tested guideline "if it looks like, smells like, tastes like, then..." And is this the guideline to judge the President-Elect? Clearly his paramount concern is to occupy the center-right, regardless of the necessary policies this country in crisis requires. This is pretty much the same political territory that our current crop of Bush dogs occupy and certainly many of the certifiable worst, right-leaning, Bush-excusing in Congress and elsewhere have been recruited for his DLC-heavy right-leaning administration. Even on the matter of the stimulus, Obama and his economic team are on the right of the Democratic party with their new trickle-down stimulus proposals. His latest appointments include  Sanjay Gupta who has proved his mainstream bonafides by his gratuitous and specious attacks on Michael Moore's "Sicko". John Brennan, the outspoken torture apologist has made his way back into the administration and Admiral Blair has apparently a sordid history of defending and promoting the blood-soaked hands of the Indonesian military in its massacring the East Timorese (described here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0110/1231515470074.html  as follows)

"Congress cut off ties to the Indonesian military in 1999 after paramilitary groups backed by the military and supported by the US had killed more than 200,000 people in East Timor over a period of 20 years. Admiral Blair, who was US Pacific Command chief, told the Senate armed services committee in March 1999 that the Indonesian military had played "a difficult but generally positive role" in East Timor.

The following month, he met Gen Wiranto, the Indonesian military commander, offering his support for a restoration of US relations while groups backed by the general rampaged through East Timor, attacking a church and executing dozens of civilians."

Now we also hear from the Black Agenda report about Obama's basketball partner who is to become Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. Please read what they say about this truly execrable choice:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=944&Itemid=1

Let me quote the beginning of the article:

Did Barack Obama Just Appoint An Underqualified Stooge and Privatizer Secretary of  Education?

 

"The short answer seems to be "yes."  Before being appointed CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, Arne Duncan never saw the inside of a classroom as a teacher.  This is probably a good thing, since Duncan does not possess the academic qualifications to be even a substitute teacher.  Worse still, Duncan's idea of improving inner-city schools in Chicago is handing them over to corporate-run charter schools or converting them to military academies.  This, says longtime Chicago educator and activist George Schmidt, is not the change we voted for"

It seems to me using the guidelines above that indeed Obama has become for the purposes of being Chief Executive a Bush dog.

Good post on this inane formulation by Ezra Klein

(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=president_of_all_america):

".. the whole "President of all America" descriptor is popular these days, but a bit vague for my tastes. You're president of all America when you win more than 270 votes in the electoral college. Not when people stop disagreeing with your agenda. There's a tendency to downplay the degree to which America is riven by legitimate disagreements over the path forward. Those who think the occasional moment of symbolic outreach to Rick Warren will overwhelm arguments over socialized health care, or taxes, or abortion, aren't paying respect to our essential commonalities so much as dismissing genuine arguments. Few in this country battle to see their policy preferences respected. They battle to see them enacted."

A new poll shows 82% of Americans approve of the Obama transition moves. It must be time for Greg Sargent to put out  another sarcastic post on the "Angry Left and Obama" and we can get the Obama chorus here to sing lustily in support of whatever Obama and his administration is doing. Nevermind that it is readying an escalation in Afghanistan or cuddling up to the bigotry of a demagogic bigot like Warren. Nevermind the DLC-tilt of his administration. And nevermind the actual Obama policy (already effected) of supporting the Paulson $700 billion giveaway (that Obama helped herd through congress. We all know  a poll like this shows Obama is making all the right moves; and poll numbers really don't ever change much. Whining on the left is tiresome and they have been doing it for eight solid years. Enough!

I hope this does not violate any rules of engagements for Readers' Posts. The following has been researched and posted at Moon of Alabama  www.moonofalabama.org by Bernhard. It struck me that it deserved wider circulation since it is such a good piece of research.

Around the Hindu Kush, 30 is a Magic Number

... or so it seems ...

U.S.: 30 militants killed in west Afghanistan, AP, Aug 22, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S.-led troops attacked a compound where Taliban leaders were meeting and killed 30 militants, American and Afghan military officials said Friday, but the Interior Ministry said a large number of civilians died. The U.S. said it would investigate.
...
The coalition said its troops called in airstrikes on the compound in the Shindand district of western Herat province Thursday
...
However, the Afghan Interior Ministry claimed U.S. coalition bombs killed 76 civilians, including 19 women and 50 children under the age of 15. The ministry called the bombing a "mistake."

---

US coalition: 30 militants die in Afghan battle, AP, Aug 21, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan - U.S.-led coalition troops battled a group of militants in eastern Afghanistan, killing over 30 insurgents, while three NATO soldiers were killed in a roadside blast elsewhere, officials said Thursday.

The coalition troops used small arms and airstrikes during the raid in eastern Laghman province on Wednesday, killing more than 30 fighters, the coalition said. A cache of mortars and bomb-making material was also destroyed.

---

US and Afghan Troops Kill Dozens of Militants in Afghanistan, VOA News, Aug. 16
The U.S.-led coalition Saturday said more than 30 militants were killed in three days of fierce fighting in Zamto Valley, in southern Kandahar province. The coalition said its troops along with Afghan forces called in airstrikes during the clashes that began Wednesday and ended Friday.

---

Pakistan army targets militants in northwest, AP, Aug 8, 2008
KHAR, Pakistan---- At least 30 militants and seven Pakistani paramilitary troops have died in clashes near the Afghan border, where security forces pounded insurgent hideouts Friday with helicopter gunships and mortar fire, officials and residents said.

The offensive in the tribal region of Bajur came in the wake of a militant assault on an outpost manned by security forces Wednesday.

---

Taliban commander and 30 militants killed , Quqnoos, Feb 22, 2008
AFGHAN troops have killed 30 Taliban militants in Helmand, according to the Ministry of Defence.

Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Bari and 29 of his men were killed yesterday in the districts of Musa Qala and Kajaki (Wednesday) during a five hour battle that involved ground soldiers and air strikes.

---

Militants release students and teachers taken hostage at Pakistan school, Guardian, Jan 28, 2008
Last week, Pakistani forces killed up to 30 militants in clashes near the city of Peshawar, after militants seized four trucks carrying ammunition and other paramilitary supplies.

Security forces recently launched a ground and air assault against Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban commander accused of orchestrating the assassination in December of the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto.

---

Report: 30 militants killed in Swat , UPI, Nov 26, 2007
Pakistani forces say they killed 30 militants in their latest offensive to regain control of the violence-racked Swat valley, Dawn reported Monday.

---

Forces Kill 30 Militants, Find Weapons Caches in Afghanistan, AFPS, Sep 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2007 – Afghan and coalition forces killed more than 30 suspected militants during an operation yesterday in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

The combined force suspected targeted compounds, located in the Garmser district, were providing sanctuary to anti-coalition militants. Precision munitions were employed to destroy the buildings, which had fortified fighting positions and interlocking tunnels.

---

Two British soldiers, 45 insurgents killed in Afghan fighting, AP, Sep 5, 2007
Taliban attacks killed two British soldiers and two Afghan police officers Wednesday in restive southern Afghanistan, while nearly 30 militants were killed elsewhere, authorities said.

---

U.S. Says Attacks Are Surging in Afghanistan , NYT, Jan 16, 2007
Shortly before Mr. Gates arrived along the border, the Pakistani Army announced that it had launched an airstrike on a suspected militant camp in South Waziristan, killing 25 to 30 militants that it said were Al Qaeda members, according to The Associated Press, which quoted a Pakistani Army spokesman.

---

30 militants killed in S. Afghanistan., Xinhua, Jan 14, 2007
Afghan and NATO forces killed 30 Taliban operatives in the troubled Helmand province in south Afghanistan on Saturday, provincial police chief Mohammad Nabi Mullahkhil said Sunday.

"In an operation launched by Afghan and NATO troops against insurgents in Kajaki district Saturday, 30 enemies were killed and 20 others were wounded," Mullahkhil told Xinhua.

---

Coalition predicts "significant fighting" in southern Afghanistan, 30 militants killed, AP, June 21, 2006
Dateline: KABUL, Afghanistan Southern Afghanistan will witness "significant fighting" between U.S.-led coalition and Taliban forces for several months before NATO takes control of the region, the military said Wednesday.

The grim warning came a day after coalition and Afghan forces conducted raids in southern Helmand and Uruzgan provinces, killing 30 insurgents, Afghan and coalition forces said.

---

'Scores of Afghan Taleban killed' , BBC, June 10, 2006
A statement by the US-led coalition said "more than 30" militants were killed in a clash with Afghan and Canadian forces in Arghandab district in Zabul on Monday.

---

Rumsfeld arrives in Kabul as 30 Taleban killed in Helmand, Times Online, July 11, 2006
US-led forces hunting a Taleban commander have killed an estimated 30 Taleban militia in an overnight raid on a hide-out in southern Afghanistan, the US military said today.

The raid came shortly before Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, arrived on an unannounced visit to Kabul, where he expressed confidence that the Taleban would be defeated.

---

Up to 30 militants killed in Pakistan, CBC News, Mar 11, 2006
Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships have attacked a suspected hideout of Islamist militants in a tribal region near the Afghan border, killing up to 30 people.

The overnight attack in the North Waziristan tribal region was ordered after intelligence reports suggested that militants were gathered in a compound along with a huge cache of arms, ammunition and explosives.

---

Afghan, U.S. troops battle insurgents in Afghanistan, at least 19 dead, AP, Feb 3, 2006
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - Fierce fighting involving U.S. warplanes and Afghan troops in southern Afghanistan left at least 16 suspected Taliban rebels and three police dead, an official said Friday.
...
A U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara, said American forces, including A-10 war planes, responded to an initial attack on Afghan security forces by up to 30 militants.

Why did the marketing/propaganda buffoons chose 30 as the magic number?

The war in Afghanistan is turning into the same type of right-wing disaster as Iraq. We will be engaged in both for at least the next 10 years if not the hundred years endorsed by "former-POW (trademarked adjective)" John (POW) McCain

There is yet another remarkable column (May 2, 2007) today by the estimable Tom Friedman. In this new work, Friedman urges his imaginary friend, a humbled and humble President Bush, to deliver a speech to the world acknowledging his monumental mistakes and sincerely apologize for being a "jerk". According to Friedman, Bush "honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Now realizing he was "wrong", he should state (presumably because the imaginary Bush believes it) that he "breached a bond of trust between America and the world", not only alienating them from us, but making us less "effective" in Iraq, since we had too few allies and too little legitimacy.

Friedman has often addressed the world through these monologues delivered in the person of world leaders who apparently have no interest in the Friedman take on things (thank you very much). Most such delusional observers seek intervention and help. Friedman on the other hand wins Pulitzer prizes for this sort of silliness. But a reasonable question might be posed of Friedman himself. He enthusiastically supported the war and occupation for years (at least for 6 or 7 Friedman units); I believe he felt the idea of democracy dominos was a neat idea that appealed to his Pulitzer-approved farsightedness (a visionary indeed). In fact the column in question is yet another "Hail Mary" Friedman-attempt to rescue the 'Iraq democratization project'. (We may have to allow Bush a Friedman unit or two to see if he delivers Friedman's speech).

Someone help me out here; has Friedman himself ever apologized for helping to launch this disaster? He has blamed the Bush leadership shrilly for not prosecuting the war as General Friedman would. But an apology? I do not recall one.

I guess if you write for the New York Times, blame everyone else for the fiascos you promote, get Pulitzer prizes (instead of condemnation) for this type of vapid intellectual activity, you do not have to apologize to anyone. You have a pretty good hustle going.