The Coffeespy

The Scottish-Right has a very good post on the Obama investment story.  Even if Obama conspired to raise the value of his stocks by backing certain political causes, the article doesn’t have enough evidence to do anything but cast aspersions.  Of course, saying it might have come from the Clintons is in the same vein, but that’s the difference between bloggers and journalists.  Bloggers only have themselves to draw on, for the most part, where the NYT has a staff of researchers and investigative reporters.

And as the Scottish-Right pointed out:

There are many reasons for not supporting Senator Obama.  This isn’t one of them.

The rest of the article already shows Obama lying about his past to impress his public.  Bummer (about him lying).

Anyway, I previously wrote about the obnoxiously partisan Obama voting record.  That sealed the ‘no vote’ deal for me.

An Early Birded story from the New York Times concerning the “G.O.P.” block on Iraq policy debate just has too many facets for me to go into in one post this morning:

One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.

Where to start…

The “Democrats” have a problem if a proposal has support from many in their party?  How about, it’s a problem for “Democrats” if a proposal has “the broadest support in the Senate?”

I’m thinking it’s a problem for the New York Times if all Democrats don’t vote the way they want them to.  Or maybe it’s a problem for the far Left Democrats when a proposal with broad support opposes their agenda.

Like I said… too many things to consider.  I’m not even sure who I should be irked at on that one: the Times or the Far Left.  I think the article wants me to be angry with the G.O.P. but it’s too poorly written and supported for that to happen.

• Rhymes With Right looks at another aspect of the double-standard: Democrats threatening filibuster are media heroes while Republicans are stonewalling old men.  Ignore the fact that this isn’t Repub v. Dem, it’s Far Left v. Broad Congressional Support.
• From On High (who has one of my favorite banner graphics, this coming from the minimalist king) says the G.O.P. blocked nothing, the headline does not reflect the story.  Gotta love it when the Times doesn’t even bother to read its own writing.

I’ll give you two thought-provokers followed by something funny.  The thoughts happen to both come from Shaun Mullen, one at his site Kiko’s House and the other from the Moderate Voice.  From Kiko’s House, Mr. Mullen ponders the courage of George Bush:

What tripped my trigger is the notion posited by Beschloss that Bush’s actions are courageous and whether the standard definition of that word (“Having courage, full of courage; brave, fearless, valiant”) is apropos.

Mr. Mullen concludes that Bush isn’t courageous but rather reckless.  I don’t think it’s so simple.  I think he has a number of pretty smart people all giving differing view points.  It’s not a simple matter of listening to the “smart people” because the “smart people” are a diverse group with differing opinions.

Reckless?  I’d agree.  Courageous?  I’d agree again.  He became overconfident during Afghanistan, took a huge lump with post-invation Iraq, and is trying to regain his footing while his support crumbles from underneath him, due in no small part to the printed press screaming playing high school popularity games with the GWOT.

Mr. Mullen has another post at the Moderate Voice concerning the blast in Iraq, one of the worst in recent memory:

Some Iraqis are blaming the U.S. for creating the conditions that led to the Saturday evening bombing, arguing that the Americans have been slow in completing President Bush’s new “surge” security plan, making Shiite neighborhoods more vulnerable to such attacks.

On whose hands is the blood of these innocents?

1. President Bush?
2. Sunni insurgents?
3. Iran?

The answer to that, in order, is:

1. Yes, some.
2. Yes, the most.
3. Yes, not as much a the Sunni’s but definitely more than Bush.

And finally, the New York Times proves itself to be worthless yet again… the Times claims the Superbowl commercials were ruined because the public can’t help but frame them as war-time allegories.  No, I’m not kidding:

Then, too, there was the unfortunate homonym at the heart of a commercial from Prudential Financial, titled “What Can a Rock Do?”

The problem with the spot, created internally at Prudential, was that whenever the announcer said, “a rock” — invoking the Prudential logo, the rock of Gibraltar — it sounded as if he were saying, yes, “Iraq.”

The Moderate Voice remarks on how low the Times has gotten.

Paul Krugman is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and writes regularly for the New York Times.  From an Early Birded column in the NY Times:

These are two different pieces of the same story: under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.

The blueprint for Bush-era governance was laid out in a January 2001 manifesto from the Heritage Foundation, titled “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” The manifesto’s message, in brief, was that the professional civil service should be regarded as the enemy of the new administration’s conservative agenda. And there’s no question that Heritage’s thinking reflected that of many people on the Bush team.

Krugman’s playing a magic trick pretending this is a startling new phenomenon.  He shows you a patronage system with his left hand and says “ooh, look at the corruption” and hides the historical pattern of it in his right.  This is done in every administration.  Every… single… one.  He’s attaching Bush’s name to it because… well, I can only assume Bush must have noogied him as a child because every economic ill he writes about seems to originate with this administration.  A professor should know better.

• The Economist’s View has some good comments.  Skip the obvious blind hatred stuff for the posts with links to historical memos and orders.  Since the Times has the column behind their log-in wall, you can read the whole column at the EV.

You know that time of December when you haul our your Christmas lights only to find you balled them up the previous year?  You stare at the mass of intertwined, rainbow bulbs and wonder if it’s possible to make a straight line out of what looks like a giant, robotic cat’s hairball.

From an Early Birded story in the Washington Post in Iraq:

A Shiite cult leader, who claimed to be a revered Muslim figure who vanished in the 10th century, was killed Sunday along with scores of fighters who were poised to attack a holy city in southern Iraq and assassinate the country’s Shiite religious leadership, Iraqi officials said Monday.

Well, that seems a little insane.  Scores of fighters, some accounts claim up to 200 armed men attacked in unison, followed this guy?  Then I read an Early Birded piece from the New York Times (in the Houston Chronicle) detailing another incident where Iraqis called in for U.S. support after being repelled by another cult on the outskirts of Najaf:

A commander in the Scorpion Brigade said the combined American and Iraqi forces killed 470 people. He also said some of the dead Soldiers of Heaven fighters were found bound together at the ankles and suggested that the chains had probably been used to keep people from fleeing and to keep them moving as one unified group.

I start to wonder with the ease the Iraqi public seems to be controlled by madmen and monsters, is it possible to allow the security forces to concentrate on threats like Iranian agents, insurgent forces, and rogue clerics?  Tangled ball, indeed.  To add an even deeper dimension, between the two stories from the WaPo and NY Times there are conflicting messages.  From the WaPo:

“This is a very clear message from the government that no one except the government carrying arms is acceptable, whether Shia or Sunni,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “It reveals the firm commitment of the prime minister that any outlaw will be dealt with very strongly.”

…

“The aggressive manner in which the Iraqi soldiers performed north of [Najaf] going after the anti-Iraqi forces was impressive,” said Col. Michael Garrett, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, in the statement.

Then from the NY Times:

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

…

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces’ miscalculations about the group’s strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.

Various cults, varying accounts.  Iraqis are standing up.  Iraqis are lying down.  They don’t need the U.S.  They do.  Maybe if I start untangling the Christmas lights in January this year I’ll be able to sort through all the wacko cultists, slanted reporting, differing views, and varied accounts so I can come to a decision as to where the U.S. and Iraq really stand by next December.

Oh, wait… I still have to untangle that ball of blue and red lights before they get too tightened up in partisan squabbling to work.  Nah, let’s just criticize whoever makes any decision at all.  Wouldn’t want to upset the status quo.

While I am definitely a supporter of what we are doing in Iraq, and would have been even without the arguments of WMD and terrorist links, it’s important for those defending the actions over there to remember the human cost.  We pay lip service to it all the time.  But I think it’s our personal responsibility to have personal knowledge of the price we have paid and are still paying by being there, no matter the justification you use for being there.

I’ve been there as a soldier.  I know others have as well.  Some go as journalists.  Some go with charitable organizations.  Some feel the effects because their family members or close friends are there.  But there are those that are unable to go and have no connection to the war other than what they see on TV or overhear on the metro.  For these people, it’s the work of journalists like Damien Cave that give them their glimpse of Iraq.

From an Early Birded piece in the New York Times:

“Don’t freak out on me, Doc,” Sergeant Biletski shouted to the platoon medic, Pfc. Aaron Barnum, who was frantically yanking at Sergeant Leija’s flak jacket to take the weight off his chest. “Don’t freak out.”

Two minutes later, three soldiers rushed to help, dragging the sergeant from the kitchen. A medevac team then rushed in and carried him to a Stryker armored vehicle outside, around 9:20. He moaned as they carried him down the stairs on a stretcher.

Read the whole thing, please.  It’s as worthy a story as you’ll ever find in a newspaper in my estimation.  If I could shake Mr. Cave’s hand, I would.

• From the Left - The Common Ills calls Cave’s story “rah rah” reporting and largely condemns the account, implying that the story was probably edited or at least reviewed by the government.
• From the Right - Villainous Company says the story is meant to take a U.S. victory and show a U.S. defeat.  He blasts the times for ignoring the life and the fallen Staff Sergeant and focusing only on his death.

I’d say with the Right and Left taking polar opposites on their opinions of the piece, it might just fall somewhere in the center, hm?  In my humble opinion, this story shows that there is defeat in victory, heroism in fear, determination in despair, and a cost even when the cause is worthy.

Note: Many thanks to the Moderate Voice for linking to this post.

The NY Times “coverage” of the State of the Union speech is little more than a liberal whip.

Battered by low approval ratings and a worsening war in Iraq, President Bush focused on traditionally Democratic issues in his first State of the Union address to a Congress controlled by the opposition.

Remember, journalistic style mandates putting the most important facts first.  NY Times believes the most important fact is the President’s low approval rating, apparently.  Since we’re not all stupid, it’s clear this is written in such a manner as to cast the President as a failing, ailing figurehead willing to sell out his party.  It also sets up:

The White House fashioned proposals on both issues designed to resonate with the public and with an eye toward wooing congressional Democrats — or at least luring them to the bargaining table.

Yes, the White House staff sat down and said, “how can we lure the Democrats?”  If a newspaper is ascribing motivations without having any knowledge of said motivations, then the newspaper is being irresponsible… and partisan.

Unable to muster even a deceptively unbiased story, the NY Times is losing credibility like a Nifong prosecution.  Perhaps the NY Times should recuse themselves from the straight journalism game and just come clean as a tabloid for the Left?

• I really don’t like the response at Kiko’s House on this one.  I get the feeling the post could have been written pre-speech.  Seems fairly knee-jerk for someone with a pedigree like Shaun Mullen to give into, and I don’t mean that to be snarky at all.  Mr. Mullen deserves some respect with the things he’s worked on in the past.
• Read the post above at Kiko’s then head to Ace of Spades HQ to see his pre-emptive post which parrots the one above, except it actually was written pre-speech.

Maybe.  In an Early Birded New York Times piece, the Presiden’t plan to create jobs and improve the economy, giving Iraqis something to do besides join militias, is already being criticized before it’s even unveiled in its entirety.  Now watch carefully…

Are the state-owned factories currently helping Iraq?

The state-owned enterprises are already a huge drain on Iraq’s budget, Mr. Hafedh said, and most of them produce little or nothing. Many are filled with no-show jobs.

Hmm… ok, what if they’re privatized?

That plan would involve pumping expertise and money for reconstruction into enterprises still owned by the Iraqi government, or privatizing some or all of the companies to force them to become more competitive.

Either way, Iraqi political and business leaders were dubious about the prospects for success. “I doubt it very much in view of the current challenges and dangers facing the country,” said Mehdi Hafedh, a member of Parliament and a former planning minister.

Well shoot.  Leaving them state-owned is bad and privatizing them is bad.  Seems we have a logic problem here.  The NY Times says there’s another logic problem to consider:

Nor have those officials solved what appears to be a logical flaw in the plan: how does the United States get credit for reconstruction projects when it must keep its participation secret to prevent attacks on those projects?

I keep forgetting the NY Times thinks we’re over there to “get credit.”

One of the reasons I’m usually not considered a traditional conservative is my libertarian take on most social issues, abortion being one of them.  I’m from the camp that abortion is a choice open to a woman.  That said, I hope a woman is moral enough to make the right choice.  I’m not so much for a woman’s choice as I am against having an option legislated away.  Being a man, I take a man’s view that the ‘he’ portion of the equation should have some say but until there is an alternative to a responsibility-bankrupt possessor of a womb, they get their say over it.  Basically, a person has a right as an American to be a morally-vacuous prick.  I’ll tolerate you (meaning I won’t destroy you, NOT that I’ll accept you) but I’ll also let you know what a waste of life I think you are… that sort of thing.

What the pro-choice crowd (another term I’m not going to debate, I’m using it so we can at least talk about it) doesn’t need is crap like the NY Times piece covered by Michelle Malkin.  Rather than talk about the founding fathers’ desire to keep government out of the private lives of people, the Times has decided to create a sensationalized piece based on sources they know will have biased reporting.  Malkin covers the particulars in her usual thorough and witty style.

Which is worse, I wonder: a journalist using a real source they know to be lying or a journalist using a source that, well, looks like they made up?  The New York Times can use the terms like “experts” and “officials” without letting the reader know they’re taking a slant by covering slanted sources while the AP is made to look like morons because, after “investigating” allegations, they still haven’t produced an Iraqi police captain who has managed to source several stories.  The Winds of Change has a new update (or lack thereof) on the APs re-imagining of “Car 54, Where Are You?” set to an Iraqi backdrop.  Bottom line: the AP defense is basically, “Shut up, na na na na na, I can’t hear you.”

The thing is, in both the abortion story and Iraq reporting, the press is actually hurting its own cause.  When they report versions of the facts, instead of the facts, people begin to question and debate the press instead of the issue.  The Ace of Spades says it quite well:

We do need a vigilant press in this country to press uncomfortable questions to those in power. But if the press itself continues indulging in the same deny and lie spin cycle as any other organization caught dirty, how can it act in this role?

I started this blog because what I read in the paper rarely stood up to scrutiny.  Having been a low-level journalist myself I know how it’s supposed to be written.  Gather facts.  Order the facts by importance.  Rewrite them in that order, editing for flow and cohesiveness.  End of story.  It’s not that hard.  If any jackass with an internet connection can refute professional press reporting, it’s time to turn that ever-watchful eye upon the watchers themselves.

In an Early Birded story from the New York Times, General Abizaid is apparently telling the American people “it takes a village” when it comes to solving the problems in Iraq:

General Abizaid, who is completing the final months of a highly decorated military career, acknowledges that additional American forces, favored by some of President Bush’s top advisers, might provide a short-term boost in security. But he argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.

Final months, eh?  Prepping for a political career with this move, maybe?  Wesley Clark part 2 coming down the road?

I wonder how the U.S. troops on the ground feel about being thought of as a ‘toxin’ by their commander.  Well, General, you’re right that more troops puts off the day Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security.  And that’s exactly the point.  Since Abizaid has been incapable of wiping out the insurgency by explaining to the nation that tough steps need to be taken and then taking those steps, precisely what the Iraqis need is more time.

Then the NY Times shows it’s stripes by saying:

But the generals are facing a different assessment from a growing number of civilian officials in the Bush administration, who see a sharp increase in troop strength as an effective means to stabilize Baghdad and as a dramatic initiative for the president to announce in January.

The old “Bush vs. the Generals” game… except it wasn’t the administration that was calling for more troops.  In fact, it was the media taking shots at the administration for not having enough troops.

“You have to internationalize the problem,” General Abizaid said. “You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically. You just can’t apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad and a particular problem in downtown Kabul and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, that you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism.”

Right.  Truly, this is correct.  But apparently the General has forgotten we have that Global War on Terrorism thing going on where we attack extremism globally.  Otherwise he wouldn’t suggest something we’re already doing, would he?  Or is he saying “go regional?”  Oops… sorry, that made me throw up a little in my mouth.

He emphasizes that the threat to American national security interests ranges far beyond any one country in his area of responsibility.

“When you take a look at the reach of the extremism as exemplified by Al Qaeda, it’s not just in Afghanistan, it’s not just in Iraq — it’s in Pakistan, it’s in Saudi Arabia, it’s in Great Britain, it’s in Spain,” he said. “It attacked the United States. It is organized in the virtual world in a way that is very unique, very modern, very dangerous.”

Ask for a solution to Sunni insurgents in Anbar Province, and he talks about their supporters in Syria and implications should Saudi Arabia overtly take sides against the Shiites of Iraq.

On the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, General Abizaid says the only course includes understanding tribal loyalties in Pakistan. Turn the conversation to Middle Eastern terrorists, and he describes the military’s efforts to preclude their establishing havens in ungoverned corners of Africa.

Again, all correct.  Good job looking at the broader picture.  Now friggin’ focus on the damn insurgents and remove them.  Your job is not diplomat to Saudi Arabia.  It’s not financial transfer analyst focused on Syria.  It’s not global extremism analyst, either.  It’s the leader of the forces at CENTCOM.  You apply the military might.  You tell the nation what it is you need to do in order to pound the enemy into submission.  While you need to have visibility on all those things to make decisions, you have to make the damn decisions.  Wait until you’re retired to start your political career, sir.  Doing it now is costing lives and prolonging this war.

Right Wing Guy gets it right saying:

We must unleash the full might of our military and not fight such a PC war, if we were able to use our military might in its full effectiveness than this fight would have been over with some time ago, but we are saddled with reporters imbedded with our troops.

Who’s the one who should have been pushing this approach in the national eye?  Abizaid.

Right Wing Nuthouse explains that additional troops isn’t really the discussion as the WaPo would have you believe.  It’s having a clear goal to work with!  And who should be bringing this issue up?  Abizaid.  Disagree?  I really don’t think Patton, Eisenhower, or MacArthur had trouble letting Uncle Sam know what they needed to win.  I blogged about needing more purpose the other day.

Finally, Wake Up America explains why “going regional” is much the same as “going to hell” if we’re to include Iran.

Want more on Abizaid?

• Taking Some Advice…
• Abizaid vs. Officers?
• ROE: Rules of Endangerment