Thursday, December 01, 2005

I suppose the Wall Street Journal would prefer poor people to freeze to death this winter, rather than their public servants patronize a nation with the temerity to stand up to Bush administration bullying. Fuck that miserable, stinking, putrid rag and the corporanazis it shills for.    Venezuela's Oil Deal With Mass. Draws Heat By ANDREW MIGA Associated Press Writer December 01,2005 | WASHINGTON -- The first deliveries of cheap Venezuelan heating oil to cash-strapped Massachusetts residents will not arrive for weeks, but the deal involving President Hugo Chavez already is generating political heat on both sides. Venezuela's state-owned oil company ran full-page ads Thursday in two major U.S. newspapers trumpeting its deal as "humanitarian aid" and a "simple act of generosity." The ads in The Washington Post and The New York Times came a day after The Wall Street Journal scolded Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., and former Rep. Joe Kennedy for their cooperation with Chavez, one of President Bush's harshest critics. "Mr. Delahunt's lobbying for the dictator undermines any official U.S. pressure on Mr. Chavez to behave more humanely, which is precisely why Mr. Chavez is returning the favor by plying Mr. Delahunt with cheap oil," the Journal asserted. "Leave it to the congressman ... and a Kennedy to close the deal." Tensions have run high recently between Bush and Chavez, a self-styled socialist who assails American-style capitalism and has branded Bush a "madman." Chavez's critics contend the oil deal is a cynical ploy to score public relations points and tweak the Bush administration. Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum Corp. promoted its plan to offer 12 million gallons of cut-rate oil this winter with the headline: "How Venezuela is Keeping the Home Fires Burning In Massachusetts." Delahunt and Kennedy, whose Citizens Energy Corp. will help deliver the oil, counter that keeping poor people warm is their priority. "I don't report to George Bush," Delahunt said at a news conference last week. "I'm elected by the people here in Massachusetts. So I don't feel any particular need to consult with George Bush or Dick Cheney about oil." Other foreign suppliers of oil to the U.S. have authoritarian governments and are accused of human rights abuses, a Kennedy aide noted. "If we applied a democratic screen to countries we get our oil from, we'd never have enough oil to heat our homes and drive our cars," said Kennedy's spokesman, Brian O'Connor. The Bush administration praised the deal, but balked at commenting about Chavez and his motivations. "We commend this act of good corporate citizenship," said Energy Department Craig Stevens. The White House referred questions about the oil deal to the department. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential 2008 GOP presidential contender, had kind words for the cut-rate oil program. Cash-strapped homeowners in Massachusetts are welcoming any help against steep energy prices. "Why would it matter where it comes from?" said Bridget Durkin, 70, who lives alone in Quincy and relies on fuel assistance. "Venezuela is doing a good thing for people." Virginia Holdstock, 82, of Wollaston, who said she lives on a fixed income from a small pension and Social Security, also expects to receive a delivery of discounted oil from Citizens Energy this month. "I am blessed to have this help," she said, adding that Venezuela is the only country "doing anything for us. None of the others want to help." The first deliveries of 40 percent-discounted Venezuelan oil will be made Dec. 12, when many residents will exhaust their federal fuel aid for the season, O'Connor said. Other Northeast states, including New York, are exploring similar deals with Venezuela. Associated Press writer Mark Jewell in Boston contributed to this report. Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes. © 2005 The Associated Press 6:07:23 PM     comment []

Doskoro! Do Pobachennya! Suckers. . .   Two U.S. Allies Leaving Iraq, More May Go By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer December 01,2005 | VIENNA, Austria -- Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops. Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer. Japan and South Korea help with reconstruction, but Britain and Australia provide substantial support forces and Italy and Poland train Iraqi troops and police. Their exodus would deal a blow to American efforts to prepare Iraqis to take over the most dangerous peacekeeping tasks and craft an eventual U.S. exit strategy. "The vibrations of unease from within the United States clearly have an impact on public opinion elsewhere," said Terence Taylor of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington. "Public opinion in many of these countries is heavily divided." Although the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq dwarfs the second-largest contingent -- Britain's 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region -- its support has shrunk substantially. In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the multinational force numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries. That figure is now just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. The coalition has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave. In the spring, the Netherlands had 1,400 troops in Iraq. Today, there are 19, including a lone Dutch soldier in Baghdad. Ukraine's remaining 876 troops in Iraq are due home by Dec. 31, fulfilling a campaign pledge by President Viktor Yushchenko. Bulgaria is pulling out its 380 troops after Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov said. In his strategy for Iraq, announced Wednesday, President Bush said expanding international support was one of his goals. He also seemed to address the issue of more allies withdrawing. "As our posture changes over time, so too will the posture of our coalition partners," the document says. "We and the Iraqis must work with them to coordinate our efforts, helping Iraq to consolidate and secure its gains on many different fronts." Struggling to shore up the coalition, Bush stopped in Mongolia on his recent Asia trip and praised its force of about 120 soldiers in Iraq as "fearless warriors." At least 2,109 U.S. service personnel have died since the beginning of the Iraq war, according to an Associated Press count. At least 200 troops from other countries also have died, including 98 from Britain. Other tolls: Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, three; Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, one each. Underscoring mounting opposition in nearly all coalition countries, a poll published in Japan's Asahi newspaper this week showed 69 percent of respondents opposed extending the mission, up from 55 percent in January. No margin of error was given. Japan's Kyodo News service reported Wednesday that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet would decide Dec. 8 to allow its 600 troops to stay for another year, but it could decide later to withdraw troops around May. A British drawdown would be the most dramatic. Although Prime Minister Tony Blair's government insists there is no timetable and British forces will leave only when Iraqi troops can take over, Defense Secretary John Reid suggested last month that a pullout could begin "in the course of the next year." South Korea, the second-largest coalition partner after Britain, is expected to withdraw about 1,000 of its 3,200 troops in the first half of 2006. The National Assembly is likely to vote on the matter this month. Italy's military reportedly is preparing to give parliament a timetable for a proposed withdrawal of its 2,800 troops. Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government has said it plans to withdraw forces in groups of 300, but in accordance with the Iraqi government and coalition allies. Poland's former leftist government, which lost Sept. 25 elections, had planned to withdraw its 1,400 troops in January. The new defense minister, Radek Sikorski, visits Washington this weekend for talks on Poland's coalition plans, and the new government is expected to decide by mid-December whether to extend its mission beyond Dec. 31. "Some formula of advisory-stabilizing mission could remain on a smaller scale, of course, and our commanders are prepared for several variants," Col. Zdzislaw Gnatowski of the Polish army's general staff told The Associated Press. Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, head of the Australian Defense Force, has said about 450 troops in the southern province of Muthanna could leave by May. Australia has about 900 troops and support staff across Iraq. Many coalition members have pledged to stay in Iraq for all of 2006; at least one, Lithuania, has committed to the end of 2007. And the coalition is still drawing new members, most recently Bosnia, which sent 36 bomb-disposal experts in June. "We are getting letters of gratitude from the U.S. commanders for our peacekeepers' excellent service," said Ilgar Verdiyev, a Defense Ministry spokesman in Azerbaijan, which has 150 troops in Iraq and is one of the few mostly Muslim countries to contribute. Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Ryan Lucas in Warsaw, Poland, contributed to this report. 5:24:33 PM     comment []

Another day, another dirty, shameless lie. From Think Progress: Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led” the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear” sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq. The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.   Sen. John Warner (R-VA) who was also on Anderson Cooper yesterday said “I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you’ve just put forward.” Full Transcript: COOPER: You know this is not one of the shows where we take sides. I really try to just look at facts on the ground, and the President in his speech talked about the battle of Tal Afar. And in his speech today, he said that it was led primarily by Iraqi security forces, eleven Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. He used this as compared to the battle of Fallujah as an example of how much better the Iraqis are doing. Earlier, I talked to Time Magazine’s Michael Ware, the Baghdad bureau chief who was embedded during the entire battle. I want to play you what he said about the Iraqi units he saw. WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing. COOPER: Do you think the president was correct in saying that this was an Iraqi victory, that the Iraqis were leading the way? WARNER: Well, I’ll let the commanders sort that out but I - first I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you’ve just put forward. But you didn’t hear him say they cut and run like they did in Fallujah. You didn’t hear him say that the Iraqis dropped the arms. He said they were fighting. Now it may well have been that the battle plan was drawn up by the coalition forces, probably the U.S. leading.   2:58:41 PM     comment []

Deja Vu!       12:39:28 PM     comment []

2008: Handicapping the Democrats With George W. Bush in the White House it's never too early to start thinking about 2008. Here is my early take on the contenders, all of which is subject to seismic shifts over the next two years:     Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator, New York   Pros: Immensely popular with Democratic rank and file, name recognition, good on domestic issues.    Cons: Intense hatred on the Right could spark big backlash. Huge question mark about how her newfound moderation will play with the Independents. Muddled views on Iraq.   Presidential potential: 9   Electability potential: ?  Al Gore, former Vice-President, Tennessee Pros: Since 2000, has become perhaps the most eloquent, passionate spokesman for what the party should stand for. Sees the Environment as a major issue. Cons: "Been there, done that" factor might turn off voters. Insists he isn't running. Presidential potential: 10 Electability potential: 7.5   Russell Feingold, U.S. Senator, Wisconsin   Pros: Profile in courage for taking an early, real stand on Iraq withdrawal; Genuine progresssive.   Cons: Progressive views bring electability into question; two divorces won't play well in era of "family values" bullshit   Presidential Potential: 10 Electability Potential: 4.5       Bill Richardson, Governor, New Mexico   Pros: Massive amount of foreign and domestic policy experience from years as Congressman, Clinton administration official (Secretary of Energy, UN Ambassador), NM governor. Charismatic. Could draw huge Hispanic vote and take several Western states (Nevada? Arizona? Colorado? New Mexico definitely) out of Republican column.   Cons: Republicans could use Los Alamos scandal against him. Has a tendency to exaggerate (claimed he was drafted by baseball's A's, never was).   Presidential Potential: 10   Electability potential: 8     Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, Indiana   Pros: Respected, solid red state moderate. Popular former governor.   Cons: Maybe a little too moderate to excite Democratic base (I know I'm not thrilled at the prospect).   Presidential potential: 7.5   Electability potential: 8     Mark Warner, Governor, Virginia    Pros: Another smart, popular red state moderate.   Cons: Backed off on challenge to right wing hardass George Allen for U.S Senate in '06, leaving his party in the lurch. Not a very ballsy move for a guy who wants to be President. Name recognition factor outside of Virginia is pretty low. Could be perceived as "another Jimmy Carter".   Presidential potential: 7.5   Electability potential: 7.5       Wesley Clark, former General, Arkansas   Pros: "Military credibility", candidacy may appeal to Southerners and Westerners.   Cons: Miserable campaigner, too conservative to excite base, would probably make a better Vice-Presidential candidate (with Hillary?) or Sec. of Defense.   Presidential potential: 6   Electability potential: 7       John Edwards, former Senator, North Carolina   Pros: Passionate advocate for middle and working classes, intensely charismatic.   Cons: Blew it by not running for re-election to Senate in 2004, wound up on the ass end of a bad ticket. Allowed his best attributes to be smothered by Kerry's worst in 2004 campaign.  Draw in Southern states non-existent in '04--maybe if he was at the top of the ticket. . .?   Presidential potential: 10   Electability potential: ?       Joe Biden, U.S. Senator, Delaware   Pros: Admitted his mistake on Iraq, big-time foreign policy and Constitution smarts.   Cons: Comes from a little, reliably blue Eastern state, ability to bring red states into column is questionable. Thirty-five years in the Senate could taint him as "insider".   Presidential potential: 9.5   Electability potential: 7       John Kerry, U.S. Senator, Massachsetts   Pros: Would be a great candidate and a great President if he was somebody else.   Cons: Loser. Fucking loser. Allowed Karl Rove to use him as a punching bag. All brains, no balls. Asshole.   Presidential potential: 8.5   Electability potential: 0        Brian Schweitzer, Governor, Montana   Pros: Two months into his first term as governor, "prompted national controversy when he publicly suggested that Montana's National Guard troops be recalled from service in Iraq to assist firefighting during Montana's wildfire season." (Wikipedia) Fresh face, won in a blood-red state after narrowly losing Senate race to incumbent in 2000. Lots of charisma, plain-spoken on issues. . .Could "Progressive Libertarianism" be the future?   Cons: Very dark horse. Maybe too fresh a face for this time. Only been governor a year, will have completed first term by Inauguration Day '09. Maybe VP timber in '12 or '16.   Presidential potential: ?   Electability potential: ?             12:06:29 PM     comment []

Same Shit, Different Day White House "strategists" are apparently losing their touch (maybe Karl Rove's mind is occupied with other things, like saving his own ass). The warmed-over nature of Bush's latest "major Iraq policy speech" is apparent to everyone except, of course, Bush himself.     ROGER SIMON COLUMN NOVEMBER 30, 2005 WASHINGTON - - I don't know how many times President Bush can announce a "major" speech on the Iraq war that turns out not to be major, but he seems to be going for a record. Wednesday's "major" speech at the Naval Academy was so un-major, only CBS carried it live among the big broadcast networks. ABC decided that "Live with Regis and Kelly" was more important than live with George Bush. ABC may have been right. The president spoke yet again in front of an all-military audience, which the White House believes guarantees him a sympathetic crowd. But he does this so often, it is beginning to look as if the president is afraid to present his views to anybody but soldiers in uniform and fat cats at fundraisers. Since the president is trying to win over the American people, what would be so wrong with allowing a broader cross-section of the American people into one of his speeches? Would they not clap loudly enough every time the president pauses? In any case, it doesn't matter much how much applause President Bush gets during his speech, when the analysis both before and after he speaks resembles nothing so much as a yawn. After the speech Wednesday, the Associated Press ran a story that said: "Bush's speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy." And NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory was exquisitely frank on MSNBC when, moments after the speech ended, he said: "In many ways, this was a spin job by the president, a re-packaging. Not a lot new here. He is trying to regain control of a debate that has gotten away from him and the White House. It's difficult for him because his popularity has fallen with the American people. A presidency once defined by 9/11 has now been taken over by Iraq….It's a mess." To supplement the speech, the White House even released a 35-page document titled, "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," but there was nothing much new in that either. The media usually like hard numbers in speeches, and President Bush obliged: $3.9 billion more next year to train and equip the Iraqi army and police. But MSNBC's Chris Matthews sneered at that amount, pronouncing it a "Filene's Basement price tag." Unfortunately, he is correct. Nearly $4 billion just isn't what it used to be, when, according to the New York Times: "The Pentagon now spends $6 billion a month to sustain the American military presence in Iraq." The Times went on: "A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's ultimate goal, to which he assigned no schedule, is to move to a 'smaller, more lethal' American force that 'can be just as successful.' " Just as successful as what? The insurgency (which now, according to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently has never read "1984," must not be called that any more) has grown stronger, not weaker. The daily attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi troops and civilians have increased over the last year. And the number of Iraqi forces actually able to fight for their country without U.S. support seems to be a shell game. Nothing has really changed since October, when U.S. senators bristled after being told that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own had shrunk from three to one. Which would mean about 750 men were ready to defend the country. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers." Myers, who retired a few weeks ago, replied: "I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq." But we've heard President Bush say it several times. He said it again Wednesday: "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists." He also said: "Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win, and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well." I don't doubt it. I just want to know how he intends to do it. But maybe he finally will tell us. In his next speech. Which I am sure will be "major." Posted by rsimon at November 30, 2005 03:17 PM 11:06:46 AM     comment []

© Copyright 2006 Michael D. Zungolo. Last update: 1/3/2006; 10:00:23 AM.