In case you need some renewed faith in people . . .

As a New Yorker (and someone who generally isn't impressed easily) I was especially moved by this story last week. I think we all probably hope we'd do this, but to actually make that decision . . . in front of your two young daughters, no less . . . I mean, that's impressive.

Nearby, a man collapsed, his body convulsing. Mr. Autrey and two women rushed to help, he said. The man, Cameron Hollopeter, 20, managed to get up, but then stumbled to the platform edge and fell to the tracks, between the two rails.

The headlights of the No. 1 train appeared. “I had to make a split decision,” Mr. Autrey said.

So he made one, and leapt.

And he managed to save the guy, pressing him down so they both fit in the 12 inch space between the ground and the train, which, powerless to stop in time, screeched to a stop on top of them, to the horror -- and then amazement -- of onlookers. Read the rest of this post...

John Murtha explains how to rein in Bush

TPM Muckraker got the video up on You Tube. Murtha's not backing down at all:

Read the rest of this post...

Driving a truck while Arab charges dropped in Miami

What the heck was that all about? Arresting three guys and bringing in the Feds and then dismissing everything a day later. I know the ports have to be on alert but this sounded like quite a hot story yesterday, with the usual fear, fear, fear reports, only to be much ado about nothing. What kind of clowns are in charge in Miami and why is the media calling it a "brief terrorism scare" when it was only three guys who were Arabic in a truck? Is that really such a scare or is that fear mongering? Read the rest of this post...

Another Bush p.r. blitz to sell the failed policy

Oooh. Bush is launching a p.r. offensive to accompany his BIG speech according to the NY Times:

The White House is planning an aggressive effort to sell Congress and the American public on President Bush's new strategy for Iraq, beginning with a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night, a trip by the president to Fort Benning, Ga., to visit with troops on Thursday and appearances on Capitol Hill by the secretaries of state and defense.

With Democrats vowing to oppose any plan to send more troops to Iraq, and some Republicans openly skeptical, aides to the president are planning an intense rollout that will include briefings by senior administration officials for reporters and lawmakers, and possible trips to the region by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, both of whom are scheduled to testify before Congress after Mr. Bush's speech. Despite Mr. Bush's insistence that he does not govern by polls, the White House is acutely aware that the vast majority of the American public disapproves of the job Mr. Bush is doing in Iraq.

Okay, it's simply amazing that Ms. Stohlberg or any other reporter treats this like news. It is the standard operating procedure for the White House. They can plan a public relations blitz, they just can't plan a war. And, those p.r. campaigns don't really work either. This is the fourth , yes fourth, major spin effort by George Bush. He's selling the same old thing -- and it didn't work the other three times. This is what the Associated Press reported back in August 2006:

It is the third time in less than a year that Bush has launched a public relations offensive to try to rally support for the war in Iraq and his effort to spread democracy in the Middle East. He did it in November and December 2005 and again in March on the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Back then, the speeches were aimed at countering news reports of daily bombings in Iraq, where more than 2,300 U.S. troops had died. The death toll has risen to more than 2,630 and in July, about 3,500 Iraqis died violently - the highest monthly civilian toll since the war began.

The new addresses come two months before congressional elections and at a point when Bush's approval rate is at 33 percent in the August AP-Ipsos poll. His approval on handling of Iraq also was at 33 percent in the poll.

Read the rest of this post...

Reports that U.S. launched attack in Somalia

From Reuters:

A U.S. helicopter gunship conducted a strike against two suspected al Qaeda operatives in southern Somalia, but it was not known whether the mission was successful, CBS News reported on Monday.

The U.S. Air Force helicopter, operated by the Special Operations Command, flew from its base in Djibouti to the southern tip of Somalia, where the al Qaeda suspects were believed to have fled from the capital Mogadishu, the U.S. network reported.

Here's a link to the CBS News article to which Reuters refers.

7:29 P.M. Update: CNN is now doing a "Breaking News" with a confirmation from a "Senior Pentagon Official." Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

This is shaping up to be another wild week.

What are we hearing? Read the rest of this post...

Bush says "trust me." But is there any reason why we should? Any?

Josh Marshall nails it. Nothing, absolutely nothing Bush has done or said about Iraq has proven to be right. Nothing:

The president's 'surge' plan is at best supported by a minority of generals, military affairs experts, foreign policy hands, etc. In fact, that's generous. And it is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people.

Now, 'experts' aren't always right. And popular ideas aren't always good ideas.

But going back now some four years, who can point to even a single Bush administration decision in Iraq, either strategic or tactical, that didn't turn out to be either a bad idea or a complete disaster? Anything? One good call?

When the president goes before the people on Wednesday, he is basically saying, trust me.

The trust of the American people has been eviscerated by George Bush. Many American families have been destroyed because of this "trust." Iraq has been destroyed because of this "trust."

To answer Josh's question, there hasn't been one strategic or tactical decision that hasn't been a bad idea or complete disaster. Not one. There's absolutely no reason to trust the President. There are, however, many reasons why this latest gambit by George Bush should be stopped.

I feel like we are watching George Bush destroy every last shred of American credibility. He's on a binge and hasn't hit bottom yet. The problem is that he's going to bring the whole nation down with him. If Bush isn't reined in, historians will mark his presidency as a turning point in American supremacy. A negative turning point. Read the rest of this post...

Don't forget to wear fluorescent orange today

Dick Cheney is out hunting again. I wonder if he's shooting at canned birds again like that last hunting lodge. How manly. And remember, no drinks until after the hunt. Read the rest of this post...

White House connecting Iraq to 9/11 again

How many bloody times do we have to review this issue? If the president and his team are unable to comprehend this very simple point, why should Congress give them the opportunity to make Iraq an even bigger mess, with more death and more cost? They don't get it and they won't get it.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

Read the rest of this post...

Despite all the opposition to the escalation and without a solid rationale, Bush will do it "his way"

An accurate -- and brutal analysis appears today from Reuters of George Bush's reasons for escalating the war in Iraq. He will announce his plan on Wednesday, January 9th at 9:00 PM EST.

None of Bush's rationales for the escalation have anything to do with a real policy. Nope, not with George Bush. He's doing it his way because he can -- and because people he doesn't like the people who told him not to escalate. What is most frightening about this Reuters analysis is that it is accurate. What it says about Bush is widely believed:

Leaders of the new Democratic-controlled Congress are vowing to fight it. An elite panel on Iraq has shown little enthusiasm for it. And even some military commanders are deeply skeptical about it.

Still, President George W. Bush is expected to shrug off those concerns and unveil plans to send more troops to Iraq, setting the stage for the most intense debate on the war since the U.S.-led invasion almost four years ago.

Bush is to make a televised address to Americans on his new Iraq plan on Wednesday at 9 p.m. (0200 GMT).

By going ahead with a troop increase, Bush is again proclaiming himself the "decider" as he tries to reassert his relevance after coming out on the losing end of a congressional power shift, analysts say.

Though weakened by his Republican Party's defeat in November's elections, he seems to be staking out his turf for continuing to prosecute an increasingly unpopular war that is likely to define his presidential legacy.

"He's still commander-in-chief and he wants to do it his way," said Michael McFaul, a foreign policy expert at the Hoover Institution. "But it's too little, too late."

This paragraph says a lot, too:

Aside from a few neoconservative scholars, the leading voices pushing for more troops have been Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Like Bush, both see Baghdad as the linchpin for stabilizing Iraq.

On Bush's side for escalation are: Bush McCain, Lieberman and a couple of neocons. On the other side against escalation are: the American people, military leaders, Democrats in Congress, some Republicans in Congress, the rest of the world.

How much more damage can this man do to our country? Read the rest of this post...

May I have some nerve gas in my drinking water?

Brought to you by the Bush Administration. From the Associated Press.

DuPont Co. said Friday that it will not participate in the U.S. Army's plan to dispose of wastewater from the destruction of the deadly nerve agent VX.

The company had been working with the Army since 2003 on a plan to ship wastewater from neutralized VX nerve agent from a chemical weapons depot in Indiana to Deepwater, N.J., to be treated at DuPont's Chamber Works facility and then dumped in the Delaware River.

Oh, I'm sure it's all safe. When have Bush and the Army ever lied to the American people? Read the rest of this post...

Bush (6/28/05): Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight

Think Progress has the video and the words of the President from June of 2005. Back then, Bush was going to listen to the military commanders. Back then, sending more troops would send the wrong signal. Back then, sending more troops would "undermine our strategy":

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

Problem is that Bush never, ever listened to the military and never, ever had a strategy.

Bush is out of control. These are very scary times. The President is putting his ego before the needs of our country. He's willing to sacrifice U.S. soldiers because he cannot admit his mistake. Read the rest of this post...

New US general running Iraq says what last general said

So does this mean he's going to get sacked as well? The message is always the same, but Bush refuses to listen. Why do so many have to be killed because the president will not listen?

In his first wide-ranging interview, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq conceded yesterday that a military "surge" would not be enough to rescue Iraq, advocating economic and political changes as well, as top Democratic lawmakers in Washington stiffened their opposition to any escalation of U.S. troop strength.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who has day-to-day command of war operations, said he believes that a combination of jobs, provincial elections, anti-militia legislation and stronger Iraqi security forces could stop the nation's plunge toward all-out civil war. Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, his predecessor, spelled out the same approach before his departure one month ago.

By echoing his predecessor, Odierno's comments are raising concerns in Washington and Iraq that the U.S. war effort is exhausting old tactics that haven't worked. Indeed, many Iraqis do not trust that a new Baghdad security plan can change their circumstances because the U.S. and Iraqi government have promoted at least five such plans before, all of which failed to stop the violence.

Read the rest of this post...

Iraqi Prime Minister threatens nations who dared criticize lynching-style execution of Saddam

Well, then that would include the US since the US government was also forced to criticize the botched execution. Some real chutzpah being shown by our Iraqi Puppet against countries he needs if that country is ever going to survive. Also, it's nice to know that our puppet has already become as arrogant about, and disdainful towards, civil and human rights as his master.

From AFP:

Iraq's embattled prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has threatened to "review" relations with countries that criticized Saddam's execution and announced a new security crackdown in the chaos-wracked country.

Read the rest of this post...

How do you say "blog" in French?

Blog.

We had a great dinner Saturday night with a few AMERICAblog readers (and spouses), including my friend Marcus who is a great American ex-pat artist here in Paris, and two of France's top bloggers, Loic Le Meur and Cyrille de Lasteyrie. Loic runs an eponymous tech-ish blog (with some politics thrown in). Here is Loic:



Cyrille (who goes under the pseudonym "Vinvin") runs two blogs, a personal one called 20/20 (which is the top grade (unattainable, since "only God is perfect") in France), and a second blog I've linked to before, Bonjour America!, which is a humorous effort to explain France to Americans. And here is Cyrille.



They were part of a larger dinner party Chris in Paris and his wife Joelle threw for me and friends as a going away party, of sorts, since I'm leaving France today. The dinner was classic European culinary excess. China, crystal, a ridiculous number of plates and silverware, and lots of wine and champagne. Chris made a mustard soup, followed by a pork tenderloin wrapped in ham, topped with caramelized onions, goat cheese and prunes, then wrapped entirely in a bread crust, and roasted. To die for. We topped that off with the obligatory cheese plate, then Chris' chocolate-death torte for dessert.


(click image to see enlargement)

Blogging has become quite the thing in France over the past year. Not necessarily political blogs, but rather blogs in general (interestingly, political blogs still haven't made the big splash in France that they have in the US).

The dinner was interesting, as Loic is quite the talker, and now working for conservative (well, conservative here, not really conservative from a US perspective) French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy (so he got a lot of questions about his boss), and as Cyrille is simply insane. It was a bit like having the French versions of Arianna Huffington and Benny Hill sitting across from each other, sparring, for four hours. We knew the evening was off to an odd start when Loic's and Cyrille's wives both arrived wearing the same dress. It then picked up steam when, during the first course, Cyrille knocked an entire bottle of red wine over on the white linen tablecloth that Chris' mom gave them as a wedding gift (smashing one of Joelle's Austrian crystal glasses). Mrs. Cyrille was clearly mortified - while Loic, ever the blogger, snapped a pic with his phone and immediately posted it on Flickr.

Well, there's more to report, it really was a hysterical dinner, went until 1:30am, but as I'm running to the airport in an hour, it will have to wait. I'll check in this evening when I'm back in DC. JOHN Read the rest of this post...

Now Bush wants benchmarks for Iraq

Remember the "CEO President" talk that we used to hear about in the early years? Any CEO worth his salt would have started with benchmarks from the beginning but not W, the guy who previously just ran companies into the ground and lost other peoples money and now does the same with countries. Shouldn't benchmarks have been there from the beginning? Why now? How seriously will anyone take them when they know he is banking his future, both in the White House and for history, on Iraq?

Citing unnamed senior administration officials, the newspaper said these "benchmarks" will call for drawing more Sunnis into the political process, finalizing a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue and easing the government's policy toward former Baath Party members.

So we are 3,000+ dead Americans and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis not to mention billions spent and now he wants benchmarks. This kind of leadership will be taught in classes for years as an example of what not to do. If Bush had been paying attention during the Vietnam War instead of being "young and irresponsible" (is that GOP code for blowing coke and being an alcoholic? - just curious with all of the Obama and coke attacks flying about in GOP circles) he might have noticed that the US did something quite similar in Vietnam, throwing money around and failing to set benchmarks while the situation deteriorated. Read the rest of this post...