Obama to send 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan than originally announced

Washington Post:

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

The deployment of the support troops to Afghanistan brings the total increase approved by Obama to 34,000. The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said.

It's really criminal that Bush took his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan in order to attack Iraq. Read the rest of this post...

The Night Sky

Some of you may think The Night Sky is elementary, but it is to me a little gem. After clicking through the pages, I can easily identify 3 constellations, 2 stars, 1 planet, and I can navigate north in the way runaway slaves were taught. This wee tutorial has made my night sky even more amazing than it already was. Read the rest of this post...

Health insurance opposition to Baucus bill shows need for public option says Rep. Weiner

The insurance industry came out swinging against the Baucus health care reform bill today. (Even after Baucus and his pals at the White House kissed the industry's butts for months. Shocker, huh?) But, Rep. Weiner explained how that report actually makes the case for the public option, via DailyKos TV:
Read the rest of this post...

Zakaria says we're not failing in Afghanistan

Fareed Zakaria:

At the heart of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for a major surge in troops is the assumption that we are failing in Afghanistan. But are we really? The United States has had one central objective: to deny al-Qaeda the means to reconstitute, to train and to plan major terrorist attacks. This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years. Al-Qaeda is dispersed, on the run and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s. Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks. Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low. All this is not an accident but rather a product of the U.S. presence in the region and efforts to disrupt terrorists, track funds, gain intelligence, aid development, help allies and kill enemies.

Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman may sponsor DADT repeal in the Senate

Pressure works. The White House has put out the word that there are finally talks underway to find a Senate sponsor of the legislation to repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Likely suspect: Joe Lieberman. (Yes, I groaned, too.)

Also, can we finally put an end to that stupid talking point about the "full plate." It's embarrassing. Read the rest of this post...

More on the "fringe Internet left"

Glenn Greenwald raises even more examples of a pattern, some that I'd already forgotten:

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive." Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told "The Washington Post" that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists. In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in "The New Yorker" that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs." Last year, "Democrats on the Hill" anonymously dismissed opposition to telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping as nothing more than a fringe issue being exploited by Chris Dodd for his presidential campaign, and then anonymously warned Dodd to abandon his left-wing obstructionism if he wanted to resume good standing in the Democratic caucus. Can anyone miss the pattern?

Read the rest of this post...

McDonnell hosting event with endorser who mocked opponent's stutter

From Sam Stein at Huff Post:

Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is set to hold a rally with a prominent endorser who just last week mocked Democrat Creigh Deeds' stutter.

Prominent North Virginia businesswoman Sheila Johnson got McDonnell in a bit of hot water last Monday after a tape surfaced showing her ridiculing Deeds.

"We need someone who can really communicate," Johnson said. "And Bob McDonnell can communicate. The other people that I talk to, especially his o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-opponent... could not articulate what needed to be done."

Read the rest of this post...

Should polluting countries pay more?

Sounds pretty fair to me. If Africa is paying the price (again) for other countries, why shouldn't they ask to be compensated by the polluting countries? The fact that the continent is united on the subject is very good news. Whether they can maintain unity in Copenhagen is the bigger question.

Experts say sub-Saharan Africa is one of the regions most affected by global warming.

The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"Policy-makers have to agree to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and adhere to the principle that the polluter pays," Ping said.

Read the rest of this post...

Fred Hiatt on the Dalai Lama and the Obama administration

Even a broken Hiatt is right occasionally:

Throughout the autocratic world, there are people fighting back -- priests and poets, honest reporters, incorruptible lawyers. Most of us will never know their names. But they watch what happens in the White House. When a dissident is turned away, they take note. When a dissident is welcomed, they take heart. To them, no gesture is empty.

"Of course, your government has to decide what is the best strategy," Anwar said during a visit to The Post last week. "But the perception also is important. Because once you give a perception that you are softening on human rights, then you are strengthening the hands of autocrats to punish dissidents throughout the world."

Read the rest of this post...

Send us your pet photos

This Friday, as a twist on Friday Cat Bogging (since I don't have a cat, and only serve as cat guardian the month of August), I'd like to post your pet photos on the blog. I'll use the photo space we have in the upper right corner of the blog (currently we have your, Joe's, and my National Equality March photos there). Send me your favorite pet photo, and I'll post them in the photo box this coming Friday. By sending me a photo you are attesting that you have the rights to the photo, or permission to send it to me, and you give me permission to publish it on the blog for free. Send the photos to:

ablogphotos@gmail.com

And if you know how to edit photos, getting it down to under 800 x 800 pixels would be nice, otherwise I can edit them down. Thanks! JOHN Read the rest of this post...

White House denies calling bloggers, gay marchers, progressives the "Internet left fringe"

Well, if Dan Pfeiffer at the White House is going to suggest that NBC's John Harwood is a liar, then I think the White House needs to give John Harwood permission to reveal his source. Because this isn't the first time the White House has "reportedly" criticized bloggers, or progressives. In August, they dismissed anyone who had concerns about how health care reform as "the left of the left" - which is awfully similar to the current accusation that we're "the Internet left fringe." Then a few weeks later, the president said that blogs don't fact check, and are all "people shouting at each other."

And the fact that the White House holds conference calls with bloggers is nice. But let's not exaggerate here. Those calls are as much, if not more, for the White House's benefit than for ours.

Bloggers are the only key members of the Democratic noise machine who have been shunned by the president. He met with liberal talk radio, with the partisan pundits on TV (Rachel and Keith), and even invited a conservative blogger (Andrew Sullivan) and conservative writer/activists Bill Kristol and David Brooks. But no such meeting has ever been scheduled with the liberal political blogs.

There is a pattern of disdain for, and distrust of, the blogs that started with the Obama campaign two years ago, and now has extended into the Obama White House. Privately, both the campaign and the White House have been happy to ask the Netroots for help when the going gets tough (Joe and I alone, via this blog, raised $50,000 for Barack Obama - and I suspect Jane and Markos and Duncan and others have raised a lot more than that). And in spite of our differences with Barack Obama, the Netroots have been happy to help the President when called upon. But publicly, Team Obama keeps us, like much of the core Democratic constituencies, at arm's length. Read the rest of this post...

"Dog bites man" news: Insurance industry opposes reform

Big surprise, huh?:

Healthcare reform being considered by Congress could cost the typical family $4,000 per year in higher premiums, a new report sponsored by the insurance industry says.

The report marks one of the boldest efforts yet by the insurance industry to oppose reform. Democrats and the White House had made courting the industry one of the central compoments of their campaign.

Yeah, no one could have guessed that kissing the ass of the insurance industry leaders wouldn't pay off. Read the rest of this post...

Analysis of the Obama speech in the traditional media, courtesy of AMERICAblog

While we know someone at the White House (and since John Harwood works for both NBC and the New York Times, it probably wasn't some low-level staffer) spent part of the weekend dissing progressive activists and bloggers, I found it interesting that many in the traditional media used blogs as sources for their reporting on the President's big gay speech.

For example, yesterday, when I started reading the Washington Post, right there, with prominent placement on page 3 was a quote from none other than John Aravosis:

Many gay rights activists are disappointed that Obama has not moved forward on two major issues: ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, under which gay soldiers can be discharged for their sexual orientation; and his failure to work toward ending the Defense of Marriage Act.

"As someone who supported Barack Obama early on during the primaries, and raised nearly $50,000 for him during the campaign, it gives me no pleasure to burst the pink champagne bubbles of hope," John Aravosis, a gay rights activist and popular blogger, wrote in the Huffington Post. "But President Obama's track record on keeping his gay promises has been fairly abominable."

John didn't talk to the Post reporter directly. No, the reporter found the quote in a blog post. That article ended up in a key place in the Post (page 3 is huge). People in DC read the Post (at least on Sunday.) I had at least 10 people mention the article to me yesterday before noon.

Then, I noticed that another of John's posts was included in a piece by Jake Tapper from ABC News:

Of this, John Aravosis, the editor of AMERICAblog.com, wrote, "The president claimed that he's for treating gay couples just like married couples. Then why is he against letting gay couples marry?" He concluded, "All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn't do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen. It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to have enough dignity to say enough is enough. The Obama administration doesn't respect our community, and doesn't respect the seriousness of our cause. It's our job to hold them accountable. And we will."

As Jake notes, he got that excerpt from AMERICAblog.com

I also saw this blurb at Politico.com:

But while the speech was applauded in the hall, reaction outside of it was was harsher, with many prominent gay voices concerned by the president's lack of specifics.

Prominent gay blogger John Aravosis, in a post titled "Where's the Beef?", wrote that "Obama repeated his campaign promises. That was it."

Funny thing, isn't it? To someone at the White House, bloggers, gay protesters, and progressive Democrats are easy to dismiss (and they've dismissed us before - "left of the left" anyone?). But, what John Aravosis wrote about the President's speech extended far beyond the readers of this site. I just find that interesting. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's Columbus Day. Not everybody treats this as a holiday. The federal government is closed, but the stock market is open. In DC, most organizations follow the federal schedule. Congress is out, too.

This was quite a weekend. The National Equality March exceeded all expectations. I don't think anyone expected 150,000+. The teabaggers had half of that number and the media fawned over them for days. The marchers for equality weren't as vicious and nasty as the teabaggers, but are as determined.

Then, last night, we found out someone at the White House, someone who has the ear of John Harwood, a reporter for NBC and the New York Times, thinks we're all the "internet left fringe." All we want is for Barack Obama to keep his promises. That's apparently the standard for new left fringe. Wow.

Let's start threading the news.... Read the rest of this post...

UK monitored ATMs during peak of crash last year

It makes sense but still pretty amazing. In the coming years I'm sure we will be finding out much more about the inner workings of monitoring the crisis. It's likely few details will be revealed until the moment has past and all controversy is gone. (In other words, expect details around 2020.) The Guardian:

City watchdogs were monitoring cash withdrawals from Royal Bank of Scotland every hour during the height of the banking crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

The Financial Services Authority demanded 60-minute updates on cash flooding out of the bank's branches and hole-in-the-wall machines in the days before Britain's historic bank bailout, which took place a year ago.

The regulators stepped up their surveillance after realising that confidence was draining from the banking system following the collapse of Lehman Brothers a month earlier, and that customers were concerned about the safety of their deposits.

Read the rest of this post...

A short list of the Nobel Peace Prize candidates who did not win

Since so many are talking about Obama winning, a quick look at who some believe were the leading candidates in the process. What's the general consensus here or does one even exist? Was Obama a good choice or was it too soon? Above and beyond that point, how will Obama react and use it to help deliver on his promises? Read the rest of this post...