Gas, food up and earnings down

Predictably Wall Street rejoiced, sending the markets up with the news. Gas and food cost increases are bad enough but the decline on weekly earnings for 80% of the working population is embarrassing considering the recent news of corporate executives making close to 400 times the average worker.

Speaking as a capitalist and a believer in the traditional American dream, I find these trends troubling and counter to what the country used to offer. There is nothing wrong with making plenty of money, but we used to be a country that offered opportunity, balance and fairness but those ideas seem so distant and old fashioned today. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

News? Updates? Read the rest of this post...

What Petraeus is planning to do in September

The media has outright ignored ABC News' scoop of two weeks ago that our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has already decided that come September he's going to call the surge an increasing success regardless of what happens between now and then. We see report after report about September being the make it or break it point for the surge in Iraq, with no mention whatsoever of the fact that Petraeus has already been reported to have made up his mind in advance.

This fits into a larger pattern that now makes clear what Bush is planning coming this September. While last month Bush was talking about this coming September as the moment of truth for Iraq, the White House is now saying that September is nothing special - i.e., they trying to move the goal line in order to prolong any ultimate decision on whether the war is lost. GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a major supporter of the war, and Bush's approach to it, in the senate, said this morning on ABC's THIS WEEK that September had to be seen in a larger context of not how Iraq will impact the November 2008 elections, but rather how Iraq will impact US foreign policy in the long term. Graham's point: If we decide in September that the war is over, we're screwed from a national security perspective, so we'd better stay and keep fighting.

On FOX News today, Petraeus hinted that he will be saying the same thing come this September (which only adds to the credibility of ABC's earlier report that Petraeus has alrady decided what he's going to say in September). Petraeus said today that the surge will certainly not end come September:

"Fox News" Host Chris Wallace asked Petraeus, "You surely don't think the job would be done by the surge by September?"

"I do not, no," Petraeus replied. "We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007 ... was substantial."

Petraeus also did not dispute reports indicating he might want to extend the troop increase into next year, simply calling them "premature."

This echoes ABC's report that Petraeus plans to continue the surge another 4 months, i.e., twice as long, and that he plans to keep substantial number of US troops in Iraq at least for another year and a half, if not longer. That means that for Petraeus, September is not the do or die moment for Iraq.

Next, look at what Petraeus and his partner in war, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, also said on today's Sunday shows:

Petraeus said he will be ready to "provide a snapshot" of conditions in Iraq but would also outline "the implications of the various courses of actions that might be undertaken at that time."

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Crocker said, "We'll also try to provide an assessment of what the consequences might be if we pursue other directions. ... Iraq doesn't exist in a vacuum."

By "other directions" and "other courses of action" they mean "getting us the hell out of Iraq." Petraeus plan for September is to so scare the American people, and our politicians, about what will happen if we leave Iraq, that no one will have the nerve to say enough is enough. That's also, conveniently, GOP Senator Graham's plan. And it dovetails nicely with the White House now saying that September is not the month to be deciding whether Iraq is lost. Is that all just a wonderful coincidence.

Petraeus already knows what he's going to say in September, and it has nothing to do with the situation on the ground or the truth. Or else, he wouldn't have already made up his mind about what's going to place three months from now.

Of course, Petraeus' biggest problem this fall isn't going to be Democrats, it's going to be Republicans - that's why the White House has Lindsey Graham already warning his party not to worry about the elections. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell is going to be in quite a bind, since he thinks that in September we're going to agree to start withdrawing the troops.

"Most members of my conference believe the critical point to evaluate where we are is in September," Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Everybody anticipates there will be a new strategy ... and I don't think we'll have the same level of troops that we have now."

McConnell said there was growing support among Republicans for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which suggested a gradual drawdown in the number of troops this year, among other things.

One thing to keep an eye on. As I noted earlier, Petraeus is talking about "lowering" troop levels next year to around 130,000 troops. That's cute, but it's actually the number of troops we had before surge started a few months ago. So rather than "lowering" the number of troops, he's simply getting us back to where we were, and where we've been, for years. Read the rest of this post...

War vets are still being treated like dirt

Dana Priest and Anne Hull, the Washington Post reporters who exposed the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed, are now exposing the disastrous mental health treatment provided to the soldiers returning from Iraq. In short, one more time, we see glaring evidence that George Bush and his government do not support our troops.

The writers spotlight a returning vet, Jeans Cruz, who sought medical treatment from the Veterans Affairs was told he could not get that treatment, in part, because he hadn't served in combat:

None of that seemed to matter when his case reached VA disability evaluators. They turned him down flat, ruling that he deserved no compensation because his psychological problems existed before he joined the Army. They also said that Cruz had not proved he was ever in combat. "The available evidence is insufficient to confirm that you actually engaged in combat," his rejection letter stated.

Yet abundant evidence of his year in combat with the 4th Infantry Division covers his family's living-room wall. The Army Commendation Medal With Valor for "meritorious actions . . . during strategic combat operations" to capture Hussein hangs not far from the combat spurs awarded for his work with the 10th Cavalry "Eye Deep" scouts, attached to an elite unit that caught the Iraqi leader on Dec. 13, 2003, at Ad Dawr.

Unfortunately, Cruz is not alone. The problems are rampant:

Jeans Cruz and his contemporaries in the military were never supposed to suffer in the shadows the way veterans of the last long, controversial war did. One of the bitter legacies of Vietnam was the inadequate treatment of troops when they came back. Tens of thousands endured psychological disorders in silence, and too many ended up homeless, alcoholic, drug-addicted, imprisoned or dead before the government acknowledged their conditions and in 1980 officially recognized PTSD as a medical diagnosis.

Yet nearly three decades later, the government still has not mastered the basics: how best to detect the disorder, the most effective ways to treat it, and the fairest means of compensating young men and women who served their country and returned unable to lead normal lives.

Cruz's case illustrates these broader problems at a time when the number of suffering veterans is the largest and fastest-growing in decades, and when many of them are back at home with no monitoring or care. Between 1999 and 2004, VA disability pay for PTSD among veterans jumped 150 percent, to $4.2 billion.

This week, the U.S. House actually increased spending for mental health because, of course, Bush's budget didn't deliver:

This bill provides $600 million more than the President’s request for mental health, PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury and makes five polytrauma centers and three Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) fully operational this year to care for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, including those with TBI.

Just because Bush and his GOP flunkies says they support the troop doesn't mean it's true. In fact, one more time, we see it's not true. What's worse is that Bush has known about these problems for a while now, and still refuses to fix them. Read the rest of this post...

Surge is failing, says ABC's Martha Radditz

Click To Play

Read the rest of this post...

Blair knew Bush not prepared for post-war Iraq

With the end of the Blair era arriving this week there is no shortage of reviews of his tenure as PM. Some very interesting information is now coming out and it confirms what others were saying years ago, though were publicly dismissed by Blair and Bush, with those even suggesting such information attacked and smeared. Even when given the option to opt out of military involvement, Blair - obviously confident in Bush's ability to win in Iraq and probably dreaming of a Churchill-like position in modern Britain - said "no" and insisted in being part of the military program.

Despite repeated public assurances that there was a post war plan, insiders are now saying quite the opposite, that Blair was upset with the lack of planning but saw no other option. Nevertheless, Blair still was fully on board with the Bush administration's undefined plan for Iraq.

Putting aside Blair's public confidence and obvious speaking abilities, let's look at the end result instead of the stories about just how intelligent Blair is compared to Bush. Despite a lack of planning for post-war Iraq, Blair went above and beyond what Bush asked of him and sent UK troops for the war and occupation. UK troops were also involved in torture though Blair fought for years to block any attempts by families to seek legal recourse. Blair aggressively attacked all war critics, in particular the UK press who was firm in their opposition to the campaign and who pointed out failures and mismanagement of the war.

Forget about how intelligent Blair sounds in front of TV cameras, look at the end results. What's worse between an idiot who leads the charge with no plans or a so-called smart, Oxford educated person that follows an idiot at every turn despite knowing there is no plan? Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and maybe a little immigration.

Petraeus is on Fox. Huh. What a coincidence that he shows up on GOP-TV. But, he's not being political. Sure.

Here's the line up:

ABC's "This Week" -- Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; actor Martin Sheen.

CBS' "Face the Nation" -- Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group.

NBC's "Meet the Press" -- Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

CNN's "Late Edition" -- Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari; Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jack Reed, D-R.I.; investigative reporter Seymour Hersh; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

"Fox News Sunday" -- Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

Jim Webb isn't on any of the shows today. He's fishing with his son. Jimmy, who just got back from Iraq. NBC did a great interview with them:


Thread openly. Read the rest of this post...

US only securing 40% of Baghdad

It's hard to see the cup as half full when we can't even get to the halfway point. This is all there is to show after a five month campaign?

Security forces in Baghdad have full control in only 40 percent of the city five months into the pacification campaign, a top American general said Saturday as U.S. troops began an offensive against two al-Qaida strongholds on the capital's southern outskirts.

Read the rest of this post...

Blair says democracy not so important

The democracy-hating Blair strikes again. Then again, with the new rumors of Blair as the EU president, preventing active debate and democracy in the EU would seem to be the standard operating procedure for so many pro-EU types. I am very much in favor of a unified Europe but the implementation has been rushed, over-extended and shoved through by a the European political ruling class rather than from actual voters. The EU ruling elite continues to ignore reasonable objections and concerns from regular people which is precisely why the voters of France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution.

The Blair model of preaching democracy while dismissing all of the traditional values and characteristics of democracy. His departure and cynical view of our system will not be missed. Read the rest of this post...