Surged

As most of you probably know, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassodor Ryan Crocker are giving an update this week before Congress on the progress (or, in truth, lack thereof) in post-surge Iraq. Considering the fact that I'm at work, I have not been able to pay very close attention to the testimony so far. However, I have been checking in from time to time with Dana Goldstein over at TAPPED and Spencer Ackerman over at the Independent Streak (the Washington Independent's blog) who are both liveblogging the events. Based off what I've read thus far, both Petraeus and Crocker are, for the most part, saying conditions in Iraq are much improved from the pre-surge era. Interestingly enough (however, unsurprising) both Petraeus and Crocker are referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq as simply al-Qaeda, despite the fact that these are two disparate groups. You think that's good, just wait 'til they get more into the Iran stuff! You should also check out Matt Yglesias's article, which is up on the American Prospect site about the testimony. It provides crucial context and has great suggestions for where the Democrats should go from here.

Obama's Gift of Dignity

This great article by Spencer Ackerman has been up on the American Prospect site for a week or so now, but I just read it last night in the print addition. Ackerman takes an in-depth look at Barack Obama's team of foreign policy advisers and their views. Obama has some great names (or in the case of Samantha Powers, has had) including Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Ben Rhodes, Sarah Sewall, and Gen. Scott Gration. Rice and Lake are veterans of the Clinton administration, Rhodes advised Lee Hamilton, Sewall is a human rights activist and counterinsurgency authority, and Gration is a retired Air Force General and Iraq War veteran. The focus of Ackerman's article is the revelation that this team of advisers represents a coherent visioin of American foreign policy that is a significant departure from the CW of the past 30 years. In other words, Obama came along and realized the ship was sinking and instead of repairing the ship, he built a new one. This group of advisers advocates the promotion of basic human dignity over democracy. They argue that democracy is meaningless if you can not live with dignity. In order for one to live with dignity they need to be well fed, have access to quality and affordable health care, have a plentiful supply of safe drinking water, etc. If the United States can provide a leadership role in alleviating the suffering of those in the developing world (particularly the Middle East and Africa) it will go a long way towards removing the conditions that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups thrive on when seeking new recruits. I've already said too much about the article, read it for yourself, I assure you that you will come away impressed!

Time for more McCain Bashing

I've realized that perhaps my loathing for St. McCain is getting a bit self-righteous. Then I remembered that McCain is a dangerous man that supports endless war and violence and decided that it's ok. Anyways, on a non foreign policy front, the indispensible Paul Krugman's column today is a nice take down of the saint's health plan. Basically, like most conservatives (which John McCain is, no matter what the MSM tells you) McCain believes that radical free-market ideology will solve our healthcare crisis. He won't even acknowledge there is a crisis, but just in case, the market will save us. Also, humorist Allison Kilkenny has a crude but funny piece at the Huffington Post likening John McCain to a whore a la Randi Rhodes suspension for calling Hillary Clinton a "big fucking whore." Kilkenny has the money quote from Matt Welch's McCain: The Myth of a Maverick:

The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon?" It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, who can the U.S. presence stabilize the region? ... What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

That's McCain making sense! The Lebanon situation seems oddly parallel to a war were fighting currently that McCain wants to go on for another 100 years. However, now he's too mavericky to think in such logical terms. That would be politics as usual, now he fights against special interests, like the elite hippie anti-war crowd. Woo hoo!

Wal-Mart takes a turn towards humanity

I posted yesterday about the sad case of Debbie Shank. Well, it turns out that this story is going to have a happy ending. Wal-Mart announced in a letter to Jim Shank that they are dropping their lawsuit. This is great news for the Shanks and a win for humanity in general.

Know Nothings for President!

Matt Yglesias linked to a very disturbing item from ThinkProgress. St. McCain, which the media assures us is very experienced in foreign policy and national security politics, claims that Moqtda al-Sadr influence has been decreasing for some time. This is yet another example of John McCain's complete detachment from reality. As McClatchy's Leila Fadel reported last Sunday in a superbly well written and well reported article that Nouri al Maliki, the prime minister, basically asked for the ceasefire and it was largely negotiated by an Iranian general. This isn't McCain mispeaking, this is McCain misknowing, if you will. As Yglesias says in his post, McCain has no idea. Yet another sad commentary on McCain's supposed foreign policy expertise and the media that are so quick to laud his bogus credentials.

Debbie Shank

Well I've decided that it's about time I mention the tragedy of Debbie Shank on this blog. For those of you that are not aware Debbie Shank is a former Wal-Mart employee. Approximately 8 years ago Debbie was involved in an accident where her van was slammed into by a truck. The accident left her severely brain damaged. At the time of the accident she was covered by Wal-Mart's health plan and the company covered her health expenses. End of story, right? Wrong. The Shanks filed suit against the trucking company and the two parties reached a settlement of $1,000,000. After lawyer's fees were assessed the $417,000 remaining were placed in a trust that was to be used for Debbie's care. Wal-Mart claiming it has a right to recoup any money that resulted from a settlement, sued the Shank's for the approximately $470,000 that its health plan dispensed for Shank's medical expenses. A judge ruled that they can only collect what is left in the trust, which is around $200,000. The Shanks of course appealed the decision and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and stopped there. The Roberts' court, in its esteemed wisdom, refused to hear the case. Now, as I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court is the final legal avenue in the United States. Once they decide on a case, or refuse to, for that matter, it's a done deal. What this means is that the Shank's have to pay the $200,000 to Wal-Mart. This is now the end of the story.

Now there is little point in me getting really upset about this and trying to convince you how awful this is. That would be insulting to you, you're smarter than that. Just let me remind you that Wal-Mart rakes in tens of bilions of dollars in profits every year. Is an additional $200,000 really going to make that big of a difference?

In conclusion, you should check out this Huffington Post item with Keith Olbermann's take on the Debbie Shank tragedy.

Update: I neglected to mention a key detail in the Debbie Shank case. Her 18 year-old son was killed in Iraq. If you've watched the video over at Huffington Post you already now this, but it is of course a very relevant detail. When is this family going to get a break?

Running from the Center

The indispensible Glenn Greenwald is upset that the media frequently label St. McCain a centrist. Greenwald is particularly peeved that he's seen as a foreign policy centrist. As always, Greenwald is right on the money. McCain is no centrist. He's pro-life, pro-business (though he doesn't really understand how or why), pro-war, and most recently pro-torture (yippee!). Labeling McCain a "centrist" is endemic of the mainstream media. The Saint has occasionally shown some proclivity for moderation so he is eternally a centrist. The same label is applied to Joe Lieberman's foreign policy. Now, a half-assed examination of Lieberman's foreign policy views reveal that he is in lock step with George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, and John McCain on this i.e. a neoconservative. However, since Lieberman is an independent Democrat he's seen as between both the Democratic and Republican parties; therefore, he must be a centrist. Anyways, the same logic can of course be applied to McCain. John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country and he supports escalation of the Iraq war and bombing Iran. These are, of course, neoconservative viewpoints that align him perfectly with the right-wing of the Republican party. As much as I'd like to blame this on the media's love affair with John McCain, I think that it's probably more appropriate to chalk this one up to ignorance via laziness. Brian Beutler, has a very persuasive theory along these lines:

...the line connecting the most liberal politicians in Washington to the most conservative politicians in Washington really does, on social issues, run relatively smoothly from the left flank of the Democratic party through the right flank of the Republican party with a break between blue and red somewhere close to a "center". That, probably as much as anything else, explains why traditional media uses the system it uses. In effect, of course, this puts a ton of emphasis on party distinctions, placing, for instance, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman shoulder-to-shoulder on the spectrum even though one's foreign policy views are fairly at odds with the other's.

Well said, Mr. Beutler. The media just doesn't have the will, by way of laziness or outright apathy, to differetiate between the line on social issues and foreign policy. In terms of social issues, Lieberman really is a moderate Democrat or a "centrist", if you will. On the contrary, he has a neoconservative foreign policy in lock step with his good buddy St. John McCain.

Anyways, I know this is a long post but you must bear with me a little longer. The catalyst for comrade Greenwald's ire was this article by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek, and this segment in particular:

Lieberman, [McCain's] fellow centrist, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's monitor. Just two weeks ago, when McCain mistakenly said Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters, it was the Connecticut senator who again pulled him aside, gently reminding him that the Iranian regime has been accused of training fellow Shiite extremists, not Sunni Al Qaeda.

I return again to Brian Beutler. In Mr Beutler's opinion that segment should have been presented as such:

"Lieberman, his fellow interventionist hawk, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's remedial tutor on terrorism issues, reminding him that Shiite-led Iran is emphatically not training Sunni Al Qaeda troops in Iraq or anywhere else."

Once again, well said Mr. Beutler. Ok, now I'm done, you can go have fun now!