McChrystal Doesn’t Get It—Does Obama?

Oct 30, 2009 - Long, but worth the effort (I think) By Scott Ritter There is a curious phenomenon taking place in the American media at the moment: the lionization of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the American military commander in Afghanistan. Although he has taken a few lumps for playing politics with the White House, McChrystal has generally been sold to the American public as a “Zen warrior,” a counterinsurgency genius who, if simply left to his own devices, will be able to radically transform the ongoing debacle that is Afghanistan into a noble victory that will rank as one of the greatest political and military triumphs of modern history. - 0 Comments

Intrusive father in law

Oct 21, 2009 - I thought women usually had problems mainly with their mother in  laws. My problem is my retired father-in-law-to-be.  Father in law tends to buy a one-way ticket - often leaving his wife at home - the day before he travels and just informs us he's turning up. Leaving my partner and I to buy a return ticket - not by mutual consent mind you (my partner bleats that his father is "just trying to help" or "that's just the way he is" in response to my every objection) - but usually because I've had to nag for a week or two to get it, causing problems between the pair of us. - 7 Comments

Democrats, sex crimes and hypocracy

Oct 09, 2009 - Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes By Jeffrey Lord The magic number is 16. Just last night, on Sean Hannity's Fox Show, ABC's George Stephanopoulos said in defense of the liberal media's non-coverage of Kevin Jennings, that a person's entire career should be taken into consideration before they are sent packing from public service. Fair enough. - 3 Comments

How many House votes will Obamacare lose because of its abortion subsidy?

Sep 12, 2009 - Democratic Dissenters How many House votes will Obamacare lose because of its abortion subsidy? by John McCormack Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, calls it a "bookkeeping scheme" and an "idiosyncratic definition of 'public funds' that would never be accepted for five minutes if the issue weren't abortion." Rachel Laser of the pro-choice group Third Way argues that the Stupak amendment would deny abortion coverage to many women who currently have it if they are dropped from their employer-based plans and need to purchase the government-run or government-subsidized plans. - 1 Comment

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series

Sep 10, 2009 - By Ann Coulter 09/09/09 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33485 12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.   This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.   The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... - 79 Comments

OBAMA ON CRONKITE

Sep 09, 2009 - OBAMA ON CRONKITE http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/09/2060224.aspx Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro Filed Under: Barack Obama From NBC's Athena Jones NEW YORK, N.Y. -- President Obama used his remarks at a memorial service for a legendary newsman to share his thoughts on the current state of the news media and to make the case for improving standards. The president hailed CBS's Walter Cronkite for the high standards, honesty and objectivity he applied to the pursuit of journalism and said that he had benefited as a citizen from the anchor's "dogged pursuit of the truth." - 3 Comments

poted on 4 sites.

Aug 31, 2009 - Michael Yon Online Magazine  

• About Michael
  • Thank You for Your Support
  • Spread the Word
  • Michael in the Media
  • How this Project is Funded
  • Linking Policy & Media Inquiries
• Online Store
  • Photo Gallery
  • Moment of Truth
  • Danger Close
  • Donations
• Support Next Dispatch
• Join Mailing List
• Guest Authors
• Archives
  • Archives 2005
  • Archives 2006
  • Archives 2007
  • Archives 2008
• RSS Feed

Home Michael's Dispatches Precision Voting Precision Voting Next > 31 August 2009Helmand Province, Afghanistan The historical Afghan elections scheduled for 20 August were days away.   While the west mostly continued to vote for Afghanistan, the big question was, “Will Afghanistan vote for itself?” The latest media wave splashed into the main voting centers in places like Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat and Lashkar Gah.  The larger cities only account for perhaps 20% of the Afghan population.  Whereas the easy and obvious stories are in the cities, a crucial and larger dimension—the other 80%—would unfold in the boonies.  Most Afghans would have no chance to vote. The election was to be run by Afghans.  In theory and in practice this would be a recipe for disaster.  The strategic thinkers cannot be faulted for this; after nearly eight years of war, if the west were still running the elections, the elections and government would be a failure to begin with.  By comparison, the Iraqi elections on 30 January 2005 (less than two years after invasion) were run mostly by Iraqis.  In the voting of October and December of that same year, Iraqis had two more runs at the ballots, which were increasingly successful.  Afghanistan, however, is different.  This would be only the second election in history. There are no good choices here.  Either we run the elections and the central government and in doing so undermine the same central government we are investing in, or we allow that central government to run the elections and probably watch it undermine itself.  But who knows? - 1 Comment

I am posting this on 4 sites

Aug 31, 2009 - Michael Yon Online Magazine  

• About Michael
  • Thank You for Your Support
  • Spread the Word
  • Michael in the Media
  • How this Project is Funded
  • Linking Policy & Media Inquiries
• Online Store
  • Photo Gallery
  • Moment of Truth
  • Danger Close
  • Donations
• Support Next Dispatch
• Join Mailing List
• Guest Authors
• Archives
  • Archives 2005
  • Archives 2006
  • Archives 2007
  • Archives 2008
• RSS Feed

Home Michael's Dispatches Precision Voting Precision Voting Next > 31 August 2009Helmand Province, Afghanistan The historical Afghan elections scheduled for 20 August were days away.   While the west mostly continued to vote for Afghanistan, the big question was, “Will Afghanistan vote for itself?” The latest media wave splashed into the main voting centers in places like Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Herat and Lashkar Gah.  The larger cities only account for perhaps 20% of the Afghan population.  Whereas the easy and obvious stories are in the cities, a crucial and larger dimension—the other 80%—would unfold in the boonies.  Most Afghans would have no chance to vote. The election was to be run by Afghans.  In theory and in practice this would be a recipe for disaster.  The strategic thinkers cannot be faulted for this; after nearly eight years of war, if the west were still running the elections, the elections and government would be a failure to begin with.  By comparison, the Iraqi elections on 30 January 2005 (less than two years after invasion) were run mostly by Iraqis.  In the voting of October and December of that same year, Iraqis had two more runs at the ballots, which were increasingly successful.  Afghanistan, however, is different.  This would be only the second election in history. There are no good choices here.  Either we run the elections and the central government and in doing so undermine the same central government we are investing in, or we allow that central government to run the elections and probably watch it undermine itself.  But who knows? - 1 Comment