1MYLIVE HOTSPOT

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4735295.ece

Gerard Bake of the Times in London coverage of the election
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/

the obamassiah=
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

Palin and the partisan press

As he says in thie article, from the moment her name was announced, the personal attacks started to fly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/palin_and_the_partisan_press.html

Newsweek list of the sliming of Palin-all of the myths debunked. Be careful what you read on the internet—most of it is fiction.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

Why Palin matters

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece

I have been doing a bit of digging about the recent article on Obama having tried to interfere with troop withdrawal in Iraq in order to make it look like the old Iraq policy has failed, and once he got into power, his supposedly new one would have succeeded.

I trying to get some sense If it is another complete pack of lies like they have been doing to Palin, or if there is some truth in it.

There seems to be a fair amount of truth in it from the fact that officials are willing to put their names to it.

This is the original editorial in his usual Op-Ed column:.

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=0

So it is an opinion piece by Amir Taheri, not a news article.

Some argue that Tahiri is noted for his lies, http://irancoverage.com/2007/11/21/the-lies-of-amir-taheri/

And I have to say I was very worried when I saw one of the items:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses
Elena Benador, PR agent for Taheri (as well as Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Ledeen, Laurie Mylroie, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey) defended Taheri. Benador explained that, when it comes to Iran, accuracy is “a luxury…As much as being accurate is important, in the end it’s important to side with what’s right. What’s wrong is siding with the terrorists.”

Translation=”It is okay to lie about Iran.”

I am sorry, but TRUTH and ACCURACY are important and essential, not a luxury.

The post is a right-wing paper by comparison with the others in New York City.

Having said that, in his op-ed article he states:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

So at the same time that the source is suspect, Zebari is actually willling to put his name to the story, not siphon it through the usual  ‘anonymous source’ cloak.

Journalists need to interview Zebari in more depth.

Pajamas Media is trying to sniff out more information:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-questionable-diplomacy-in-iraq/2/

and has a response from McCain’s camp.  As of their writing, Obama’s camp refused to comment. Which could be telling in itself—lack of outrage, much?

Here is the other coverage:
Wake up America

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-tried-to-interfere-with-iraq.html

and hot air links
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/did-obama-try-to-scotch-an-iraqi-us-agreement-on-military-forces/

als wizbang

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/15/during-his-july-tour-of-iraq-obama-tried-to-undermine-negotiations-between-the-us-and-iraq-for-troop-drawdown.php

They are all pretty similar but the first one is the most detailed to date.

One has to be worried on the one hand, because it was the left bloggers who started the whole stream of lies about Palin.  They would just be returning the favor.

But if we look at a reliable source on Obama’s trip in July, Reuters, this is the original Reuters coverage:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GCA-iraq/idUSL0236543520080721?sp=true

It says that Bush had already agreed to troop withdrawal the week prior, and the Iraqis were trying to pin down a more firm date.

It is fully possible, in the effort to paint Iraq a failure, that Obama might have tried to interfere with that on the grounds of gaining more power. But as the Iraqis had said to him at the time, it would have to be on THEIR timetable more than the US’s for the sake of all concerned.

That is, the Iraqis would have to be ready.

Obama met with Petraeus while he was over there, but Petraeus has now gone, so one has to wonder what diplomatic and intellligence connections Obama has had in the past, and has at present in the region.

McCain has been there 8 times, Obama only once previously, in Jan 2006. Where has Obama been getting his intel from? Who his sources and contacts are?

We should be hearing more about this if people start to winkle out the truth more one way or the other.

On the other hand, why is it not causing a feeding frenzy? I am getting ‘the politics of fashion’ on how Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin and H Clinton are affecting women’s fashions, for pity’s sake.

I also looked at the timeline–

New Yorker Magazine published this:
Obama’s Iraq Problem

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer

A week later:
Obama: My Plan for Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

and of course he went to Iraq as soon as McCain poked at his experience.

Even if the op ed piece in the Post is not true at all, the article by Obama and trip to Iraq speaks to his motives in what he is doing—literally anything to get elected. = “I’m not flip flopping, you’re the ones who got it wrong.”

I’m afraid it is looking more and more like the DNC got it wrong. They refused to seat all the Florida and Michigan delegates, which would have put H Clinton over the required number.

And Obama got it wrong, ignoring 18 million people who voted for  H Clinton, and choosing Biden as VP.

As a follow up, Taheri  stands by his assertions, and is now getting death threats:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09172008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_objects_129453.htm

Protesters are gearing up against Iran’s President when he comes to the UN this week.

However, we have to realise that he does not speak for all of the Iranian people, and we have to be expecially vigilant about any talk of war with Iran.

The war in Iraq was based on nothing but lies-there were NO weapons of mass destruction, ever, and Hussein refused to ever help Bin Laden. These are FACTS covered multiple times in multiple newspapers since 2003. So WHY are we still there?

We are moving toward war with Iran now for the same reason, LIES about a nuclear power plant, and Obama has done NOTHING to question this. Worse still, Obama ran on a platform of getting us out of the war, and then flipflopped.

He mocked H Clinton for supporting the war, but HE was not in public office. WE were ALL lied to. If anyone protested about the war, they were attacked as ‘unAmerican.’

We CAN be patriots and still say that war is not in the best interests of this nation, not when it is costing $12bn a month. Especially now that Wall St is going through meltdown.

Bombs do not create or produce wealth. They explode, and are gone. The money is spent. The only people who profit are the people with defense contracts and portfolios of investments with those companies.

But there is such a thing as responsible investing, and refusing to profit from unethical companies.

We can also buy gas from companies which do not use middle eastern oil:

The statistics from the U.S. Department of Energy for various oil companies for calendar Year 2000 state:

BP purchased none from the Middle East.
Citgo-None from the Middle East.
Sunoco purchased none from the Middle East.
Phillips-no Middle Eastern purchases.

The sooner we look to the crises right here in our own country, the sooner we will be able to look to the rest of the world to see if we can help.

Here is an article about Obama refusing to give any of the money he has raised to the Democratic party to help win more seats in November.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13485.html

$77 million as ‘cash poor’… what a concept.

Between his ad about McCain and the computers in the middle of Ike and the financial crisis, and the new one claiming he will improve wages for women, (yet pays his own women workers far less than McCain) I am disgusted.

Fiscal responsibility and some sort of working majority in the House and/or Senate, anyone?