Briebart today ran an AFP article with the misleading headline "US election: If Iraqis could vote it would be for McCain". I say misleading because it mentions in its first few paras exactly three Iraqis who prefer McCain - and in its last paras mentions two who prefer Obama.That's hardly all or even a representative sample of all Iraqis. That hasn't stopped a couple of rightwing bloggers grasping at straws - including Ed Morrissey, who continues his downward spiral of judgement at Hot Air and who I don't think would ever have linked such thin gruel at Captain's Quarters. Ed can count, but he chose not to mention the small sample size to his click-shy readers.

FWIW, back in July, Reuters did much the same thing in reverse. They interviewed two dozen Iraqis and came to the conclusion that Iraqis liked Obama better than McCain because "a black man would understand their plight." (Something only one of the seven quotes they printed even mentioned.) Back then, an Obama story was the one the media wanted to tell, coming off his close-run and exhaustingly covered primary contest with Clinton they needed to make it seem like Obama vs McCain was a real step up, not down, in tension and expectations. Now, they need to do build McCain again to make for an interesting nailbiter of a finish.

What it comes down to is that the media want a close horse-race because that sells better than a romp-home landslide victory. The news networks have been worrying what they're going to do election night if it's all over by teatime so they've been very relieved that McCain has been telling them that there'll be an upset in a close race and everyone's going to be up late watching election coverage.

That explains, entirely, the media push to describe McCain as closing the gap - which every indicator except some hyped outlier polls says he isn't, he's just solidifying his base support. It explains ridiculous speculation like whether or not Osama bin Laden will endorse a candidate, and whether he or AQ in general will actually mean it if he does. McCain's meant to be stronger on foreign policy -especially Iraq and the "War on Terror", so they're hyping these stories.

There'll be more of this kind of nonsense as the last few days tick by, and the media frantically tries to spin the story as one they think they can sell more of. Remember, because of the collapse of Voter News Service, the networks will be relying solely on AP exit poll data for Elections 2008. That's Ron Fournier in charge of what the networks will report, in other words. So even after the voting is over, we're likely to see a last run of hype about a close-run race.

But don't panic - Obama's got this.

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Crossposted from Newshoggers

October 22, 2008 BBC World
Afghanistan's Defense Ministry officials say the strike hit an army checkpoint in Khost early Wednesday. The ministry condemned the attack, warning it could weaken the moral of Afghan security forces.
An American military statement says U.S.-led coalition forces were returning from an operation when they were involved in fighting that may have killed and injured Afghan soldiers. The statement called the incident "a case of mistaken identity on both sides."

Back in April, John McCain and his allies taunted Barack Obama as the choice of Hamas in the wake of remarks by a spokesman for that organization. Now with the news that Al Qaeda web sites are seemingly backing McCain for President, the Republican might want to reconsider that line of attack. And to be sure, John McCain should steer clear of touting "Osama the Terrorist" at his rallies.

As the Washington Post detailed Wednesday, Al Qaeda cadres see a McCain as the best bet to perpetuate the policies of President Bush they see bankrupting the United States and the West:

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush...

...It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."

Of course, the claim that John McCain is supported by Al Qaeda is hyperbole that normally would deserve no place in American politics. (That said, the ironies abound for the man who said "I know how" to get Osama Bin Laden and would follow him to "the gates of hell.") But as recent history shows, slanders have become the centerpiece of the McCain campaign.

In April, as you might recall, John McCain showed no compunction in claiming Barack Obama was supported by Hamas.

Continue reading »

With the anniversary of the September 11 attacks once again upon us, Bush's Law of Bin Laden is also again on display. That is, in the Bush playbook, the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden is directly proportional to the threat to the President's own political standing.

At the White House on Wednesday, press secretary Dana Perino played down the Bin Laden danger to her lame-duck boss' flatline political standing, if not to the American people:

Q: But Osama bin Laden is the one that - you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 -

PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he's sitting in jail right now.

But back in January 2006, President Bush was singing a much different tune. Trying to fight back against the growing public outcry over his illegal domestic wiretapping program, President Bush used the Bin Laden bogeyman during remarks at the National Security Agency. Bush lashed out at his critics:

All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously. When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it. I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously.

Continue reading »

As developments on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to undermine his campaign, Republican John McCain tried to play the Bin Laden card on Friday. Repeating his claim "I know how to win wars," McCain told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "I know how" to capture Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, the McCain strategy, as he never tires of telling voters, is to follow Bin Laden to "the gates of hell."

Appearing on the Situation Room, John McCain suggested that his record on Iraq and expertise on the geography of the Iraq-Pakistan border region would allow him to succeed where George W. Bush failed in capturing the Al Qaeda chieftain:

"I'm not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I'm going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know the area, I have been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice…We will do it, I know how to do it."

  Download | play   Download | play

No doubt, McCain hasn't been shy when it comes to explaining how he'll bag Bin Laden.

Continue reading »

  The speculation before Senator Obama left for Iraq that he would possibly commit a presidential-bid-ending gaffe was deafening. So naturally the media was caught off guard when John McCain managed to beat Obama to the punch.

Download | play   Download | play  

Stewart: Come on! This guy is a newbie! You can't snag one faux pas, one misstep, a blunder, a boo boo, a brainfart? Something small...a geography mix-up?

McCain: It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.

Stewart: The Iraq-Pakistan border, otherwise known as... IRAN.

Barack Obama sat down with CBS' Lara Logan Sunday morning for a long interview about his meeting with President Karzai and his vision for American foreign policy. Calling the security situation in Afghanistan "precarious and urgent," the presumptive Democratic nominee stressed that that country is the real "central front in the war on terror," and it's about time we started treating it as such.

Download | play   Download | play  

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism."

Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

The hits keep on coming in the never ending list of scandals for the Bush Administration.  In today's line up, we have the news that the UN mandate for the US presence in Iraq is expiring at the end of this year.  To no one's surprise, the White House wants to continue an indefinite country-to-country commitment with Iraq.  However, Prime Minister Maliki has other plans. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Monday he is negotiating a deal with Washington that will for the first time set a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign forces as part of a framework for a US troop presence into next year.[..]

Iraqi politicians have not only bristled at the duration of any continuing defence pact with the United States, they have also expressed reservations about how many bases Washington should retain, what powers the US military should continue to hold to detain Iraqi civilians, and what immunity US troops should have from US law.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has said that Washington has agreed to one key demand from Baghdad, the scrapping of immunity from prosecution in Iraq of the tens of thousands of foreign security contractors operating in the country.

Timetables for withdrawal?  What, does Maliki and the Iraqi government want the terrorists to win?  Next up is the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility, which according to a recent investigation by the LA Times has refused to release any information on professional misconduct.  However, with all we've learned about the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, the US Attorneys purge, Monica Goodling's hiring practices, not to mention the counsel sought by Mukasey and Gonzales on warrantless wiretapping, torture and terror detainees, does anyone have any doubt that the OPR is up to their gills in complaints?

And finally, there is the ultimate Slow Learner in Chief, who was told by Pres. Clinton and Richard Clarke in no uncertain terms that his biggest concern entering the Oval Office would be al Qaeda.  Now it's Bush's turn to get his successor up-to-date on the biggest threats.  Guess what his report says?

Now Mr. Bush has weighed in on his successor's big problem: Not Iraq, but Pakistan. Pakistan, home of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda now back to its pre- 9/11 strength, plotting its next attacks, in a Pakistani safe haven that was created in a stunning act of appeasement, approved and defended by President Bush.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

The Bush/McCain debacle in Iraq devoured so many lives and resources that the U.S. was forced to take their eye off the Taliban and the real al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan. As a result of this gross negligence and lack of foresight and planning, both groups have reconstituted and become stronger and deadlier than ever. June saw the highest U.S. body count in Afghanistan since that conflict began in 2002. More than six years in, things are now worse than ever there for our troops.

Download | play Download | play (h/t SilentPatriot)

During a press conference Wednesday, when asked about deteriorating conditions and the growing number of troops deaths in Afghanistan, President Bush falls back on the same predictable propaganda of patriotism, and distraction from reality. What does our president propose to fix the situation? Throw more money and bodies at it -- get ready for The Surge 2.0.

We're constantly reviewing troop needs, troop levels. We're halfway through 2008; as I said, we're going to increase troops by 2009. One thing, however, that you got to understand is that we have doubled Afghan troops -- coalition troops have doubled from two years ago. So there is an active presence and there are more troops there than there were. But we're constantly reassessing and seeing whether or not we can change tactics in order to achieve our objective.

Update: Video at The Huffington Post shows the top U.S. military officer saying yesterday that he doesn't have enough troops to send to Afghanistan because they are bogged down in Iraq. 

Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

Stephen thinks the great thing about the war on terror is that if we fight it right, it can go on forever.

Download | play Download | play

"al Qaeda is losing? They're our key ally in never having to explain what our government is doing."