Five Meetings over Two Months lead to Kill Order (update)
Posted: May 1, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Breaking News, Foreign Affairs, Iraq, Pakistan | Tags: Osama bin Laden dead | 46 CommentsCNN is getting more details as reporters are being briefed.
Ed Henry has just clarified the timing of the Bin Laden killing. Evidently, the President and the National Security Council met five times between March 4th and April 30th. The President issued the kill order during the Royal Wedding. Bin Laden was killed today.
Gloria Borger has been briefed too. Borger says Bil Laden was killed in a compound that was built in 2005. It was well armored. The intelligence came from people watching messengers going in and out and also reports that the compound burned trash instead of dumping it. The mansion had been under surveillance for some time. There were quite a few people living there including one that met Bin Laden’s odd description It was a million dollar complex but there was no TV or internet.
Chris Lemon says the operations included a helicopter raid involving Navy Seals. There were practice runs to minimize casualties in the area. There was one helicopter that failed to get to the operations. No one was hurt but the helicopter was destroyed.
Bin Laden was in Abbottabad; not in caves. This is an affluent neighborhood filled with retired Pakistani military officals. The compound was 8 times larger than similar homes in the area and had incredible security including enforced walls that were 12-18 feet tall and topped with barbed wire. This situation attracted attention.
CNN says confirms the US has the body.
A team of U.S. Navy SEALs carried out the operation in Pakistan that ended in the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, CNN’s Chris Lawrence reported. The operation lasted about 40 minutes, and the team had practiced the raid a few times.
Earlier, CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh, citing a senior Pakistani intelligence official, reported that members of Pakistan’s intelligence service – the ISI – were on site in Abbotabad, Pakistan, during the operation that killed bin Laden. The official said he did not know who fired the shot that actually killed Bin Laden.
[Updated, 12:11 a.m. ET] Members of Pakistan’s intelligence service – the ISI – were on site in Abbotabad, Pakistan, during the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh reports, citing a senior Pakistani intelligence official. The official said he did not know who fired the shot that actually killed Bin Laden.
The US has issued a worldwide travel alert. The U.S. State Department warns that “enhanced potential for anti-American violence” is possible following bin Laden’s death.
GEO TV from Pakistan has a video of the fire at the compound.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
TGIFriday Reads
Posted: April 29, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: Barack Obama, Federal Budget, Republican politics, Violence against women, Women's Rights | Tags: Barrack Obama Senior, birthers, conspiracy theories, Donald Trump, Lara Logan, oil subsidies, Paul Ryan, Racism, Republicans, student visa, violence against women | 47 CommentsWell, it’s getting to be the silly season. Now we have Republicans who were for oil subsidies before they were against them or against them before they were for them. Evidently, angry town hall participants can’t figure out why oil companies that keep making record profits while gouging at the pump deserve huge tax breaks. So, Republicans are making up their minds as they go along. Here’s one such example from the Wonk Room: Paul Ryan Endorses Ending Oil Subsidies, Even Though He Voted For Them
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) agree.d to end subsidies to oil companies during a town hall in Waterford, Wisconsin, this morning, eliciting great applause from an overflow crowd in a very conservative section of his district. “We also want to get rid of corporate welfare,” Ryan insisted. “So we propose to repeal all that”
…
But Ryan voted twice this year to actually extend subsidies to oil companies, once on a motion to recommit on a shorter-term continuing resolution and again when he supported an amendment to the initial House CR. The Ryan budget, meanwhile, doesn’t specifically target oil subsidies, but only generally promises to end “corporate welfare.”
Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also indirectly endorsed ending subsidies to the oil industry, before walking back his support.
CBS Reporter Lara Logan is offering up more information on her ‘merciless’ assault during the Egyptian uprising. Logan was separated from her colleagues for about 25 minutes.
She declined to go into more detail about the assault but said: “What really struck me was how merciless they were. They really enjoyed my pain and suffering. It incited them to more violence.”
After being rescued by a group of civilians and Egyptian soldiers, she was swiftly flown back to the United States. “She was quite traumatized, as you can imagine, for a period of time,” Mr. Fager said. Ms. Logan said she decided almost immediately that she would speak out about sexual violence both on behalf of other journalists and on behalf of “millions of voiceless women who are subjected to attacks like this and worse.”
It appears the Lake Havusu Arizona Newspaper filed to see Barack Obama Senior’s immigration file. Their EXCLUSIVE–“Dad’s Immigration File Offers More Evidence Of Obama’s Birthplace” is an interesting read. Sounds like Harvard couldn’t get rid of this particular Obama soon enough. This really brings an interesting contrast to the President’s Book “Dreams of my Father”.
The documents also show that the CIS investigated the elder Obama as a polygamist, having a wife in Kenya and a “wife and child in Honolulu.” Dahlim’s memo adds that “Polygamy is not an excludable or deportation charge as Subject is a non-immigrant.”
Documents show that Obama, Sr. was denied an extension on his student visa in July, 1964, in part because Harvard University, where Obama, Sr., was a Ph.D. candidate, sought his removal. Obama Sr. eventually left the United States willingly after becoming an illegal alien for remaining in the country past the expiration of his visa.
An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote “They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”
Documents show that Harvard officials considered Obama, Sr. to be a “slippery character,” and conspired with the INS to have him deported.
After raising nearly every racist dogwhistle in the play book, Donald Trump Bristles at Claim He’s a Racist. Gee, why would anyone think that when the guy questions how the President–a legacy who graduated summa sum laude from Harvard–got into Harvard in the first place.
Trump tells TMZ … “That is a terrible statement for a newscaster to make. I am the last person that such a thing should be said about.”
Bob Schieffer delivered a scathing statement against Trump Wednesday night on the “CBS Evening News,” reacting to Trump’s insinuation that President Barack Obama may not have had the grades to get into Harvard.
Schieffer said, “That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing.”
We asked Trump if he was suggesting Obama got into Harvard Law School through affirmative action. He said, “Affirmative action is out there. It’s a program that is available. But I have no idea whether it applies in this case. I’m not suggesting anything.”
Politically-motivated accusation and innuendo is nothing new–as pointed out by Politico–but does Trump’s birther agenda shift the practice to a new low because it rose to the level of a media feeding frenzy?
Lurid conspiracy theories have followed presidents for as long as the office has existed. Yet even Obama’s most recent predecessors benefited from a widespread consensus that some types of personal allegations had no place in public debate unless or until they received some imprimatur of legitimacy — from an official investigation, for instance, or from a detailed report by a major news organization.
“There are no more arbiters of truth,” said former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “So whatever you can prove factually, somebody else can find something else and point to it with enough ferocity to get people to believe it. We’ve crossed some Rubicon into the unknown.”
It’s hard to imagine Bill Clinton coming out to the White House briefing room to present evidence showing why people who thought he helped plot the murder of aide Vincent Foster— never mind official rulings of suicide — were wrong. George W. Bush, likewise, was never tempted to take to the Rose Garden to deny allegations from voices on the liberal fringe who believed that he knew about the Sept. 11 attacks ahead of time and chose to let them happen.
Well, at least it’s Friday! So, what’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Obama’s Political Leanings (pssssttttt … he’s no liberal)
Posted: April 26, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, Domestic Policy, Environment, Environmental Protection, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, right wing hate grouups, Surreality, Team Obama, The DNC, The Media SUCKS, the villagers, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd, WE TOLD THEM SO, Women's Rights | Tags: Ezra Klein, Obama, Right Wing, Rockefeller Republicans | 7 CommentsI’m having an interesting day reading all the links out there and discussions on several Ezra Klein blog posts. Some one should’ve noticed Obama’s hero-worship of Reagan during the primaries about three years ago. Some one should’ve read his books that were gleeful about past Republican policy initiatives. But no, we were too busy discussing other things to notice how far to the right Barrack Obama really is.
Here’s one of Klein’s posts that’s getting netplay now: The shocking truth about the birthplace of Obama’s policies. Some people just have not been paying attention at all.
President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.
If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a health-care plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal coverage; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans staked out in the early ’90s — and often, well into the 2000s.
I’ve been saying for years–literally–that the Obama Health Care Plan was more conservative than Nixon’s and basically was grabbed from Lincoln Chaffe’s Heritage Plan in the 1990s which was later called Dolecare and then later morphed into Romneycare. That’s just Klein’s first example. He also provides evidence on cap and trade which was supported by George H.W. Bush and Newt Gingrich when it was applied to ‘acid rain’ instead of ‘global warming’. He then moves to tax policies. Obama’s obvious proclivities to voodoo economics even showed up in the first stimulus which was top heavy with tax cuts and not big enough on job creation measures. Klein doesn’t even touch the increasing military budgets and interventions, the GLBT and women’s rights issues that get bargained away, FISA, Gitmo, etc., etc., etc. …
Here’s Mark Thoma’s take on the Klein piece and a follow-up by Andrew Samick. Samick considers Obama to be a Rockefeller Republican of all things. I’d say Obama’s even more to the right than that because that’s pretty much the side of the Republican party that raised me. Rockefeller Republicans love Planned Parenthood among other things. Warren Buffet is a great example. Hell, Charlton Heston loved Planned Parenthood. I even heard him speak on population control issues in Omaha, Nebraska in the mid 1970s sponsored by–gasp!–Planned Parenthood. The most interesting part is Thoma’s ending question. Why are we moving so far to the right now?
What’s left unexplained is why movements to the right by both parties — and these aren’t marginal moves — haven’t alienated the middle of the road, swing voters that seem to make a difference in elections. I don’t think I have a good answer for why. In the present case, there is some voter remorse — Obama is far more conservative than many thought — but I don’t think that explains the larger trend.
The original Ezra Klein piece is here: ‘Obama revealed: A moderate Republican’. Believe me, the conversation has gone viral with folks like The National Review (Be forewarned if you go there, it’s a putrid thread.) on line taking the bait. Booman even twists himself into a world class logic pretzel trying to say this is good news because it means Obama’s policies are “mainstream”. Joseph Romm at The Grist discusses the climate policy even further.
In the climate bill debate of the past two years, Obama and the Democrats embraced Republican ideas in an effort to minimize or avoid the partisanship inherent in other approaches that had been explicitly rejected by Republicans, including a tax and a massive ramp up in clean energy funding, as I’ve argued.
But Klein makes an effective case that it simply didn’t matter how reasonable or centrist or business-friendly a strategy environmentalists and progressive politicians pursued (or might have pursued). The Republicans simply were committed to stopping Obama from appearing bipartisan.
The Dems keeps getting suckered by Republicans the way Charlie Brown keeps getting suckered by Lucy. But the difference is that the GOP’s strategy wasn’t even a secret.
Ah, here’s the deal. Romm ties back to Thoma’s question. Why all this goose stepping to the right? Easy. It was the Republican strategy of say not to everything. They had to go further right to say no. Now, we’re in policy measures that are from John Birch Society land. Finally, the Democratic Congress said no more compromises when Planned Parenthood went on the chopping block. They also decided to get what they could get done before Boehner took over the house. We saw a few last minute Democratic Policies get passed but it was only due to the folks in Congress. Obama just went along because, hell, a win is a win, right?
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell told The New York Times in March 2010, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.” Why? As McConnell blurted out right before the 2010 midterm elections, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Obama kept proposing “conservative” policy at the onset. The Republicans announced they would sabotage it from the get go. This is something we complained about and pointed out here and elseblog for years. Obama’s opening policy moves were always a compromise position for real Democrats. He never was worried about putting policy out there with a real Democratic stamp on it because issues aren’t important to him. This President desperately wanted to pass anything with his name on it that would be called success. I frequently argued he wanted to makes sure there was a Health Plan that went through just to show he could do it when the Clintons couldn’t do it. He threw the Democratic plans over board almost immediately including the wildly popular single payer option. Dumping women’s access to private insurance with access to abortion was his final compromise maneuver to pass the silly thing. He’s thrown policies to the wind that have been basic Democratic Platform staples every chance he’s been in office. The Republicans were never going to act satisfied and were going to keep goosestepping further right. It was their announced strategy. He was more than willing to go right along with them because his proclivities are rightish anyway and he just wants the win.
So, my big question is why didn’t these folks see this coming all along like we did? Then a follow-up, what good does all this discovery now do three years too late?
Of course, if you read the Republican blogs, they’re still screaming Obama’s a socialist and Klein’s a fool. If you hit the partisan Democrats, the pretzel logic maneuvers are as obvious as Booman’s trying to find the sunny side up.
I’ll I can say is we told them so. Follow that up by a we are so f’d.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Fiscal Jabberwocky
Posted: April 24, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: Barack Obama, Economic Develpment, Economy, Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, financial institutions, Global Financial Crisis, John Birch Society in Charge, legislation, Populism, Republican politics, U.S. Economy, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, voodoo economics, We are so F'd | Tags: Barack Obama, David Stockman, Fiscal Crisis, Paul Ryan, voodoo economics | 29 CommentsIt’s not often I get to post pictures of mythical beasts for a few days in a row but here I go again. Plus, I’ve gotten another chance to use one of those wonderful Alice in Wonderland book illustrations. Too bad they’re attached to posts where the perverse wonderland rules. It seems to be a year for fictional monsters in Op-Eds and real ones in congress.
David Stockman, Budget Director for Ronald Reagan, has joined the ranks of Republican advisers calling shenanigans on the Boehner/Tea Party Republicans AND the dithering Obama Dems. He must be very financial and professionally secure. His op-ed in the New York Times draws blood on all sides. He starts out telling President Obama what is what then moves on to hammering that petulant ninny from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. Go read it if only for the creative use of words like that in the heading above.
On the other side, Representative Ryan fails to recognize that we are not in an era of old-time enterprise capitalism in which the gospel of low tax rates and incentives to create wealth might have had relevance. A quasi-bankrupt nation saddled with rampant casino capitalism on Wall Street and a disemboweled, offshored economy on Main Street requires practical and equitable ways to pay its bills.
Ingratiating himself with the neo-cons, Mr. Ryan has put the $700 billion defense and security budget off limits; and caving to pusillanimous Republican politicians, he also exempts $17 trillion of Social Security and Medicare spending over the next decade. What is left, then, is $7 trillion in baseline spending for Medicaid and the social safety net — to which Mr. Ryan applies a meat cleaver, reducing outlays by $1.5 trillion, or 20 percent.
Trapped between the religion of low taxes and the reality of huge deficits, the Ryan plan appears to be an attack on the poor in order to coddle the rich. To the Democrats’ invitation to class war, the Republicans have seemingly sent an R.S.V.P.
Stockman call the entire situation “fiscal jabberwocky”. Good turn of phrase that. He then moves to skewering the FED and adds Chinese currency pegging into the villain mix. I guess there’s nothing like a good rant when you can get primetime ink. This seems to be an interesting foray into harsh policy critique for economists with a republican bent.
Stockman, like Bruce Barlett and even David Frum are yet more Republicans who are pointing out the current GOP leaders are no more serious about budget reform than the Democrats are. The main difference is the GOP has better slogans and marketing, and slides into full blow demagoguery more easily.
But in terms of actual strategies for intelligently addressing the issue? The most glaring truth is the lack of leadership on both sides of the aisle.
The Barry Ritholtz blog post on Stockman’s op ed does score some points on mentioning the leadership chasm, but, even more telling is the absolute adherence to fairy tales over reality in policy making these days. Is there an economist in the House? Joe Wiesenthal says that Stockman is suffering from “fatalistic populism”. Here’s Stockman’s ending barb to prove that point. It’s also the two sentences that offer up the policy solution.
So the Ryan plan worsens our trillion-dollar structural deficit and the Obama plan amounts to small potatoes, at best. Worse, we are about to descend into class war because the Obama plan picks on the rich when it should be pushing tax increases for all, while the Ryan plan attacks the poor when it should be addressing middle-class entitlements and defense.
I’ve said many times that the Bush tax cuts just need to expire. I’ve also said that since the Reagan years we’ve basically started chumming our economy by jumping into interventions wherever and whenever. Afghanistan and Iraq are two such adventures that need to be de-funded and ended. We also need to reign in the congressional and pentagon weapons fetish which is basically whipped into a frenzy by free spending lobbyists for companies like Halliburton, GE, and Boeing. I can only image what they all want the drone budget to look like. MENA appears to be filled with hives these days.
So many of our fiscal problems would go away if we would just put things back to the where they were 10 years ago. This includes putting Wall Street back in its box instead of letting it go completely gaga with nonstandard, unregulated financial innovations. We can’t afford Obama’s muddling policies that seem like voting present while Republicans go wild with his inability to stand any firm ground. I believe he got elected to undo the Dubya years. Instead, he’s put the Dubya policies on steroids. So, if most of us–that would be voters–are saying let’s take it all back to the Clinton years, what I’d like to know is who are the real conservatives and who are the real radicals?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Late Night: Interesting Juxtapositions
Posted: April 22, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Barack Obama, Surreality, torture, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics | Tags: 9/11, Barack Obama, Bradley Manning, Charles Manson, Chernobyl, FBI, first responders, Ground Zero, liqudators, Richard Nixon, terrorist watch list, the media, U.S. Politics, Wikileaks | 9 CommentsFIRST JUXTAPOSITION: COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Huffington Post reported today that a little-known amendment in the new 9/11 health bill requires anyone who applies for benefits to be checked by the FBI to make sure they’re not terrorists.
The tens of thousands of cops, firefighters, construction workers and others who survived the worst terrorist assault in U.S. history and risked their lives in its wake will soon be informed that their names must be run through the FBI’s terrorism watch list, according to a letter obtained by HuffPost.
Any of the responders who are not compared to the database of suspected terrorists would be barred from getting treatment for the numerous, worsening ailments that the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law was passed to address.
It’s a requirement that was tacked onto the law during the bitter debates over it last year.
The letter from Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informs medical providers and administrators that they should begin letting patients know before the new program kicks in this July.
Yes, the people who risked their lives and their health to help after 9/11 will be treated like suspected terrorists by their government.
From Voice of America: Chernobyl’s Cleanup Crew Pay a Steep Price, 25 Years On
On April 26, 1986 a nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl plant caught fire and exploded, sending radioactive debris high into the sky. Aleksey Breus was an engineer at Chernobyl at the time of the explosion. He worked four straight days inside the plant after the explosion. He wore protective equipment, but still received a large dose of radiation.
According to Breus, all “lucheviki” – the Russian word surviving cleanup workers use for describing one another – have been left with one thing in common: illness and a lack of money to pay for medications. He says virtually all of them live in poverty.
Another Chernobyl worker, Aleksander Kramer, says he was one of the first to go into the plant after the explosion. Kramer, who now lives in Germany, remains angry at how he was treated by authorities in what was then the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, he says, the authorities doubted those claiming they were part of the clean-up effort.
And the suspicions have lingered. In 1993, Kramer says former rescue workers had to prove to Ukranian authorities “that their documents were not a sham and that their health problems were real.”
Remember when we were told over and over again that the United States was morally superior to the Soviet Union? What’s the difference again?
SECOND JUXTAPOSITION: COMPARE AND CONTRAST
Time Magazine, 1970: President Richard Nixon tells the media that Charles Manson (then on trial in Los Angeles) is guilty.
Nixon had just come from a ten-day working holiday in San Clemente, where he found himself angered by the coverage given the Manson case in the local media. Many of the young, Nixon said in Denver, “tend to glorify and to make heroes out of those who engage in criminal activities.”
In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon’s remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon’s remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon’s verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial.
Remember when Americans (and the media) cared when the President did something wrong?
WL Central, April 22, 2011: President Obama tells protestors that Bradley Manning “broke the law.”
Transcript and comments from WL Central:
“People can have philosophical ideas about certain things,” President Obama explains. “But, look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on open source.” He then goes on to add that he has to abide by certain classified information rules or law and if he had released material like Manning did he’d be breaking the law.
Now, here is the remark that deserves the most attention: “We’re a nation of laws. We don’t individually make our decisions about how the laws operate.” He adds, “He broke the law.” Finally, before removing himself from the conversation, he says Manning “dumped” information and “it wasn’t the same thing” as what Daniel Ellsberg did because what Ellsberg leaked “wasn’t classified in the same way.”
First, President Obama says Bradley Manning did it. It is not entirely clear that he did it unless you solely rely on the chat logs published by Wired magazine. Manning is the alleged whistleblower in the case. And, displaying this attitude that he is guilty before he actually is put on trial and convicted may prejudice Manning’s case.
That’s if Mr. Obama ever allows Bradley Manning’s case to go to trial. When is that going to happen? And when will today’s media be as outraged by Obama’s irresponsible remarks as the media of 1970 was at Nixon’s?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More











Recent Comments