posted July 18, 2008 02:06 PM            

Temporary duty does not include such things as flying over to the US Embassy to hand deliver a message too sensitive to be trusted to the diplomatic pouch or transmission across NSA monitored phone lines or satellites.

TDY..temporary duty entails the reassignment from one duty station to another or from one organization to another. It's not a weekend trip to shop in Paris or London...using ones own name on her passport or another..both of which Plame did. One does not go TDY for the weekend or a few days. One goes TDY, packs their bags, secures a residence and reports for work at their new duty station

Your analysis fails again.

There's also a requirement that one reside outside the United States...which Plame did NOT. Perhaps you don't know what reside means acoustic. One is not serving outside the United States by taking a day or even a few days to attend to business outside the US. One is serving outside the US when one is reassigned to a duty station outside the United States.

When one is "covert" one does not report for work at CIA headquarters. When one is "undercover" one does not report for work at CIA headquarters.

Neither does one whose identity is being protected by the CIA drive through the gates of CIA headquarters and report for work every day. The idea is laughable.

Victoria Toensing is a former Federal Prosecutor with much better credentials than Patrick Fitzgerald to decide whether the Identities Act applies to the release of Plame's identity. She also wrote the F-ing law.

posted July 18, 2008 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

acoustic, your ideas about "covert" and "undercover" are sophomoric..at best.

---

Where do you get this, "your ideas," nonsense. I didn't express any of my ideas about "covert" or "undercover". I wrote the definition for you, and the CIA's confirmation that they agree that she was covert.

quote:

---

Temporary duty does not include such things as flying over to the US Embassy to hand deliver a message too sensitive to be trusted to the diplomatic pouch or transmission across NSA monitored phone lines or satellites.

TDY..temporary duty entails the reassignment from one duty station to another or from one organization to another. It's not a weekend trip to shop in Paris or London...using ones own name on her passport or another..both of which Plame did. One does not go TDY for the weekend or a few days. One goes TDY, packs their bags, secures a residence and reports for work at their new duty station

---

Oh, once again I should trust that you're an authority on the subject, and that the CIA knows nothing about what it writes?

quote:

---

Your analysis fails again.

---

Only it's not MY analysis. It's the legal analysis of the CIA.

quote:

---

There's also a requirement that one reside outside the United States...which Plame did NOT. Perhaps you don't know what reside means acoustic.

---

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

Where exactly does it say "reside"? It doesn't.

quote:

---

One is not serving outside the United States by taking a day or even a few days to attend to business outside the US.

---

Untrue. If you went as a soldier to Iraq for two years, you served in Iraq. If the Secretary of State visits a foreign nation, s/he does so in "service" to our nation.

6. to go through a term of service; do duty as a soldier, sailor, senator, juror, etc.

quote:

---

Neither does one whose identity is being protected by the CIA drive through the gates of CIA headquarters and report for work every day. The idea is laughable.

---

The CIA disagrees, and in their own words said they were endeavoring to keep her relationship to the CIA secret.

You lose on all counts. Victoria Toensing was wrong in the CIA's view, and inspection of the law provides absolute justification for the CIA's position. Toensing clearly didn't read the law she supposedly wrote.

Further, and more importantly, Plame served the CIA for years in service to our country, and to have this career-ending, illegal activity tossed aside lightly is extremely disappointing and insulting. You wouldn't in a million years subject a soldier to the same, would you? And yet her work was on par with that of a soldier's.

quote:

---

A few...of anything...could be 2, 3, 4, 5 or any small number. Economists don't use nor is USA Today's definition taught in economics classes. The definition taught and used for recession is..and hopefully for the very last time...2 consecutive quarters of negative growth of the economy. USA Today lied when it published a different definition.

---

You just don't get it. A recession is described by what USAToday said. I can even find it in dictionaries if you want. Overall, the point is moot, however, as USAToday didn't say the nation is in a recession.

quote:

---

USA Today lied because they want to further the nonsense put out by their leftist friends that the US ALREADY IS IN A RECESSION

---

This is your trap. If USAToday had indeed done such a thing I'd side with you, but they didn't. USAToday never made the claim that we are in a recession. Your whole argument hinges on this being the major deception, only there is no deception present. I'm just wasting my time reitterating what would be clear to anyone reading.

________________________

These issues are resolved as far as they can be. No amount of reitteration is going to change the facts on either of these subjects.

posted July 18, 2008 08:13 PM            

Apparently, the O'Bomber campaign is perfectly willing to go along with the lie...because the lie closely tracks O'Bomber's stated intent.

The lie:

The Iraqi PM has included talk of a withdrawal plan for US military forces in Iraq.

False and proven false so it's a deliberate lie by the New York Times...one of the legion of other lies.

Evidence of another lie is in this story as well. This time by the Associated Press. The Associated Press whom Americans trust even less than the New York Times to tell them the truth.

July 18, 2008
Foreign Policy: Is Obama a Puppet? (Updated)
Patrick Casey

After reading the article on Barack Obama's foreign policy team in the New York Times this morning (A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy by Elisabeth Bumiller), I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. The first paragraph is fine, as I would hope that anyone who is a Senator, let alone anyone who is running for President, would have a staff that's responsible for advising him on foreign policy. 300 individuals seem a bit much, but if that's what he needs, so be it:

WASHINGTON - Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.

It's the next paragraph that really startles me, however:

One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes - or "a genuine opportunity," as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week.

The first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that the statement Obama is questioned about, "include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States", is demonstrably false - as shown here in this post: Obama's Op-Ed on Iraq - Premise Untrue, And a History Lesson. It was a mistranslation - al-Maliki never said "withdrawal". So the Times reporter, by using this particular example, is perpetuating a known and substantial error as the new conventional wisdom.***not error, it's a deliberate lie.***

But the fact that a NYT reporter would use an outdated and incorrect 'fact' to buttress an article is almost beside the point. More troublesome is that Obama needs to be handed "bullet points" to tell him how to answer the most basic foreign policy questions. It's not as if troop withdrawal from Iraq is an unfamiliar subject to this candidate. It would be understandable if Obama needs help answering a question about the internal politics of, say, the Republic of Seychelles - but not on a country with which we're allied in a "hot" war. He should know the Iraq subject inside and out, and this article makes it clear that he doesn't - or that he can't remember what his current position is, which is probably worse.

The reporter also inadvertently slams Obama and his foreign policy expertise while attempting to compare him favorably to President Bush:

Unlike George W. Bush, who entered the presidential race in 2000 with scant exposure to national security issues, Mr. Obama has served since his election to the Senate in 2004 on the Foreign Relations Committee and has had a running tutorial from aides steeped in the issues. His campaign says that he is well prepared and that he often alters and expands on the talking points provided to him by his foreign policy advisers.

If that's the case, with such foreign policy background and "experience", why does Barack Obama need to be told what to say on the subject? It's almost as if someone else is controlling his message. And as for the attempted slam against Bush, national security wasn't a big issue in the 2000 election. Vice President Al Gore hardly mentioned it, nor did the press bring it up often at the time, if at all. Times are different today. We're at war now, and foreign policy is vitally important. This article makes it apparent that Obama already had aides assisting him at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for years, so why does he need additional help now? By virtue of his position on that committee, he should be an expert by now. One has to wonder with that kind of recent background, why Obama needs to be told what to say on the major foreign policy issues confronting us today at all?

Furthermore, for someone who is constantly claiming sole ownership of the "change" message, the names that the reporter includes in her article as members of Obama's core group of foreign policy advisers seem awfully familiar: Madeleine K. Albright, Warren Christopher, Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake, Gregory B. Craig, Richard J. Danzig, and Dennis Ross. In fact, they're all recycled Clinton Administration officials. Richard Holbrooke is also mentioned at the end of the article as a member of the team, although because of his previous strong support and defense of Senator Clinton during the Democratic primaries, it seems as if he has yet to be embraced fully by the Obama campaign. Thank goodness for small favors.

To take the "Obama's Foreign Policy = Bill Clinton's Foreign Policy" theory even further, when you go and look up the "13-member senior working group" of Obama's campaign that the article refers to, you'll find the names listed above (except for Ross) with the following additions: David Boren, Lee Hamilton, Eric Holder (my, he gets around), Sam Nunn, William Perry, Tim Roemer and James Steinberg. Of those thirteen, nine of them are former high-ranking members of the Clinton Administration - the others being important allies of Clinton during his Administration.

It seems as if Obama is being given talking points on foreign policy by the same officials who prepared the way for the 9/11 attacks (only name missing is Jamie Gorelick), pushed frantically for the failed Middle-East peace process with the terrorist Yasser Arafat, allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons on their watch, allowed the Oil for Food scandal to occur right under their noses, made no effort to stop A. Q. Khan's nuclear weapons proliferation activities in the Middle East and North Korea, oversaw the disintegration of the sanctions program against Iraq, allowed the expansion of Al Qaeda ... the list can go on and on. Even Colin Powell, who's mentioned in the article as advising Obama on some level, was a disaster as President Bush's Secretary of State - allowing State Department "lifers" to run the show...***like Richard Armitage who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee.***

It's becoming more and more apparent that with Obama's foreign policy, we'll be moving backwards, not forwards. Almost as if someone else is calling the shots...

Update: Obama's Iraq Trip Just Got More Interesting

The drive-by media is still trying to give the impression that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated last week that any agreement with the United States on a continued troop presence in Iraq must include a timetable for withdrawal. In fact, as was reported by the BBC and on American Thinker, the Prime Minister never used the word "withdrawal" -- it was a mistranslation of his recorded remarks that the media jumped on and distributed, primarily for the benefit of Barack Obama.

Even this morning's front page New York Times article on Barack Obama's foreign policy team (A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy) perpetuated the impression that al-Maliki wanted a timetable for an American troop withdrawal, when in reality no such demand was made.

Well, al-Maliki finally did use the word "withdrawal", and it's going to make Obama's trip to visit him a bit more interesting. The Hill is reporting on an agreement that the Iraqi Prime Minister and President Bush just reached, and it's exactly the opposite of what Obama thought he was getting: Bush, Maliki agree on not setting withdrawal timeline.

The White House announced Friday that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed that troop reductions should be "based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

Al-Maliki had made news last week when remarks he made were interpreted to indicate that he would like to see some sort of a timetable included in the bilateral agreement the two countries are in the process of hammering out.

Notice how the journalist slyly, yet incorrectly, refers to the mistranslation of al-Maliki's remarks last week. It was a factual error -- a translation that was incorrect - not a faulty understanding of al-Maliki's remarks. To my knowledge, the correction of that mistranslation has only appeared on the BBC website and a few conservative blogs. I certainly haven't seen it emphasized (or even mentioned) by any major domestic news outlet or political newspaper, even though it was a very serious mistake.***A very serious lie intended to help O'bomber.***

The drive-by media ran with this story because they felt that it would help Barack Obama and hurt John McCain and George Bush. When it turns out that the fact that they relied on was false, they didn't even bother issuing a correction.

But with this new agreement, both the media and Barack Obama have some explaining to do. Let's see what excuses they make, or if they just try to ignore it and sweep it under the table.***Sweep it under the table...the usual when the lying leftist press gets caught in a lie.***

Oh, and another thing. With a foreign policy advisory staff of 300 or so, is it too much to ask that Obama's team have at least one person available who can speak the language of an ally that we're fighting a war alongside? You know, to translate important documents or speeches, so that he doesn't have to rely on the drive-by media to do it for him?

posted July 18, 2008 08:17 PM            

Update: AP Does Obama a Favor, Replaces the Terms "Withdrawal" and "Timetable" with "Time Horizons"

This is pretty remarkable. A short while ago, The Hill newspaper came out with the breaking story that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Bush had both agreed that there would be no timetable on troop withdrawals from Iraq (Bush, Maliki agree on not setting withdrawal timeline). Any reduction or redeployment of U.S. led troops in or from Iraq was going to be based solely on the security situation on the ground. That's exactly the same position that President Bush and Senator John McCain have had on the security situation in Iraq for the past several years.

Last week, it seemed as if there was going to be a problem with Bush and McCain's position because it was reported by the media that Prime Minister al-Maliki had come out and said that any agreement on forces in Iraq had to include a timetable for withdrawal (NPR: Al-Maliki Demands Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal). That seemed to be a clear switch by al-Maliki from the position favored by Bush and McCain to the position favored by Barack Obama and the Democrats. On Monday, we found out from the BBC that the accounts of al-Maliki's comments were erroneous. The BBC reported that it was a mistranslation - that al-Maliki never even used the term "withdrawal". Instead, the correct translation shows that al-Maliki had said that negotiations were ongoing that would result in either a troop evacuation or an agreement on a continued troop presence in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister was simply stating the parameters of the discussions being held with the United States - as in "it could be "X', or it could be "Y"". There was no ultimatum - al-Maliki did not demand a troop withdrawal timeline or timetable, as NPR and others had so clearly reported.

It seems as if the BBC correction, coupled with the latest article from The Hill, has put the argument about what al-Maliki and the Iraqi government actually meant to rest. I was curious how the Obama campaign was going to deal with this new development, since they had claimed loudly last week that al-Maliki had definitively moved away from McCain's position and over to their own.

Well, in a development that really shouldn't surprise anyone, the Associated Press has taken the problem out of Obama's hands by releasing an article of their own on today's announcement. In it, they don't even acknowledge the problem with the translation of al-Maliki's statement from last week. Instead, they've changed the terminology of the debate for Obama: White House Says U.S., Iraq Agree to Seek 'General Time Horizon' on Troop Withdrawals.

WASHINGTON - The United States and Iraq have agreed to seek "a general time horizon" for deeper reductions in American combat troops in Iraq despite President Bush's once-inflexible opposition to talking about deadlines and timetables.

Iraqi officials, in a sign of growing confidence as violence decreases, have been pressuring the United States to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. The White House said Friday that the timeframe being discussed would not be "an arbitrary date for withdrawal."

So a clear embrace by the government of Iraq of President Bush and Senator McCain's long-held position and the equally clear and simultaneous repudiation of Obama's is turned by the Associated Press into a new term, "Time Horizons", that the Obama campaign and the media are now going to use as proof of al-Maliki's agreement with Senator Obama, or some such nonsense.

The "mistranslation" of al-Maliki's words that raised the Obama campaign's hopes in the first place? It isn't even mentioned in the AP piece. Instead, the article recalls the claim by Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, that "Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S led forces". One problem with that, however. There is no indication within the AP article that this security deal has any specific dates whatsoever. Another interesting side note - al-Rubaie is closely associated with the "widely discredited opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi". Since when does the Associated Press take the word of anyone close to Chalabi?

It's very hard to have a fair debate about the policies and viewpoints of Barack Obama and his campaign when entities such as the Associated Press are doing everything in their power (short of rewriting the English dictionary) to do Obama's dirty work for him. Remarkable.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/foreign_policy_is_obama_a_pupp.html

posted July 18, 2008 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

The Iraqi PM has included talk of a withdrawal plan for US military forces in Iraq.

---

He has, and the President's agreed.

Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
21 minutes ago

President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable.

The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war.

What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq — to the lowest level in four years — has made the country's leaders increasingly confident and more assertive about its sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave.

Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military operations there. The White House said its goal is to conclude that deal by the end of this month.

Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the stalled negotiations during a secure video conference on Thursday, agreeing "on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible," a White House statement said.

The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said.

Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.

Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be."

As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizon," Bush appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own GOP administration a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.

McCain issued a statement saying, "Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen. Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."

However, Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said, "It's another indication that the administration is moving toward ... Sen. Obama's position on negotiating the removal of our forces as part of our ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bush wasn't going far enough. "After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress to adopt redeployment timetables, the president now proposes a vague general time horizon that falls far short of a commitment to ending our involvement in Iraq," she said.

Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated."

Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that condition could take years to meet. Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said this month that Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contained specific dates for U.S. troop withdrawals.

So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are assuming more missions, then you need less American troops," Johndroe said.

The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz.

"All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months."

A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in last year, left the country. There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions this fall because security has improved.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.
Link

That's one lie for American Thinker. Zero for MSM.

quote:

---

The first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that the statement Obama is questioned about, "include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States", is demonstrably false - as shown here in this post: Obama's Op-Ed on Iraq - Premise Untrue, And a History Lesson. It was a mistranslation - al-Maliki never said "withdrawal". So the Times reporter, by using this particular example, is perpetuating a known and substantial error as the new conventional wisdom.***not error, it's a deliberate lie.***

---

No, I already showed that the Guardian got word from the administration that their translation remained the authoritative one. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004302.html

This is what happens when you post BS. A simple fact-checking look at the Guardian's article stated in very obvious terms the Iraqi official's intent. Iraq does want us out of there, and that's a point they'll be running for office on.

That's lie number two for American Thinker.

quote:

---

Even this morning's front page New York Times article on Barack Obama's foreign policy team (A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy) perpetuated the impression that al-Maliki wanted a timetable for an American troop withdrawal, when in reality no such demand was made.

---

It's quite apparent to anyone who's up on the story that Iraqi politicians want that kind of verbiage in the press.

quote:

---

Update: AP Does Obama a Favor, Replaces the Terms "Withdrawal" and "Timetable" with "Time Horizons"

---

Correction: AP did no such thing. The Bush administration offered these alternate terms in an effort to soften the fact that they are being forced into discussions about timetables.

That's three lies from American Thinker in an attempt to prove MSM lies.

posted July 18, 2008 10:41 PM            

The mistranslation was clearly stated as a mistranslation...which the BBC, the source which put the information in the first place admits. The fact the Brown government is embarrassed and insists their translation is the authorative one is bogus.

Further, nothing in the agreement with the Iraqi PM sets a withdrawal date...or a timeline for withdrawing US forces from Iraq.

You really must learn to read with understanding and ignore the bullshiit the AP and others load up in their articles.

This is the agreement as stated by the White House.

"US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed on "a general time horizon," not an "arbitrary timetable" for a drawdown of US forces, the White House said Friday."

"The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be."

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq—without consideration for conditions on the ground," White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel said."

"All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country and we are doing just that. We are making progress on the security situation," he said. "The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months."

Notice that acoustic? The agreement talks about goals...depending on circumstances on the ground. Just as Bush has always said. The agreement also is about the Iraqi military being able to assume more of the load to carry out missions...and not on US troop levels.

How do you manage to always get it wrong? Oh, I know, you read the headlines and focus on what the brain dead leftist media say it all means..not on what it actually means

posted July 19, 2008 02:20 AM            

quote:

---

The mistranslation was clearly stated as a mistranslation...which the BBC, the source which put the information in the first place admits. The fact the Brown government is embarrassed and insists their translation is the authorative one is bogus.

---

Ooops! The Brown government didn't provide it, nor did it insist it's translation is right.

Maliki's government provided the written translation, and Maliki's government insisted the written translation was the authoritative one, which is a whole different ball game than what you're thinking.

quote:

---

Notice that acoustic? The agreement talks about goals...depending on circumstances on the ground. Just as Bush has always said. The agreement also is about the Iraqi military being able to assume more of the load to carry out missions...and not on US troop levels.

---

Yes, I do. I see that both parties in the negotiation (Maliki and Bush) are acting politically. Maliki is forcing the timeline issue, and Bush is endeavoring to compromise without it seeming like he's backing away from his previous position.

quote:

---

Now, the liars at AP are attempting to spin it to look like the Iraqi PM is closer to O'Bomber's position than McCain's.

---

They are. They do want a timetable for withdrawal as they said when they confirmed their translation was the authoritative one. They likely see Bush's point, and accept Bush's terms, but Iraqi politicians hope to use these headlines to gain ground with their own people by showing that they're trying to make progress in getting us out of there.

posted July 19, 2008 11:05 AM            

However, that doesn't change the facts on the ground that what the Iraqi Prime Minister said in his speech is not what the translation of his speech said. In his recorded speech, there was no talk of a schedule for withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

This is the BBC account of the story.

Iraq faces dilemma over US troops
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad

The UN mandate allowing US troops in Iraq expires at the end of 2008
US presidential contender Barack Obama has repeatedly seized on statements attributed to Iraqi leaders to support his call for a troop withdrawal deadline.

The key statement cited by Mr Obama and others was made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki last Monday in his address to Arab ambassadors in the United Arab Emirates.

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".

That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.

It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.

There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said.

Mixed messages

In an audio recording of his remarks, heard by the BBC, the prime minister did not use the word "withdrawal".

What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."

Mr Maliki is under pressure to reject any infringement on Iraqi sovereignty

Mr Maliki's own office had inserted the word "withdrawal" in the written version, replacing the word "presence".

Contacted by the BBC, the prime minister's office had no explanation for the apparent contradiction. An official suggested(**Not insisted**) the written version remained the authoritative one, although it is not what Mr Maliki said.

The impression of a hardening Iraqi government line was reinforced the following day by comments from the National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.

He was quoted as saying that Iraq would not accept any agreement which did not specify a deadline for a full withdrawal of US troops.

Significantly, Mr Rubaie was speaking immediately after a meeting with the senior Shiite clerical eminence, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

But in subsequent remarks, Mr Rubaie rode back from a straightforward demand for a withdrawal deadline.

He said the talks were focused on agreeing on "timeline horizons, not specific dates", and said that withdrawal timings would depend on the readiness of the Iraqi security forces.***Which is exactly what the White House is saying and has been saying for years***

Militant elements

The confusion reflects the dilemma facing Iraqi government leaders.

Troop withdrawal has become a major issue in the US election campaign

On the one hand, many of them - particularly among the Shia factions - face a public which regards the US presence as a problem rather than a solution.

With provincial elections coming up soon, they could be outflanked by more militant elements such as the supporters of cleric Moqtada Sadr, who wants American forces out now and opposes negotiations that would cover their continued presence.

Yet the government knows that its own forces are not yet in a position to stand on their own against the two major challenges they face - the Sunni radicals of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the militant Shia militias which were partly suppressed in fierce battles this spring in Basra and Baghdad.

Both groups could simply bide their time awaiting the American withdrawal before making a comeback drive.

Violence has fallen off considerably from the horrendous levels of 2006 and the first half of 2007, but hundreds of people are still dying violent deaths every month.

Hence the ambiguity in statements by Iraqi leaders, who know that their own survival depends on US support continuing until Iraqi forces are genuinely able to stand alone.

Legal immunity

The indications are that the talks are now focusing not on deadlines for a complete withdrawal - but on phasing US troops out of Iraqi cities, and into a role providing logistical backing, firepower and air support, with a reduction of front-line troops.

"On substantive issues, there's not much daylight between the two sides," said a US official close to the troop talks with the Iraqi government.

"The troops will leave when the Iraqis are ready to take over. But they [Iraqi leaders] need to get what they need, and to get cover for it.

It is politics - how you package it, how you sell it to your people. They want our support, but they also want to show that there's progress towards sovereignty."

What the Iraqis see as issues of sovereignty have been a sticking-point in the talks, especially such items as a US demand for operational freedom and immunity from prosecution for US troops.

Officials admit that the negotiations are in a state of flux, and that the Status of Forces Agreement, which was to have been concluded this month, may end up being a simple protocol or memorandum of understanding giving some sort of legal basis for a continued US presence after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

The issue has become highly politicised on both sides.

Iraqi leaders will no doubt continue to make ambiguous statements. And US presidential contenders will no doubt continue to construe them to their own advantage.

But when Mr Obama visits Baghdad, as he is expected to later this month, he is unlikely to find that the Iraqi government is quite as set on demanding deadlines for US withdrawal as he would like to think.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7504571.stm

The position of Iraqi leaders, including the Iraqi Prime Minister's position is very, very, very far from Barack O'Bomber's position of withdrawing ALL US military forces in 16 months.

posted July 21, 2008 02:36 PM            

It won't be a dream come true if Iraqi military and police forces are not ready to protect the government and the country from al-Qaeda along with Sunni and Shia militias and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

It won't be a dream come true if these same Iraqi politicians get their heads severed from their bodies by those the United States military are protecting them from right now.

Let me tell you what's going to happen acoustic...before it happens.

The US is not going to be out of Iraq in 16 months. To do so would be so supremely incompetent that demoscats themselves are not going to take the chance of being blamed for a genocide in Iraq between the factions there...or a takeover of Iraqi oil fields by Iran..or an incursion in the north by Turkey to take over the Kurdish north.

These statements are political blather and not intended for anything more than entertainment...and getting politicians elected to office.

If Bush went on the air and said...

"We have always said we would leave Iraq when the Iraqi military and police forces we trained were ready to take over and protect the nation and the government. Those 2 forces total more than the total of all US and coalition forces in Iraq."

"We have received the assessment from the government of Iraq that their military forces are ready now and US military forces are no longer needed to protect the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government or the Nation of Iraq."

"For some years now, demoscats in the Congress of the United States have been lobbying for a complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq".

"Accordingly, we are now all in agreement US military forces should be immediately withdrawn from Iraq. I have issued orders to the Sec Defense to implement our withdrawal plan, mobilize our air cargo assets immediately to start withdrawing our army and marine ground forces and send our naval unit cargo ships to remove our tanks, artillery and other heavy equipment from Iraq.

"We have always said when the military forces of Iraq were ready to stand up and defend their country from internal and external threats, we would stand down."

"We have been assured by the Iraqi government these forces are now ready to do so. Accordingly, I have signed the orders for America to stand down and to withdraw all US military forces from Iraq within 30 days."

Wanna bet against every demoscat in the demoscat congress wetting themselves? Wanna bet against the government of Iraq collectively wetting themselves?

posted July 22, 2008 03:47 AM            

Iraqi politicians would like to see us leaving there as soon as possible. They did want to publicly push the timeline issue with Bush for political reasons, but they agreed with Bush that their forces aren't sufficiently trained to manage everything on their own yet.

posted July 22, 2008 12:34 PM            

quote:

---

So then acoustic, you agree with me that Barack O'Bomber has been lying through his teeth and is still lying through his teeth to his leftist moron cadres to first get himself nominated and now, to secure their votes in November.

---

posted July 22, 2008 01:44 PM            

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.
http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?

A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in economic activity." Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.

Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?

A: It's more accurate to say that a recession-the way we use the word-is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when the economy is contracting. The following period is an expansion. Economic activity is below normal or diminished for some part of the recession and for some part of the following expansion as well. Some call the period of diminished activity a slump.
[From the same page linked to above]

And I learned it from the NYT. How's that for ironic?

posted July 22, 2008 11:39 PM            

al-Maliki has repudiated the article by Spiegel you referenced.

further, it should be noted that this German publication is violently anti-America and violently anti the Iraq war. Also violently anti Bush and McCain.

We have only their word as to what they say they heard al-Maliki actually say and they have no reputation for telling the truth.

posted July 23, 2008 12:24 AM            

O'Bomber has been bloviating about total withdrawal in 16 months. A time frame neither he nor the government of Iraq or the demoscat Congress would ever agree to do in reality. O'Bomber is a liar who is lying to his leftist political base. You know it, I know it and the only people who don't know it is the leftist morons who want soooo badly to believe it's true.

You admitted it's all true.

posted July 23, 2008 01:15 AM            

While the NBER assert they are non partisan, their reports can be and are used for political partisan purposes...because, to them, there is no fixed definition of recession; it's whatever they say it is. Gee acoustic, I've heard this same definition of words before...from you. Whatever you say it is...is.

There's no denying the real economists and text book definitions of recession is:

two consecutive quarters of negative growth of the economy...period.

Therefore, USA Today lied through their teeth when they published the views of these
so called non partisans and their definition of recession. There's no excuse for USA Today. It's no secret what the true definition of recession happens to be.

Now acoustic, here's an unpleasant fact. Most economists are usually wrong about the economy and what drives the economy.

For instance, most economists wanted Bush to raise taxes in the midst of an economic downturn when he inherited an economy spiraling downward. Instead, Bush cut taxes and touched off an economic boom...just as JFK and Ronald Regan had done before he did.

Most economists are not to be believed because their economic policies don't work in the real world. They're the philosophers who have no fixed base from which they draw conclusions in the real world.

Here's one of their absurdities: "If everyone bought just one shoe" it would touch off an economic boom. Presumably, they would be forced to buy the other shoe too.

Take Paul O'Neill, for instance. O'Neill has a bachelors degree in economics and a graduates degree in economics from Claremont College. O'Neill was the Bush first Sec of Treasury. Yet, O'Neill was absolutely wrong about the Bush tax cuts and the President..Bush was absolutely right that tax cuts were the correct medicine for the economy which he inherited and was spiraling downward.

Bush fired O'Neill within a few months and was absolutely right to do so....as history has proved, Bush was absolutely right and O'Neill was absolutely wrong...as an economic boom followed the Bush actions.

posted July 23, 2008 01:28 AM            

O'Bomber has said this over and over and over again. O'Bomber doesn't consider Iraq to be the main battlefield against Islamic terrorism...though bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists have said..."Iraq is the main battlefield against the infidels"...which means... the United States.

Why is it acoustic that you don't get this? O'Bomber doesn't get it either though we have it straight from the terrorist as$es that Iraq is their main battlefield against the United States.

posted July 23, 2008 01:53 AM            

Obama is right in thinking that the war on terror needs to move to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

quote:

---

Why is it acoustic that you don't get this? O'Bomber doesn't get it either though we have it straight from the terrorist as$es that Iraq is their main battlefield against the United States.

---

posted July 23, 2008 08:23 PM            

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

Al-Qaida's foreign fighters who have for years bedeviled Iraq are increasingly going to Afghanistan to fight instead, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States said Wednesday.

"We have heard reports recently that many of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq have left, either back to their homeland or going to fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now seeming to be more suitable for al-Qaida fighters," said Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie.

Al-Qaida had training camps and a headquarters in Afghanistan, under the protection of the then-ruling Taliban, until the U.S. invaded after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. With al-Qaida forced out of Afghanistan, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 quickly drew outside fighters there.

Sumaida'ie said al-Qaida is finding it now increasingly difficult to operate in Iraq, beginning with the rebellion of the largely Sunni tribes in Anbar Province in 2006 and 2007. Until then, al-Qaida had ruled by intimidation and violence, establishing physical control and setting up a shadow government in large swaths of Iraqi territory.

"There were large tracts that were run by al-Qaida, administered by al-Qaida — they had ministers, administrators, paid salaries and so on. This no longer exists, so they do not have any territory to control (where it) is safe for them to move in and around Iraq," he said. "In whole areas they ceased to operate as effective terrorist networks."

Sumaida'ie's comments echoed those of the top U.S. military commander in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press last week that al-Qaida appears to be reassessing its chances of success in Iraq.

"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," Petraeus said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan.

"We do think they are considering what should be the main effort," he said.

A U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence reporting said foreign fighters are generally not leaving Iraq for Afghanistan, but new recruits to al-Qaida are being sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq. The numbers in all countries are small, however. The vast majority of al-Qaida in Iraq are native born, and extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan are overwhelmingly Pashtun fighters from the region.

Sumaida'ie's remarks come as Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is conducting an overseas trip which included stops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama toured two war zones with Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

Last week they issued a written statement saying that Afghanistan and Pakistan's border area, where the Taliban is resurgent and Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding, should be the central front in the war against terrorism.

Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June, even though there are far fewer coalition troops in Afghanistan.

Both Sumaida'ie and Petraeus warned, however, that security progress made in Iraq is not irreversible and al-Qaida could reassert itself there.

"If things break down in Iraq, they are capable of coming back," Sumaida'ie said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/al_qaida_afghanistan

posted July 24, 2008 10:28 AM            

Hahaha, newspapers can't even tell the truth about why they're going broke.

There's going to be even more pain for these liars. They're on a mission now to convince Americans O'Bomber is the Messiah.

Ad sales drop 16.4% at New York Times
By Joshua Chaffin in New York

Published: July 23 2008 18:15 | Last updated: July 23 2008 18:15

The New York Times suffered a 16.4 per cent decrease in June advertising revenues and warned on Wednesday that the effects of high oil prices, a slowing economy and the housing crisis were likely to weigh on its prospects for some time.

“I think it’s clear that many of the advertising budgets are tightening up,” said Janet Robinson, chief executive of the New York Times Company, predicting a “tough” second half of the year.

That announcement came as the company reported that second-quarter profits fell 82 per cent to $21m, or 15 cents per share, compared with the same period a year ago, when it benefited from a $94m gain from the sale of television stations.

Excluding that and other one-time events, income from continuing operations was down 5.5 per cent for the quarter. Revenue fell 6 per cent to $742m.

The New York Times Company’s results were the latest sign of gloom from the newspaper industry, which is now feeling the effects of a slowing economy as it grapples with an ongoing migration of readers and advertisers to the internet.

Gannett, the largest US newspaper chain, last week reported a 36 per cent decline in second-quarter earnings, including a 17 per cent drop in advertising at its flagship USA Today newspaper.

Times’ executives on Wednesday pointed to weakness in a variety of advertising categories, including Hollywood studios, department stores, technology products and telecommunications.

Among the worst-hit was real estate classified ads, which first moved online to lower-cost competitors and are now drying up altogether in hard hit property markets like California.

This year, the New York Times offered voluntary redundancies to about 100 newsroom employees, a rare step for a paper that has prided itself on adding journalists even while competitors were retrenching. The company said on Wednesday that the voluntary buy-outs were expected to cost $40m-$50m.

posted October 23, 2008 01:31 PM            

All this because the Treason Times refuses to print the truth..instead of the political fairytales they insist on printing.

This is what happens when 79% of Americans don't believe all or even most of what you print...as news. Apparently, executives at the Treason Times still haven't read the results of the Pew Poll where respondents gave the Treason Times low marks for credibility.

Of course Treason Times executives would point to falling revenues of other news outlets as an excuse...and blame the economy and the Internet. But, this was also going on during the recent economic boom in the United States. Further, Americans don't trust those other news outlets more, and in some instances less than they trust the Treason Times.

Going down, down, down.

UPDATE 2-New York Times posts loss, eyes debt reduction
Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:25am EDT More Business & Investing News... * Times Co seeks opportunities to reduce debt

* Q3 EPS excluding severance costs beats estimates

* Expects New England writedown of $100-150 mln

* Board to review dividend policy before end of year

* Shares down 6 cents to $10.62

By Robert MacMillan

NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday, hurt by charges for job cuts and said it is looking for ways to reduce its debt.

The company, which reported a 16 percent drop in advertising revenue at its news media group, also said it might write down as much as $150 million at its New England operations, underscoring the dismal state of newspaper advertising.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUSN2339808720081023?feedType=RSS&feedName=technology-media-telco-SP&rpc=22&sp=true