Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Good read, perhaps cutting to the heart of things: Military experts say firing Stanley McChrystal would be a major blow to the war effort, because time isn't on our side.

* Indeed, Michael Scherer examines the responses from Robert Gibbs and Robert Gates to the McChrystal mess, and concludes he may survive:

All of this falls far short of a demand for McChrystal's resignation. It looks instead like the beginning of a well-choreographed effort to punish the general for his mistake, without removing him from his command.

The theory here is that the article highlighted mere personality differences, which gives Obama an out: He can say we need to rise above such squabbles and focus on the task at hand.

* But: Joe Klein says he's learned that McChrystal has offered his resignation already. Unconfirmed, however.

* And Byron Dorgan says it's time for McChrystal to go.

* Does the House Dem leadership's conspicuous refusal to call for McChrystal's firing have signal an accountability free zone?

* Good point from Spencer Ackerman: Amid all the talk about whether to keep McChrystal, there are no indications Obama intends to overhaul the Afghanistan strategy.

* Concession of the day: Mitt Romney says he disagrees with Joe Barton's apology to BP, after coming under fire from Dems.

* Counterintuitive take from Dave Weigel: There's actually no real appetite among the Republican leadership for criticizing the BP escrow fund, putting GOP leaders at odds with conservative opinion leaders.

* House Dems are set to give themselves subpoena power to probe the Gulf oil spill.

* Jed Lewison tries to make sense of some key findings in the New York Times poll: Nine out of 10 want a siginifcant overhaul of our energy policies, but they clearly prioritize finding new energy sources over protecting the environment.

* Frank DiGiacomo reports that even some CNN insiders are upset over the network's analysts being on BP's payroll.

* And the Federal judge who overturned Obama's drilling moratorium reported owning stock in drilling companies.

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 6:36 p.m.: Obama, addressing the McChrystal mess, said this afternoon that he wants "to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions."

That's according to the pool report. Oh, to overhear that conversation...

By Greg Sargent  |  June 22, 2010; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  2012 , Climate change , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , House Dems , Political media , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rolling Stone editor: All quotes dissing Obama admin came from McChrystal's "inner circle"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Just Like what happened to Humpty Dumpty, I believe McChrystal was pushed.


Often an officer submits his resignation, after it has been asked for. They receive an offer that they can not refuse: submit your resignation, so you can save face, and make a graceful exit, or you will be fired.

Do not be too surprised, if that is how this resignation has played out.

Then the President and Secretary of Defense can say: If is with deep regret that we accept the resignation of General McChrystal. We want to thank him for his many years of outstanding service to his nation..........

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Shattered McChrystal?


Big Mouthed McChrystal did more damage fragging his superiors, than he ever did to the Taliban.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"And Byron Dorgan becomes the first member of the Dem leadership to call on McChrystal to go."

Greg, Dave Obey called for his ouster earlier today, as well.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/top-dem-rep-wants-reckless-renegade-mcchrystal-to-resign.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

What President Obama should say to General McChrystal:


This Is Another Fine Mess You Have Gotten Me Into; Stanley!

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone linked this story today. Remember the alternative fund raising group started up by Rove and Gillespie after getting tired of Steele's less than stellar money management skills. Looks like they're having some trouble themselves. I wouldn't count them out yet, but $200 in one month seems to be a pretty poor showing.

"The group, American Crossroads, raised only $200 last month, according to a report it filed Monday with the Internal Revenue Service, bringing its total raised since launching in March to a little more than $1.25 million. [...] Trevor Rees-Jones, president of Chief Oil and Gas, a privately held energy company in Dallas, in April contributed $1 million to American Crossroads while B. Wayne Hughes of Lexington, Ky., the chairman of Public Storage, contributed $250,000 in March."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/american-crossroads/

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Sue, fixed...

...and agreed, Liam, I'm sure that's how it's gonna play out, IF they decide to dump him...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 22, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I still contend they won't dump him. It doesn't mean I agree, I just think he will be forgiven again after falling on his sword but only being wounded by the fall.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

If I were Obama, when McChrystal arrived for the meeting, I'd have a pot of coffee and a six pack of Bud Light Lime on ice. "Care for coffee, General, or would you prefer one of these?"

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Alan Grayson in an email:

McChrystal is supposed to be working with these people. Instead, he's stabbing them in the back.

Fire him.

That's what I wished for last year on MSNBC, when McChrystal publicly demanded more troops in Afghanistan before the President had made that decision. This is what I said then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Uw63gtaqY

"McChrystal is way out of line. He should remember what happened between Truman and MacArthur, another 'Big Mac.' He's pushing his luck here, because Obama needs to be the Commander in Chief. That's what the Constitution says – Article II, Section 2, that's what it says. He's the boss, not McChrystal. McChrystal should have known better. He saw what happened [to MacArthur], and I think history may repeat itself."

[...]

It is fundamentally wrong to set policy on war by asking the generals, "do you want more troops?" That's like asking Wall Street, "do you want more money? That's like asking my five-year-old twins, "do you want more candy?"

McChrystal has to go. But after that, we have to make our decisions on war and peace based on what's right for America, not what's right for the generals, or Halliburton, or Blackwater. Not what's right for the military-industrial complex. But rather, what's right for us.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 22, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

thanks, lmsinca, I didn't link that, and it is amazing.

Also, just added a new Obama quote above about McChrystal, and it makes me think he just may survive.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 22, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I still really despise the quirkiness of Plum Line's new home.

It regularly doesn't refresh properly and show newer posts. Them, suddenly, two or three new(old) ones appear.

Very lame.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 22, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Just added a new Obama quote above about McChrystal, and it makes me think he just may survive."

Hmm. Seems like those folks over at NRO might not be so crazy after all re Obama saving face?

Geraghty: "If Obama still has faith that McChrystal can achieve the mission in Afghanistan — big if, obviously — he ought to keep him...the fired McChrystal would be free to offer his unvarnished take on 60 Minutes, etc., ripping Obama for being unprepared, distracted, etc. and claiming that the administration is losing a winnable war because of internal divisions."

Posted by: sbj3 | June 22, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Is Stanley The Indispensable General, who is the only one who can prosecute the Afghanistan War?

If he is, and he can not be removed, then his comments about all his superiors will be validated.

He is not winning the war against the Taliban, even though he got the green light to wage the war using his strategy.

He spent a month in the company of a reporter who was writing an article. That is all I need to know about Stanley's judgment skills. I doubt if his judgment, on how to win the hearts and minds, in Afghan Villages, is any more sophisticated and skillfully diplomatic than his repeated intemperate remarks about his superiors.

If he is left in his current position, and he does it again, perhaps this time, saying similar stuff about some other foreign leaders, in Pakistan or elsewhere, then President Obama will be the one who will have to shoulder all the blame, for having left a known loose cannon in place.

Stanley has already exploded twice on the President.

Fool me once.........and you know the rest of it, unless you are George W. Bush

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"Hmm. Seems like those folks over at NRO might not be so crazy after all re Obama saving face?"

Saving face? No doubt tomorrow's meeting will feature McChrystal with the power advantage. Possibly Obama will submit his resignation to the General?

And, if McChrystal went on to do what Geraghty supposes he might, he'd surely be noted in American history as a really special sort of military man and patriot.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Jesus, this is not good...
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/leaning-tower-oil/

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Yglesias beat me to it...

"The real scandal is that General McChrystal’s favorite beer is Bud Light Lime. Has he never tried regular Bud? Normal Bud Light?"

It's a girly beverage.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I have not come across any comment, or even question posed to General Petraeus, about the latest Mount McChrystal eruption.

Have any of you came across any comment from General Petraeus?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Has the liabilty cap on oil spills being lifted yet by Congress Now that a judge has lifted the moratorium, the Democrats should at least remove all libility caps. That might put some fear into those reckless bastards, and force them to take all proper safety measures.

Make them scared of what another spill will cost them, and they may take more precautions.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Is it possible for McChrystal to be demoted and kept as an adviser (without ultimate authority) to a new commanding general? Or does his firing mean he and his expertise have to be totally gone?

Posted by: AllButCertain | June 22, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

He could be demoted,and lose one of his four stars, as a disciplinary action. However; if he decided to then retire, they could not force him to stay on.

I am not sure that the guy is smart enough for the job. Every officer in the military knows that you never do what McChrystal has now done twice, within the span of one year.

That sure makes him appear to be not the sharpest knife in the drawer. President Obama told him to not do it again, and he did.

Reminds me of the old Irish Joke:

Murphy an O'Grady go to see a John Wayne western movie. A few minutes into the movie, Wayne gets thrown from the horse. Murphy says to O'Grady, I bet you ten quid, that Wayne does not fall off again. O'Grady said; your on.

Fifteen minutes later into the movie; Wayne is thrown off again.

Murphy starts to pay off his losing bet. He paused and said to O'Grady; wait a minute did you see the movie before. O'Grady said; well to be honest, I did.

Murphy replied; ah so that is how you knew he would fall off. I saw it before also, but I thought he wouldn't do it again at this show.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

AP item added with no comment.

"Disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff has landed a job at a kosher pizzeria in Baltimore soon after his release from prison."

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

Will Jack be taking reservations?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

As Weigel notes, "Kristol bails on McChrystal". http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-not-petraeus-crocker-afghanistan

But in order to, well let's say to save face, Kristol figures the following:

"President Obama should also accept the resignations on the civilian side of special envoy Richard Holbrooke and ambassador Karl Eikenberry"

That makes sense. If Holbrooke and Eikenberry got soused and bad-mouthed McChrystal, then clearly McChystal should really resign with the other two. Right?

It's just like when Tommy Franks described Doug Feith as "the f*cking stupidest guy on the face of the Earth" and Kristol figured that Feith ought to get the boot along with Franks. I'm sure that's the way it went.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Start the count down now, as to when Joe Barton, or some other Republican Turnips, apologize to General McChrystal, for the way President Obama has been treating him.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Frank in the WSJ on Barton and how his apology was and is the GOP position...

"And this, in turn, is merely an expression of the permanently upside-down political universe of the right, in which the law is criminal, cynicism is a form of idealism, and bleeding-heart liberals are really soulless monsters in love with the power of the state for the same reason that gangsters are fond of their Uzis: because it is the weapon that allows them to plunder and loot the productive members of society.

According to this way of looking at things, regulation is really a form of extortion, a political maneuver to which liberals are partial not because regulation works—heavens no!—but because the threat of regulation allows liberals to demand payoffs from the affected businesses in exchange for walking back their grand, public-minded ideas. Campaign contributions are the tribute exacted by Washington in exchange for allowing business to do its innocent thing." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575323023191409224.html

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Mission Mis-Accomplished.

No Wonder The Bush Vision, Of Democracy Flowering In Syria, Iraq, and Iran has come to pass.

"BAGHDAD – Iraqis' tempers are rising with their thermometers over their government's failure to provide reliable electricity. And their thermometers have topped 120 degrees.

Billions of dollars have been spent trying to fix the grid since the 2003 invasion, but many Iraqis still get less than six hours of electricity per day — about the same or sometimes even less than they received under Saddam Hussein."

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

@Liam - Re Abramoff... there's a joke in there somewhere but I'm too tired today to harvest it

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

If they have to be explained, they are not very good.

Perhaps I should have said; it is nice to see Jack back taking reservations. Remember how he was involved with ripping off the Indian Casinos?

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

More genius from Sharron Angle:

Adding to her troubles, Angle said in an interview with a local Nevada affiliate that the country’s unemployed are “spoiled“:

ANGLE: You can make more money on unemployment then you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job, but [] doesn’t pay as much. And so that’s what’s happened to us is that we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry and said “you don’t want the jobs that are available.”

And in a campaign appearance last month, the GOP Senate nominee said she has no interest in bringing jobs to her state:

ANGLE: As your U.S. Senator, I’m not in the business of creating jobs. … People ask me, “What are you gonna do to develop jobs in your state?” Well that’s not my job as a U.S. Senator — to bring industry to this state. That’s the lieutenant governor’s job, that’s your state senator’s and assemblymen’s job, that’s your secretary of state’s job to make a climate here in the state that says, “Y’all come.”

Yet despite her claim that a senator’s job is not to bring jobs to the state, Angle attacked Reid specifically for not bringing jobs to Nevada. From an interview interview with Human Events this week:

HUMAN EVENTS: What are the three reasons why Harry Reid needs to go come November?

ANGLE: Fourteen percent unemployment in the state of Nevada, the highest foreclosure rate in the nation in Nevada, and the highest rate of bankruptcy in Nevada. That is where people have really held Harry Reid accountable because Harry Reid doesn’t care about their jobs. He doesn’t care that they are having trouble staying in their homes and that’s why Harry Reid needs to be fired.

Angle also echoed that same sentiment in an interview with Sean Hannity last week. “We have 14 percent unemployment,” she said. “We’re tired of it. And it’s time to say Harry Reid, you’ve failed.”

Perhaps most outlandish is Angle’s most recent Web ad, attacking Reid for challenging her when he should be focusing on problems like, you guessed it, unemployment. (HT: Little Green Footballs.)

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/angle-spoiled-unemployed/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | June 22, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

@Liam - ahhh, sorry I missed that.

Thanks for the TP item cmcauley60. She's quite a bird, that one. The GOP have, in their moves to rebrand themselves and to get their base angry and fearful, produced a creature that is a mixed blessing - active but even further right and, often, nuts.

Matthew Continetti is smart enough to understand the problem but too enmeshed in the cynicism that enabled it to understand how dangerous and destructive he and his crowd have become. Conor Friedserdorf gets it... http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/ideas/archive/2010/06/a-long-and-sorry-history/58474/

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey all, I know I haven't been an especially prolific poster of late, but I'll be gone through August to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for the field work part of my thesis. I hope you all have a great summer, and ask that you all pray I don't end up having to wrestle too many bears ;)

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 22, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Re McChrystal - I find myself in pretty much total agreement with Digby:

"The military has been acting more and more as a rogue political faction with its own power base for quite some time. No president of either party should allow that (although it must be said that Bush's fetishizing of "the Generals on the ground" and The Man Called Petraeus has contributed greatly to this problem.)...

...Notice that it's Obama who will be "saving face" by doing this.

Imagine if McChrystal had done this under Bush. They'd be calling for this "man of honor" to be Court Martialed.


On the other hand, Howard Kurtz is absolutely right about this too (tweet):

"If McChrystal not cashiered, I predict new round of stories questioning Obama's toughness, with obligatory references to Truman."


And if he does do it, the very same people will call him a thuggish dictator who has no respect for the military.

This isn't something for political calculation because he can't win on that basis. He should just do the right thing. And the right thing is to protect the constitution." http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/war-cabinet-lets-not-play-blame-game.html

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Fallows argues similarly...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/obama-has-to-fire-mcchrystal/58509/

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Tomasky uncertain...

"Well, as many of you know, since I last posted, the word is that Obama may or may not accept the resignation. We should know Wednesday.

I can't think of time I've ever been this undecided about a public question. This is one where I can really see both sides. I'm not trying to be cute or counterintuitive or anything. I can see that Obama needs to be the Democrat who seizes an opportunity to lay down the law against a military commander who clearly crossed a line. I can also see that accepting the resignation creates a s---storm of its own kind and may hurt the mission." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Think I'll pack it in early tonight and go get myself a sixpack of Bud Light Raspberry

Posted by: bernielatham | June 22, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

KO's special comment tonight was interesting and surprising.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann#37862690

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

holyhandgrenaid, be careful out there and we'll expect a full report when you get back. Just don't get between a bear and his salmon and you should be fine. Anyway, stay safe and collect all your samples and take all your measurements so you'll have plenty of data for your conclusion.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

bernie, you're probably off somewhere drinking your manly beer but I wanted to comment on the leaning tower story. Last week a commenter over at the oil drum (dougr) wrote a rather long and detailed post about exactly this problem. I didn't link it here as I was in hideout mode and now I can't seem to find it again. It was also linked from digby and a couple of other sites.

Long story short, if this thing falls over or falls into itself it means there are probably problems down below in the casing and we're talking absolute worst case scenario. It also means the relief wells may not be able to kill it. Basically, it's a race against time according to this guy anyway. If we see them try to stabilize what's left of BOP with cables, we'll know where we're headed.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse


Hey all, I know I haven't been an especially prolific poster of late, but I'll be gone through August to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon for the field work part of my thesis. I hope you all have a great summer, and ask that you all pray I don't end up having to wrestle too many bears ;)

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | June 22, 2010 9:22 PM

................

Avoid all encounters with Mama Grizzly . She will force you to become celibate. You Betcha!

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris Bower at open left is following the fin/reg conference while we're all following other stories, thank God. I heard digby's going to start calling him swipe Schumer.

"Earlier today, the house conferees in the Wall Street reform conference committee voted to approve the swipe fee compromise that was forged yesterday. As the compromise stood yesterday, banks and major credit card companies were set to lose billions in profits every year, thus denting their concentration of wealth and power. Also, some of the money will be passed along to small businesses, charities, and consumers.

On the Senate side of the Wall Street reform conference, however, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is still trying to protect the profits his wealthiest, most powerful constituents. Sources close to the process have told me that, in conjunction with major credit card lobbyists, Schumer is currently trying to get Republicans to offer a new amendment in the conference committee that would gut the compromise deal. Schumer has been working to defeat any regulation of credit and debit card processing fees all along.

Schumer is attempting to lower the visibility in his role fighting against swipe fee regulation, which is why the current plan is to have Republicans in the conference committee offer the amendment."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19202/house-conferees-pass-swipe-fee-compromise-schumer-goes-to-gop-to-seek-further-exemptions

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I have had it with Schumer. What with his bragging about Blanche Lincoln "fighting unions with one hand", and now his putting the fix in for The Big Bank Casinos who already crashed our economy, Schumer must never get another leadership position in the Senate.

Other Senators have to be made aware, that if they vote for Schumer, they will pay a steep price, when their primaries, and General election turns come around.

Posted by: Liam-still | June 22, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

HuffPost has thumbnail sketches of the possible replacements for McChrystal, if it comes to that.

First up, Army Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, McChrystal's No. 2 in Afghanistan. The two men were sent to Afghanistan as a package deal, with plans for Rodriguez to run the war day to day while McChrystal focused on the bigger picture. He previously served as a military adviser to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

I dunno...if he is "inner circle" it might not be a great choice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-replacement-po_n_621775.html#s104425

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 22, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

liam, it's a good thing we have some young/new Dems in their to shake things up. Also good to have eyes and ears keeping them honest. Schumer would probably call it a compromise, but I call it consorting with the enemy in this case. Do they think we're stupid?

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Have a good night all, we'll see what tomorrow holds for the General. It should be an interesting day, I'd love to be a fly on that wall.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 22, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

holy, if you see this, best of luck up there and watch out for the bears.

Safe travels and good luck on your work.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 22, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam, good question on whether Petraeus has an opinion on this.

He can't weigh in publicly, but I'd sure like to know whether he's in the loop on the decision.

As I said on earlier threads, I think McChrystal is in over his head; he doesn't have the overall skills to manage this VERY complex military/political situation.

I also hope this leads to some national discussion on the overall policy. Not holding my breath....

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 22, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

"Jed Lewison tries to make sense of some key findings in the New York Times poll"

????

The last president to look rationally at the data and realize it meant that the USA would within his daughter or grandchildren's lifetime run into serious, chronic oil shortage problems that could be significantly relieved by weaning us off of oil addiction was Jimmy Carter. There has been no meaningful political leadership on this in over thirty years (largely thanks to political conservatives), and yet there is bewilderment at the magical thinking the American public expresses when it comes to oil?????

Posted by: akaoddjob | June 23, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

He should resign - example: William Joseph Fallon, Commander, U.S. Central Command from March 2007 to March 2008. On March 11, 2008, he announced his resignation from CENTCOM and retirement from active duty, citing administrative complications caused in part by an article in Esquire Magazine, which described him as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran.

Posted by: geechee | June 23, 2010 3:36 AM | Report abuse

Useful coverage of the McChrystal episode. Much appreciated.

It was strange to see a picture of Lady Gaga's... uh, poker bum... on one of my RSS feeds (The Page).

"Halperin's Take: This shot of Gaga Butt is good news for John McCain! But how do women put up with thongs? They sure look uncomfortable. I wonder what David Broder thinks."

Developing...

Spoiler alert: Broder believes thongs are meant to signal support for Beltway bipartisanship -- the "center", not the right or left butt cheek.

I'm a fan and all (not so much of the music, but of lady parts in general, and the "those of us who happen to be straight have a moral obligation to demand equal rights for those who happen to be LGBT" message), but it was still kind of strange to see.

Also, AK - 47 "bewbs"... what the eff? Am I the only one who doesn't think they "get it"?

As for McChrystal, I think Keith Olbermann made a compelling case tonight.

The real issues here are:

Afghanistan - It's not worth the cost. If starting to wind down our presence now isn't on the table, at the very least, seriously altering it should be.

Pat Tillman - The Tillman family deserves to have their questions answered. Where the hell is Sean Hannity on this? Oh yeah, I forgot... troops are just a prop to him.

Posted by: michael_conrad | June 23, 2010 3:59 AM | Report abuse

@Holy - My daughter is up in Dawson City (Yukon) through the summer. If you have are there, just ask about for Ms Latham.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 23, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

"if you have time and are there"

Posted by: bernielatham | June 23, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Ims - Thanks. Knew you would have already briefed yourself on this problem. Trying not to think of the consequences.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 23, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

michael-conrad said: "Where the hell is Sean Hannity on this? Oh yeah, I forgot... troops are just a prop to him.'

Had a vet in my store yesterday. Hell of a nice guy. A member of the expendable/invisible lower class who are still the pawns of the upper classes' fun and games with war.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 23, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Michael Gerson's first graph this morning:

"One problem with a political landslide of the kind that Republicans now contemplate in November is that it may also sweep into office various ideologues who become embarrassments -- candidates such as J.D. Hayworth and Rand Paul. Democrats are familiar with this possibility, because they have Sen. Al Franken."

Yes, if you were wondering, the entire piece is quite this vitriolic. And this stupid too.

Why on earth does this man have a position with the WP? He is an out and out propagandist. And he's not even a good writer, certainly in this format. He's predictable, unimaginative and unoriginal in thought and phrasing.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 23, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/the_morning_plum_36.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 23, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company