The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Gil Gunderson]

Hooray!

If the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.

How will this affect my run for Cook County Water Reclamation District Commissioner?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Hooray!

If the parking meter deal put a bad taste in your mouth, try swallowing this: Chicago is considering leasing its water system to help fix the budget.

How will this affect my run for Cook County Water Reclamation District Commissioner?

The floaters you'll have to manage "downstream" will be privatized.

[R-V]

What Nate Silver said.

Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action.

But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.

Now, if you could have a Jay Rockefeller-style, Medicare-for-Anyone type public option with no strings attached, would that be a superior alternative? Of course. But that amendment was rejected 8-15 by the Finance Committee and has very little chance of becoming law. Some sort of compromise is almost certainly going to be necessary. This is almost certainly the best compromise that has been floated so far.

Credit to Harry Reid for not being a milquetoast hooplehead today.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.

Reid said he was "disappointed" the public option had "frightened" Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) but that he hoped she would "come back."

"I spoke to Olympia on Friday...and at this stage she does not like the public option of any kind. And so, we'll have to move forward on this, and there will come a time I hope, where she sees the wisdom of supporting a health care bill," he said.

He also blasted Republicans, saying he can count the moderates in the GOP on "two fingers."

Meanwhile, the White House continues its effort to be as vague and waffley as possible.

I'm also hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.

An administration official went so far as to call Reid's move "dangerous," but quickly followed by saying Reid knows his caucus better than anyone, and will therefore have the support of the White House.

[Gil Gunderson]

Oh, what's that?  You were having a good day?

BAM!!

[flannj]

Since posting here has come to a screeching halt, here's a little something to keep you occupied.
I meant to send this out last week. Anybody else read it?
It is a five part series that was in the NY Times.
One of their reporters was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held by the Taliban for over 7 months before he escaped.
This is his story and it demonstrates why we will probably never accomplish very much there.
Some seriously fucked up people. As if you didn't know that already.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Since posting here has come to a screeching halt, here's a little something to keep you occupied.
I meant to send this out last week. Anybody else read it?
It is a five part series that was in the NY Times.
One of their reporters was kidnapped in Afghanistan and held by the Taliban for over 7 months before he escaped.
This is his story and it demonstrates why we will probably never accomplish very much there.
Some seriously fucked up people. As if you didn't know that already.

Timely and related...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America's war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America's increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.'s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

...

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html

The Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week

Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:

"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.

Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.

Cutting to the chase...

http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset

CIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?

[BH]

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html

The Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week

Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:

"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.

Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.

Cutting to the chase...

http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset

CIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?

You guys are so predictable. And ridiculous. Deflecting all the attention away from the Acorn scandal by posting these articles about things that don't affect REAL americans. Let me know when you guys want to come down from your ivory QUEERCASTLES to discuss something that matters.

[R-V]

From flannj's link:

For the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.

    Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.

    To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.

    When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?

Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this, into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?

[flannj]

From flannj's link:

For the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.

    Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.

    To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.

    When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?

Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this, into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?

From the 3rd. page of R-V's link:

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

I wouldn't pretend to have the knowledge to answer R-V's question, but it seems to me that the real danger in this region is Pakistan. The tribal areas are under who's control? Not the Pakistani Government and certainly not by the US or NATO. It seems unlikely that they ever will be and if that is true can they really be considered to be part of Pakistan?
`
I make no argument either way but if the US does decide to stay it seems that our effort should be maximum. But I doubt even with that effort would we see significant positive results anytime soon (if at all).

[World B Free]

From flannj's link:

For the next several nights, a stream of Haqqani commanders overflowing with hatred for the United States and Israel visited us, unleashing blistering critiques that would continue throughout our captivity.

    Some of their comments were factual. They said large numbers of civilians had been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories in aerial bombings. Muslim prisoners had been physically abused and sexually humiliated in Iraq. Scores of men had been detained in Cuba and Afghanistan for up to seven years without charges.

    To Americans, these episodes were aberrations. To my captors, they were proof that the United States was a hypocritical and duplicitous power that flouted international law.

    When I told them I was an innocent civilian who should be released, they responded that the United States had held and tortured Muslims in secret detention centers for years. Commanders said they themselves had been imprisoned, their families ignorant of their fate. Why, they asked, should they treat me differently?

Taking this, along with the AWK news, and this, into account, I have a serious question. Does anyone here have a sound argument as to why we should stay/escalate in Afgahanistan as opposed to getting the fuck out?

I think that the problem comes in when you're talking about nation building.  Can you actually bring a democracy to a country that has never really had a centralized national government?  The only way that this would seem to work is if you have strong regional states and a loose national government that would address national defense and infrastructure.  Honestly though, I don't even think that would be enough to hold this together since the areas of the south relate more to the tribal areas of Pakistan and the north to the former Soviet stans. 

[R-V]

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/most-important-article-afghanistan-youll-read-week.html

The Most Important Article on Afghanistan You'll Read This Week

Why, you ask? Because if this is true, and if the CIA is empowering Ahmed Wali Karzai at the same time in which NATO/ISAF is saying abusive local power-brokers are a threat to mission success, then this is yet another example of NATO/ISAF carrying out one campaign in Afghanistan while the CIA carries out another -- with both campaigns operating at cross purposes to one another. I should say here that I am in no position to confirm or deny this report. I can, however, say that numerous military officials in southern Afghanistan with whom I have spoken identify AWK and his activities as the biggest problem they face -- bigger than the lack of government services or even the Taliban. And so if AWK is "the agency's guy", that leads to a huge point of friction between NATO/ISAF and the CIA. Again, I am not currently serving as an advisor to ISAF and cannot speak for Gen. McChrystal's command. But I do not have to:

"If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves," said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

"The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone," General Flynn said.

Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I "know" about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA's guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.

Cutting to the chase...

http://washingtonindependent.com/65425/karzais-brother-is-a-cia-asset

CIA money funds a politically connected drug dealer. Opium funds the Taliban. We are in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. How much CIA money has indirectly funded the Taliban?

You guys are so predictable. And ridiculous. Deflecting all the attention away from the Acorn scandal by posting these articles about things that don't affect REAL americans. Let me know when you guys want to come down from your ivory QUEERCASTLES to discuss something that matters.

Don't forget about SOROS TAKING OVER TEH ECOONOMIEZ!

[R-V]

DPD. Installment number 9,000 in our ongoing series of Fuck Indiana.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html

Evan Bayh, the junior senator from Indiana, is in the middle of a heated debate in the Senate on whether a public option should be included as part of President Obama's health care reforms. An organizer of a group of so-called Senate Blue Dog Democrats, to date, Bayh's been a staunch opponent of any changes to the status quo in this debate.

His wife, Susan Bayh, sits on the board of WellPoint(WLP Quote) in her hometown of Indianapolis. Over the last six years, Susan Bayh has received at least $2 million in compensation from WellPoint alone for serving on its board.

She joined Anthem Insurance (the precursor organization to WellPoint) in 1998, when she was 38 years old and a midlevel attorney working for Eli Lilly (LLY Quote). Her work experience prior to her stint at Lilly was five years as a junior law professor at Butler University in Indianapolis. Her work background at the time she was appointed to the Anthem board would have been surprising, given that she had no insurance experience and was relatively young and inexperienced to serve as a director on a multibillion-dollar board.

[World B Free]

DPD. Installment number 9,000 in our ongoing series of Fuck Indiana.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10618234/1/evan-bayh-hypocrisy-on-the-public-option.html

Evan Bayh, the junior senator from Indiana, is in the middle of a heated debate in the Senate on whether a public option should be included as part of President Obama's health care reforms. An organizer of a group of so-called Senate Blue Dog Democrats, to date, Bayh's been a staunch opponent of any changes to the status quo in this debate.

His wife, Susan Bayh, sits on the board of WellPoint(WLP Quote) in her hometown of Indianapolis. Over the last six years, Susan Bayh has received at least $2 million in compensation from WellPoint alone for serving on its board.

She joined Anthem Insurance (the precursor organization to WellPoint) in 1998, when she was 38 years old and a midlevel attorney working for Eli Lilly (LLY Quote). Her work experience prior to her stint at Lilly was five years as a junior law professor at Butler University in Indianapolis. Her work background at the time she was appointed to the Anthem board would have been surprising, given that she had no insurance experience and was relatively young and inexperienced to serve as a director on a multibillion-dollar board.

Not shocking.  The insurance industry is full of unqualified morons that would fail in most other industries.  It's their unparalelled incompetence that actually gets them promoted.  A 38 year old mid-level attorney with no insurance experience?  Hell, now she could serve as insurance commissioner of Indiana.

[air2300]

<selfish rant>Joe Biden just shut the traffic down around where work come lunch time. Took two hours to get back to office just so he can raise money for the party.  I will have to end up working until like 10 tonight instead of more managable 8 so fuck that bastard.  This has nothing to do with more important issues like war and health care but seemed like a waste of resources by taking 100s of cops to shut streets and interstate down so he can go raise money. <\selfish rant>