"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, May 26, 2012

What does "running government like a business" even MEAN?
Posted by Jill | 6:37 AM
We've heard a lot over the last decade about how the federal government should be "run like a business". It's that particular meme that now has 58% of "financially struggling whites" believing that Willard Rmoney (sic) will do more to advance the economic interests of their families than Barack Obama would. How much of this is because these people believe that if they Just Work Hard Enough™ they will be allowed into the Rich Guys Club, how much of it is a residual sense among some in this group that "Democrats give everything to the lazy ni---rs" (a sentiment held by Mr. Brilliant's own father until late in his life when his frequent hospitalizations and resulting care by black nurses made him change his tune somewhat), and how much of it is buy-into this notion of "He will run government like a business, I don't know. But the notion of "government-as-business" is as ridiculous as "the federal budget should be run the way you run your own budget."

So what are some of the things businesses do these days, anyway?

Well, for one thing, the raison d'être for a business is to generate profits to be distributed to shareholders. (Note: It is NOT to generate jobs.) These shareholders might be the owners, or a small group of executives, or stockholders of publicly-held companies. Of course these days, profits of even publicly-held companies are largely distributed to a small group of executives through stock-heavy compensation plans, but I digress.

When capacity is insufficient to meet demand, businesses expand by investing in plant and equipment. Somehow, when Republicans like Mitt Rmoney talk about running the government like a business, they leave out this investment part. If government were run like a business, it SHOULD invest in roads, railroads, bridges, education, nutrition programs for children, and other things that are the government equivalent of plant and equipment. But instead, they advocate running a kind of business where your employees are still developing new applications in COBOL on IBM mainframes running DOS-VSE because you're not yet "certain" that this desktop computing thing is going to take off.

When there aren't enough employees to meet demand, companies have a couple of options. You can either hire people, or work the ones you have even harder. When all of your fellow business owners are choosing the latter, your own employees will go along with it because they can't do better anyone else. Of course after about sixty hours a week the law of diminishing returns kicks in, but at least the cost part of your ledger doesn't increase (especially if you've given your employees titles which allow them to be paid a fixed salary as exempt employees). What DO "demand and supply" mean when you run government "like a business"?

Now what happens when business slows down and you don't need as many employees as you have? You COULD cut hours temporarily. You could say that you'll pay 80% of salary for a 32-hour week. But in the US, most companies just get rid of people through layoff. If government is run like a business, what does this "laying people off" look like? Is it ending all government programs to help them and their families? Or does it mean lining them up against the wall and shooting them? What does "downsizing" or "right-sizing" government look like where its "employees" (i.e. citizens) are deemed to be superfluous?

Somewhere along the line, the Republicans forgot just who is the employer and who is the employee in our system of government. If they're going to "run government like a business", they ought to remember that. The problem is that we have a media that is all too happy to regurgitate six-word sound bites like "run government like a business" over and over and over again without explaining what that looks like.

All those financially struggling white people who think government should be run like a business should take a good, close look at Willard Rmoney's "business" career. It's one in which good-paying jobs with pensions are replaced by minimum-wage jobs without benefits -- just before the companies go into bankruptcy, but not before Mitt Romney and his Bain Capital peers shovel a bunch of money in fees into their pockets.

Rmoney likes to trot out Staples as an example of his acumen in creating jobs, even though most of Staples' growth occurred after he resigned from the company's board to run for Massachusetts governor in 1994. Here are some better examples of Mitt Romney's business record, from a Vanity Fair excerpt from The Real Romney, by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman:
Romney had come to Drexel to obtain financing for the $300 million purchase of two Texas department-store chains, Bealls and Palais Royal, to form Specialty Retailers, Inc. On September 7, 1988, two months after Bain hired Drexel to issue junk bonds to finance the deal, the S.E.C. filed a complaint against Drexel and Milken for insider trading. Romney had to decide whether to close a deal with a company ensnared in a growing clash with regulators. The old Romney might well have backed off; the newly assertive, emboldened Mitt decided to press ahead.

Romney’s deal with Drexel turned out well for both him and Bain Capital, which put $10 million into the retailer and financed most of the rest of the $300 million deal with junk bonds. The newly constituted company, later known as Stage Stores, refocused in 1989 on its small-town, small-department-store roots. Seven years later, in October 1996, the company successfully sold shares to the public at $16 a share. By the following year, the stock had climbed to a high of nearly $53, and Bain Capital and a number of its officers and directors sold a large part of their holdings. Bain made a $175 million gain by 1997. It was one of the most profitable leveraged buyouts of the era.

Romney sold at just the right time. Shares plunged in value the next year amid declining sales at the stores. The department-store company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2000, struggling with $600 million in debt, and a reorganized company emerged the following year. So ended the story of a deal that Romney would not be likely to cite on the campaign trail: the highly leveraged purchase, financed with junk bonds from a firm that became infamous for its financial practices, of a department-store company that had subsequently gone into bankruptcy. But on the Bain balance sheet, and on Romney’s, it was a huge win.

Not every deal worked out so well for Romney and his investors. Bain invested $4 million in a company called Handbag Holdings, which sold pocketbooks and other accessories. When a major customer stopped buying, the company failed and 200 jobs were lost. Bain invested $2.1 million in a bathroom-fixtures company called PPM and lost nearly all of it. An investment in a company called Mothercare Stores also didn’t pan out; the firm had eliminated a hundred jobs by the time Bain dumped it. Fellow Bain partner Robert White said Bain lost its $1 million and blamed “a difficult retail environment.”

In some cases, Bain Capital’s alternative strategy of buying into companies also ended in trouble. In 1993, Bain bought GST Steel, a maker of steel-wire rods, and later more than doubled its $24 million investment. The company borrowed heavily to modernize plants in Kansas City and North Carolina—and to pay out dividends to Bain. But foreign competition increased and steel prices fell. GST Steel filed for bankruptcy and shut down its money-losing Kansas City plant, throwing some 750 employees out of work. Union workers there blamed Bain, then and now, for ruining the company, upending their lives, and devastating the community.

Then, in 1994, Bain invested $27 million as part of a deal with other firms to acquire Dade International, a medical-diagnostics-equipment firm, from its parent company, Baxter International. Bain ultimately made nearly 10 times its money, getting back $230 million. But Dade wound up laying off more than 1,600 people and filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, amid crushing debt and rising interest rates. The company, with Bain in charge, had borrowed heavily to do acquisitions, accumulating $1.6 billion in debt by 2000. The company cut benefits for some workers at the acquired firms and laid off others. When it merged with Behring Diagnostics, a German company, Dade shut down three U.S. plants. At the same time, Dade paid out $421 million to Bain Capital’s investors and investing partners.

The amount of money now being earned at Bain Capital was skyrocketing, and much of it came from a handful of giant deals. During Romney’s 15 years there, the firm invested about $260 million in its 10 top deals and reaped a nearly $3 billion return. That was about three-quarters of its overall profit on roughly 100 transactions during Romney’s tenure. In one of his most specific explanations of how he made his fortune, in his autobiography, Turnaround, Romney wrote that most of the companies he invested in were ones that “no one has heard of—TRW’s credit services, the Yellow Pages of Italy.” Those weren’t just any two deals. They were two of the most lucrative of Romney’s career, and luck played a big part in both. A mere seven weeks after buying TRW, Romney and his partners flipped the company. Bain’s $100 million investment returned at least $300 million. The second deal cited by Romney took longer but involved even more good timing and luck. It began with a renowned Italian investor named Phil Cuneo, who had the idea of buying the Italian version of the Yellow Pages. It seemed a solid investment in a firm with a staid and stable business model. But mere months after closing the deal, Cuneo and his Bain associates realized that they had acquired a company that might benefit from the surging interest in dot-com businesses; the Yellow Pages company owned a Web-based directory that had the potential to be the Italian version of America Online or Yahoo. In just under three years, in September 2000, the partners sold the investment, earning a windfall that far exceeded anyone’s initial expectations. Bain’s $51.3 million investment in the Italian Yellow Pages returned at least $1.17 billion, according to a Romney associate familiar with the deal. There is no public documentation of how the profits were distributed, but at that time at least 20 percent of the return would have gone to Bain Capital. Of that, Romney’s typical payout was then 5 to 10 percent. That means this one obscure deal would have given him a profit of $11 million to $22 million. If Romney made a side investment in the deal, as was standard among Bain partners, he would have made even larger gains. One Romney associate said Romney’s total profit could have been as much as $40 million. (A Romney spokesman did not respond to questions about the deal.)

It was those kinds of deals that enabled Bain Capital to report the highest returns in the business in the 1990s. Romney’s own net worth would grow to at least $250 million, and maybe much more, a trove that would enable him to foot a large part of the bill for his 2008 presidential campaign. Asked about a report that his wealth at one point reached as high as $1 billion, Romney said, “I’m not going to get into my net worth. No estimates whatsoever.”

I almost can't wait to see what these "financially struggling whites" are going to do when they find out exactly what Willard has in store for them.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, July 18, 2010

What makes people think the rich WANT to let them into the club?
Posted by Jill | 7:59 PM
Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

No, Mr. Fleischer, you don't get to create your own reality
Posted by Jill | 10:23 PM
Unbelievable. Ari Fleischer thinks it's offensive to say that 9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch:




So just who WAS President on September 11, 2001, then, Ari? Inquiring minds want to know. But what's really awful about this is that it made me, even for a few minutes, stop hating Chris Matthews.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, January 24, 2009

The Grand Old Delusion Party
Posted by Jill | 7:45 PM
It isn't just Bush and McCain who were delusional.

National Republican Campaign Committee's web site:
Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.


I shit you not.

(h/t)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 13, 2008

And while we're on the subject of interviews with idiots
Posted by Jill | 5:54 AM
...take a spin over to Mudflats and check out Sarah Palin's Orwellian interview with some Alaska journalists.

Just a taste:
Palin: Hey, thank you so, Meg. Thank you so much. Thank you also to our local reporters up there in Alaska. Even hearing your names make me feel like I’m right there with you at home. It’s good to get to speak with you. Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.

Palin: OK cool.

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that. Todd did what anyone would have done given this state trooper’s very, very troubling behavior and his dangerous threats against our family. Todd did what I think any Alaskan would do.

And he, Todd did what the state’s Department of Law Web site tells anyone to do if they have a concern about a state trooper. And that’s you go to the commissioner and you express your concern. And Todd did what our personal detail asked him to do. Bob Cockrell early on as I was elected and was asked are there any threats against ya, and Todd brought the concern as I did to Commissioner Monegan about the state trooper’s threats. He did what any – I think — any rational person would do so again, nothing to apologize there with Todd’s actions and again very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing.

(Stapleton invites the first question).

ADN: Governor, finding No.1 on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?

Palin: Not at all and I’ll tell you, it, I think that you’re always going to ruffle feathers as you do what you believe is in the best interest of the people whom you are serving. In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.


In 1992, the right was in a big hue and cry over Bill Clinton's "two for the price of one" brag and about Hillary Clinton's role in national health care. Here they have a vice presidential nominee whose husband is "a fixture in the Governor's office", clearly plays the role of "enforcer" for his wife's personal vendettas, and no one on the right is uttering a peep about what role HE might play in a McCain Palin (or worse, a de facto Palin/McCain) administration?

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, August 09, 2008

Delusional AND Idiotic
Posted by Jill | 12:22 PM
I know that during the Bush years, it's become fashionable to believe what we WANT to be true, rather than what IS true; things like that Iraq really DID have weapons of mass destruction, and that America still IS the greatest country in the world, and that we still ARE #1, and our health care system IS the best in the world.

And that while the value of our neighbors' homes may be dropping, OUR home is holding its value.

Every now and then I receive an e-mail blast from MarketWatch. This was in today's:

The housing downturn has been under way for a while now, so it's hard to
believe that many homeowners could still think their homes are appreciating these days.

Yet a recent survey from Zillow.com found that 62% of homeowners believe their home's value has increased or stayed the same in the past year. They can't all be right: According to Zillow, 77% of homes in the United States actually declined in value during the same time.

"Our survey reveals a wide gap between the perception homeowners have about their own home's value and the realities of a market in which three-quarters of homes declined in value in the past year," said Dr. Stan Humphries, Zillow vice president of data and analytics, in a statement. "We attribute this gap to a combination of inattention and a fair bit of denial that causes people to believe their home is insulated from the woes of the market that affect others, but not them."

In the survey of 1,361 homeowners, three out of four expect their home value will increase or stay the same in the next six months, yet 42% expect values in their neighborhood to drop. Four out of five homeowners expect the amount of foreclosures will increase or stay the same in the next six months, compared with the last six months.

Read more real-estate news in this week's pages, including why it's a good idea to negotiate on commission with your real-estate agent as well as the latest pending home-sales numbers.

A year ago, it might have been understandable for people to be in denial about housing-market realities. These days, to assume your home is somehow immune isn't very realistic -- and potentially problematic if you're planning on selling soon.

-- Amy Hoak, real-estate writer


My house was (accurately, I think) assessed for taxes at a market value of over $450,000 in 2007, based on late 2006 prices. Right now, there about four of the slightly smaller version of my house on the market in my neighborhood. One of them has had nothing done to update it whatsoever and is sitting at $418K, because the owner seems to think that a 100' wide lot on a main street somehow mitigates a house where nothing has been updated and the concrete steps and patio in the back are crumbling. The others are in various states of updating and all are sitting, unsold, at $399K. In the twelve years we've lived in this house, we've replaced the furnace, upgraded the electric service, replaced all but the basement windows, put on a new roof with improved ventilation, new gutters, and new siding. We just had the front steps repaired. Last year we put new carpet in the basement after a flood. We put in a new toilet, vanity, and floor in the upstairs bathroom. But the back steps are starting to go, the kitchen still needs updating, and we're still living with the previous owners' red carpeting in the living room. If I were sitting here thinking that while all these houses are sitting, MINE is somehow special and I could still get over $450,000 for it, it would make sense to cart me off to the nearest psych ward. And yet, all over the country, homeowners who don't want to admit that their homes aren't worth what they were two years ago are thinking that if they really, really, really believe in fairies, they can make Tinkerbell live.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, June 29, 2008

Stay Delusional. Vote McCain.
Posted by Jill | 6:48 AM
That should be John McCain's new slogan. Because after nearly five and a half years of spinning our wheels in Iraq, John McCain, like the man he wants to succeed, says that a trillion dollars into our little adventure in Iraq, we're finally making progress. Not enough progress to leave, that will NEVER happen, but enough progress to perhaps fool enough people into supporting dumping more of their children's future into this mess:

Appearing together in solidarity, Republican John McCain and Iraq’s president said yesterday that the war-ravaged country is making significant but fragile progress.

The GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting expressed confidence about prospects for the two countries completing a complex agreement that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year’s end. And Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said an American military presence still was needed.

“I, of course, am encouraged. We both agree that the progress has been significant but the progress is also fragile. And there’s a lot of work that needs to be done,” McCain said at the end of a private meeting with Talabani.


Meanwhile, back in reality:

Senior Iraqi government officials said Saturday that a U.S. Special Forces counterterrorism unit conducted the raid that reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, touching off a high-stakes diplomatic crisis between the United States and Iraq.

U.S. military officials in Baghdad had no comment for the second day in a row, an unusual position for a command that typically releases information on combat operations within 24 hours.

The raid occurred at dawn Friday in the town of Janaja near Maliki's birthplace in the southern, mostly Shiite Muslim province of Karbala. Ali Abdulhussein Razak al Maliki, who was killed in the raid, was related to the prime minister and had close ties to his personal security detail, according to authorities in Karbala.

The incident puts an added strain on U.S.-Iraqi negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement, a long-term security pact that will govern the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq. Members of the Iraqi government and security forces said the raid only deepened their reluctance to sign any agreement that did not leave Iraqis with the biggest say on when and how combat operations are conducted.

The U.S. military handed Iraqi forces control of Karbala security in October 2007. By the end of 2007 the U.S. military had transferred nine of the country's 18 provinces to Iraqi control.

"We are afraid now of signing the long-term pact between Iraq and America because of such unjustified violations by the troops. Handing over security in provinces doesn't mean anything to the American troops," said Mohamed Hussein al Musawi, a senior Najaf-based member of the prime minister's Dawa Party. "We condemn these barbaric actions not only when they target a relative of Maliki's, but when any Iraqi is targeted in the same way."


...and:


As Congress gears up to debate the Bush administration's latest request for an additional $108 billion in war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraqis are fuming at suggestions being floated by lawmakers that Baghdad should start paying a share of the war's costs by providing cheap fuel to the U.S. military.

"America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq," said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi government spending. "This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs."


Is anyone in the media going to get off their knees in front of McCain long enough to ask him about this? Or are they going to continue to tell the American people that this delusional old man is the best choice to handle the situation in Iraq becuase he's capable of clapping his hands and saying, "I do believe! I do I do I DO!!!"

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Hey, look at this shiny thing!
Posted by Jill | 8:24 AM
Shorter John McCain: "You'll still be paying four bucks a gallon, but you'll FEEL better about it -- and I'll get to be president!"

Watch:



Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, June 04, 2008

If there were no other reason to celebrate Barack Obama's victory, getting rid of this guy would be enough
Posted by Jill | 8:17 PM
Go about 1:30 into this...it's utterly surreal:





And the media hammered the Dean Scream....that was NOTHIN' compared to this guy.

Now, Terry....back away from the Triple Caf Shot in the Dark Venti and nobody gets hurt.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

While the media are obsessed with Jeremiah Wright...
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
...and John McCain says we won't leave Iraq until we "win", but he hasn't a clue what "winning" looks like, this has been the bloodiest month for Americans in Iraq in seven months:

The killings of three U.S. soldiers in separate attacks in Baghdad pushed the American death toll for April up to 47, making it the deadliest month since September.

One soldier died when his vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb. The other died of wounds sustained when he was attacked by small-arms fire, the military said Wednesday. Both incidents occurred Tuesday in northwestern Baghdad.

A third soldier died in a roadside bombing Tuesday night in the east of the capital, the military said.

The statement did not give a more specific location. But the eastern half of Baghdad includes embattled Sadr City and other neighborhoods that have been the focus of intense combat between Shiite militants and U.S.-Iraqi troops for more than a month.

In all, at least 4,059 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.


John McCain likes to talk about a permanent presence in Iraq as taking the same form as our presence in Germany or Korea -- one in which American soldiers are not involved in active combat because the governments of those countries don't object to us being there. But in Iraq, the government is perceived as a U.S. puppet and isn't actually running things. So on what basis does he think this utopia is going to occur? By clapping our hands really, really hard and saying "I DO believe in fairies. I DO I DO I DO!"?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 08, 2008

President Delusional: The Sequel
Posted by Jill | 7:19 AM
Keith Olbermann systematically and devastatingly eviscerates John McCain's delusions about Iraq:





Doesn't it seem just a bit that McCain may be missing some of his faculties here? I'm not asking to be snarky. We've already had one president in the early throes of Alzheimer's while people around him ran amok; do we really want another one?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

John McCain running to be King Delusional II
Posted by Jill | 7:15 AM
After returning from a carefully choreographed (well, except for his statements that Shi'ite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda) trip to Iraq, John McCain insisted that we're "succeeding" in Iraq:

"We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide. The events transpired as bin Laden called on the people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to "help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task."


I guess he's right, if by "succeeding" you mean "all hell is breaking loose":


Could Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to re-establish control over Basra backfire? There is a growing possibility that it could become a wider intra-Shi'ite war, drawing in the forces loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose ceasefire has been key to the success of the U.S. "surge"? If so, the consequences for American military strategy in Iraq in an all-important political year will be grave.

Maliki's government targeted Basra because it could. Unlike many other southern cities where fighting has escalated in recent weeks, Maliki has built an independent power base among the security forces there. But Tuesday's sweep of Basra could turn sour in other southern cities where the central government's power is weak. Indeed, many Shi'ites are seeing this not just as an example of the Shi'ite Maliki taking on other Shi'ites (including Sadrists) but of America backing the Prime Minister up in a de facto Shi'a civil war. Iraqi government forces have attacked Shi'ite militias and gangs in at least seven major southern Iraq cities in the past two weeks. And America has been there to support Maliki's troops every time.

In response, Sadr loyalists have already taken to the streets in Baghdad, where U.S. troops will have to deal with the backlash. U.S. officials have so far shied away from blaming Sadr for the recent rise of violence (including an Easter attack on the Green Zone), mostly because Sadr's ceasefire has been key to the success of the surge. (General David Petraeus has pointed the finger at Iran instead.) But as clashes increase, they may not be able to dance around it for much longer.


In other words, the so-called "surge" (which is now an increased level of occupation) has "worked" because of the Sadr cease-fire, not because of any changes in U.S. policy or tactics. And what Sadr gives, Sadr can take away.

Ilan Goldenberg puts it all in perspective:

Iraqi forces clashed with Shiite militiamen Tuesday in the southern oil port of Basra and gunmen patrolled several Baghdad neighborhoods as followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a nationwide civil disobedience campaign to demand an end to the crackdown on their movement.

The potential impact is huge and this could be the beginning of the end of the decrease in violence that we've seen over the past few months.

No knows for sure what is going on yet but this seems to be an internal Iraqi fight. This is Shi'a on Shi'a violence. It is a power struggle between some combination of the various Shi'a factions in Iraq including: the Badr Brigades (loyal to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq), Mehdi Army (loyal to the Sadrists), and the Iraqi Security Forces (Which include elements of a number of factions).

The Bush administration may try to blame this all on Iran and confuse the issue. Iran will likely get involved in any intra-Shi'a struggle because it has so many ties into Southern Iraq. But at the end of the day, this is about the still simmering civil war in the South and the fact that we still haven't figured out how to address it or facilitate a political agreement inside of Iraq.

The million dollar question is: what is "a nationwide civil disobedience campaign?" If it is strikes and protests that's one thing. But if it is the beginning of the end of the ceasefire that is something very different. We have to wait and see. The other central question is whether or not this is in fact a decision made by Sadr and the political leadership, or if it is rogue elements of his militia who are causing the fighting.

The issue is very serious. In fact it's huge. The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasefire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

It's hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush administration will tell you it's all about the troop levels. I've tended to believe it's more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

If you look at the graph that the military has been using on civilian casualties it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed (I outlined this argument more thoroughly a few months back).


And the Republican Who Would Be President is telling us that if we just clap our hands together and shout over and over again, "I DO believe we're succeeding! I do I do I DO believe!", that everything will be just dandy.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 15, 2008

George W. Bush and the peril of ignoring intelligence
Posted by Jill | 7:33 AM
Fred Kaplan writes in Slate about George W. Bush's cavalier dismissal of the National Intelligence Estimate showing that Iran has dismantled its nuclear weapons program:

In the latest Newsweek, Michael Hirsh reports that, during a private conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Bush "all but disowned" the agencies' Dec. 3 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. A "senior administration official who accompanied Bush" on the trip confided to Hirsh that Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views."

The NIE—which was signed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies—concluded "with high confidence" that Iran had "halted its nuclear weapons program" back in the fall of 2003. The estimate, released to the public in sanitized form, seriously undercut efforts by the Bush-Cheney White House to portray Iran's nuclear ambitions as an imminent threat—and left the world either relieved or (especially in Israel's case) alarmed that the option of a U.S. airstrike on Iran was pretty much off the table.

[snip]

For the president of the United States to wave away the whole document—which, in its classified form, is more than 140 pages and has nearly 1,500 source notes, according to an enlightening story in today's Wall Street Journal—is gratuitous and self-destructive.

Then again, such behavior is of a piece with the pattern of relations between President Bush and his intelligence agencies. In September 2004, when he was asked about a pessimistic CIA report on the course of the occupation in Iraq, Bush replied that the agency was "just guessing."


Until now, the most glaring incident of George W. Bush choosing to ignore intelligence was his response to the infamous August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. In his book "The One Percent Doctrine", Ron Suskind states that the CIA briefer who brought this document to George Bush while the latter was on vacation in Crawford during the summer of 2001 was met with the response, "All right. You've covered your ass now." To me, this has always been some of the most damning evidence of at least some degree of presidential foreknowledge that SOMETHING was going to happen. Whether the details were known remains to be seen. Of course it's entirely possible that the response was just the reaction of a spoiled brat not wanting to deal with work during a vacation well-deserved (*snark*) after seven months on the job; seven months in which he had to deal with the captivity of pilots of a U.S. spy plane in china after a collision with a Chinese jet fighter and the embarrassment of a submarine in which rich Republican oil tycoons were allowed to take a turn at the wheel colliding with and sinking a Japanese fishing boat.

It's hard to imagine a more demoralized group than those working for U.S. intelligence agencies, after seven years in which delivery of a document showing that an attack on the U.S. was likely was angrily dismissed, an agent working in nonofficial cover on nuclear nonproliferation activities was outed because the President and Vice President were pissed at her husband for calling them on their lies, and an exhaustive report on Iran's nuclear capacity is dismissed as "just guessing."

When I was a kid, we regarded U.S. intelligence agencies with fear. The acronym "CIA" was the stuff of which paranoia was made. Today, the intelligence agencies have been completely defanged by a president whose grasp on reality is at the very least in serious question, thus putting our safety and our entire relationship with the world in the hands of an apocalyptic lunatic who may very well have just given Israel the green light to do our dirty work for us.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, December 31, 2007

Bad Times and a New Year Dawns, as Our Delusional, Optimistic Leader, W, Tells Us What Made His Year Special....
Posted by Anonymous | 11:15 PM

The Media disconnect occurs somewhere between the New York Times lauding blogger Steve Gillard in this week's Sunday magazine, and inviting Bill Kristol to become a regular columnist. The paper hopes to stir up some controversy and sell some papers, not realizing that probably what will sell papers is some cold hard truth, rather than the words of a man who is wrong at every turn, with every prediction, and every comment; has he ever been right about anything?

Its been a lousy as hell year all around. Good riddance to 2007! I cant think of anyone who has had an easy go of it, not family or friends, not Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole...and especially not the brave military families and veterans who are serving so patiently and bravely in a war with no purpose and no end. New and old friends; even strangers tell me that its been bad. I don't know if they're referring to the overwhelming barrage of lies, deceit, and misconduct that we have been subjected to from our government, or if its the growing effect of that misconduct on our every day lives. Surely the failing economy, lack of healthcare, loss of lives in Iraq, and stress from the empathy that we cant help but feel for all of those who are worse off beyond our own situations, weighs heavily on us all...the depths of despair, the illness, the loss; the loss of feeling like being an American means something.

Well, it turns out that as the year ends and the ball drops, George W. Bush feels pretty damned good about things. According to an article in this pastSunday's Parade Magazine penned supposedly by the king himself, He has a list of things that made his year special, and his sneering, squint-eyed self glaring stupidly from the cover tells the story of how out of touch the man is. There is no downcast glance and teary statement of how we appreciate the sacrifice of our boys and girls in harm's way. There is not a thoughtful nod towards the people who have lost their homes to bad loans or medical crisis, or who no longer have jobs.
No, our president is an "optimist" who takes strength from the few, well screened people that he meets when he is on the very edge of his bubble, and can sort of see through the opaque mask that is the boundary of his understanding.

So sometime after the staff begins to take down the decorations at the White House,Laura and Dubya muse on the few people that they have been allowed to meet in person and how great and inspirational they were. The brave family of a soldier who gladly died for his country while on a mission in Afghanistan, an entrepreneur who has changed her life by opening a small bakery in Nashville, the director of the Human Genome Institute, who is especially special because he is a man of God, and so he wont mess with stem cells to try to cure anything (because the Human Genome will cure Cancer, you know!)....and the list goes on....an AIDS mother from South Africa (he touched her AIDS free child!)the wife of an imprisoned Cuban who was jailed for democracy in evil Cuba, and "other Americans" who have shown W and Laura that America is strong....despite what he has done to us.

There is no mention of the mess in Iraq and the mounting deaths every day. There is no mention of the lies and corruption in his party. No mention of our lost standing in the world and the scorching lack of diplomacy that has colored every move that this administration has made; we are irreparably damaged, and there is no way to tell if we can regain what we've lost in the past 7 years.

On the edge of the year in which we will kick these bums out of office, we know that we will likely do so without proper documentation on the books of their crimes. We will move ahead with the knowledge that the memory of moist Americans is so short, that this war will become the property of the next administration, as if they had started it and run our country into the ground from scratch.

He is optimistic? Optimistic?
What a word to throw around in light of all that's happened this year.

The comments following the online version of the story say it all. There is really nothing I can add to the voices of real Americans, commenting in this Sunday newspaper magazine that is distributed inside national and local papers across the country. Does this magazine have a political side? If anything, Ive viewed it as a Good Housekeeping-ish conservative fluff rag. I'm not sure; judge for yourself. All I can see out here in the world is that the American people are speaking up, and they don't much like the way things have been going :


George W Bush
By Johnnyjoeymickey@aol.com on 12/31/2007 8:57:PM

When I Saw Bush war criminal on the cover of Parade, I cried, I really cried. I cant believe you put a picture of the devil himself on your magazine. Shame on you!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abominable Cover of the Monster-in-Chief
By tumerica@gmail.com on 12/31/2007 4:45:PM

Place a murderer--an actual monster--on your cover. Let him drone on about his "optimism," show complete disregard for your readership . . . do all of these things, and what do you expect you will achieve? Will it buy you a coveted place in the regard of this person's last few months in office? Will it endear Parade to future readers? I felt a visceral and real nausea when I saw whom you had placed on your cover. In return, I have no respect left for Parade and will hereby boycott reading your publication. May many other Americans follow suit.
George Bush gave me a Nightmare and I got sick!
By Leomoon80@msn.com on 12/31/2007 2:18:PM

I've read a few of the other comments, such as "He should have talked about his Accomplishments",and I understand why he did not. What he has accomplished has being responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of people, invading a country that was NO threat to us, as not one Iraqi attacked us on 9-11. Running our country into virtual bankruptcy, bringing the dollar to the lowest value ever in the world. But I can see the Smile from ear to ear, as he and his fellow rich friends and family continue to reap thanks to his laws, "Record Profits" from the suffering of others. Sad indeed! The only picture in the future I'd like to see of G.W. Bush, is one behind bars.
Worse Cover
By Wathen on 12/31/2007 2:02:PM

It is easy to be an optimist if you have health insurance and your children have health insurance. Is Bush smiling because he is thinking of all the children that have and will die because spending billions in Iraq is a higher priority than saving the lives of children in the U.S. by providing health insurance? Or is he smirking because of the suffering he has caused by not providing all the help he can on stem cell research? He has destroyed any legacy that his father may have had and he certainly has done nothing that his twins can be proud of. What a sad evil person we have for a "president".
You who voted twice for this thing
By mark223@hotmail.com on 12/31/2007 11:37:AM

hell yes i'm a voter... as for you you **** head i bet i can describe you to the "t"... your a male and your race is white, you been divoce maybe more than once you always have to have the last saying (because your mr. perfect). people talk behind your back and you know it. you are surely are not like. and because of you whom vote for bush you made the republican party history... hurrah!!!
What Made My Year Special
By leighpc@hotmail.com on 12/31/2007 9:43:AM

Seeing George Bush smiling on the cover of Parade Magazine yesterday and seeing the words "What Made My Year Special" made me physically ill. Does this man have no heart or soul? How can someone who has brought so much death and misery to the innocent civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan sleep at night, let alone smile placidly for the camera? All I can say is "Praise God" that 2008 will be the last year this small, terrible man will be in a position to inflict his evil policies on our nation and the world.
Ongoing
By sambrown.6@gmail.com on 12/31/2007 2:23:AM

With every word Bush "writes" and every word he says, the words maintain the obvious that he sees the world in black and white and uses religion as a front for his lack of imagination, intelligence, and reality. I have lived through many presidential era's and even talked with some Presidents. Never have I seen someone who so lacked the capability to be a President. I have been disgusted by Presidents only twice in my life and both have existed in the last 16 years.
Bush is a human rights violator.
By shildahl@gmail.com on 12/30/2007 9:00:PM

As a VN vet, I am critical of you featuring the Bush war criminal on your cover. Keep in mind that he, and Cheney, Rove, and Rice are all folks who have no clue about "service" to their country's military. Rumsfeld did serve, but left when the VN war was heating up. Shame on Parade Magazine! Let's send them all to the World Court.


With 1 or 2 out of 21 comments being pro-Bush, for no real reason besides that he is The Decider, the captions cry out...its really quite unbelievable:

Bush's' "Special Year".
Very disappointing.
Too Sick to Read On.
what were you thinking?
Could'nt get Al Gore to do your cover?
Unreal.
Are You Kidding Me?



But my favorite comment of them all and one that represents my feelings exactly:

By odziana@charter.net on 12/30/2007 2:32:PM

This man has lead by fear and lies and you ask him anything. He is as deep as a toenail. Our countries greatest assets are our deversity and open heartedness. He represents none of that. Why not ask a mass murderer what made his year special, at least they would have health care and meals. something this president does not seem to even know we need. Well when you never have to touch the middle class, nor care to, I guess you can be optimistic. If he really , really cared about us, he would let go of his stubborness (fear) and stop killing us in oh so many ways. Verta Odziana, michigan


An interesting addendum to the Parade issue is that Parade's upcoming issue was supposed to contain the last interview of Benazir Bhutto that had been scheduled to be released on the first Sunday in January. It was written by Gail Sheehy, who traveled to Pakistan and followed Bhutto as she campaigned across the country, interviewing her twice at her residence. In light of Bhutto's assassination, Parade has published the piece online this weekend.
I will be interested to see if she still appears on the cover next weekend.

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, December 06, 2007

This delusional man is the one who will decide if we attack Iran
Posted by Jill | 9:55 AM
Dick Cheney still says that if you really, really, really believe in fairies, Tinkerbell will live:

Vice President Cheney today predicted Iraq will be a self-governing democracy by the time he leaves office, calling the current U.S. surge strategy “a remarkable success story” that will be studied for years to come.

In an interview with Politico, Cheney offered a remarkably upbeat view of Iraq, despite continued violence and political paralysis in the war-torn nation.

Cheney, who has been widely criticized for overly optimistic — and sometime flat wrong — projections in the past, sounded as confident as ever that the Bush administration will achieve its objectives in Iraq.

“I am fairly confident we’ll have [Iraq] in a good place, where we’ll be able to look back on it and say, 'That was the right decision. It was a sound decision going into Iraq,'” Cheney told us in a 40-minute White House interview.

Sounding a note of caution, the vice president said: "We've got a lot of work to do. We're sort of halfway through the surge, in a sense. We'll be going back to pre-surge levels over the course of the next year."

But Cheney said that by the middle of January 2009, it will be clear that “we have in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future.”

All of that by 2009? “Yes, sir,” he replied.


Why does anyone take this man seriously anymore, and why isn't he locked up in a hospital for mentally ill criminals? If nothing else shows that the man isn't capable of performing the tasks of his office, this does.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, November 22, 2007

Why not just say "He's a schmuck, but he's our schmuck"?
Posted by Jill | 7:38 AM
And one from the "piss down my back and tell me it's raining" file:

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.
[snip]

Several outside analysts and a key Democratic lawmaker expressed incredulity over Bush's comments and called them a sign of how personally invested the president has become in the U.S. relationship with Musharraf.

"What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" asked Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "He's already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in Vladimir Putin's soul."


It may very well be that Musharraf is the US' best hope for keeping Pakistan, and its nuclear weapons, out of the hands of the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and the many other Bad Operators™ lurking in the mountains. But that doesn't make him a beacon of democratic hope.

Of course, given how George W. Bush has run his own government, it's clear that his definition of "democracy" isn't exactly the one the rest of us have.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, September 04, 2007

No longer willing to be Captain Codpiece's sacrificial lamb
Posted by Jill | 6:19 AM
Some people who have escaped the bubble are no longer willing to be George W. Bush's sacrificial lamb.

Saturday's New York Times had an article which clearly illustrated what an appalling and sociopathic individual the current occupant of the White House is. From his open admission that he planned to give speeches "to replenish the ol' coffers" (as if someone with $21 million in assets gained by having his way greased by his father's cronies needs to replenish anything) to his outright lie that the Administration's policy had been to keep the Iraqi Army intact, it truly reflects the psychopathology of this man. Regarding the latter, the article stated:

Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, “The policy was to keep the army intact; didn’t happen.”

But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush’s former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army’s dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, “Yeah, I can’t remember, I’m sure I said, ‘This is the policy, what happened?’ ” But, he added, “Again, Hadley’s got notes on all of this stuff,” referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.


But Bremer is having none of it. No longer part of the Bush Bubble, and perhaps with no dead girls or live boys for the Bush Junta to expose, he's setting the record straight:
A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

Mr. Bremer provided the letters to The New York Times on Monday after reading that Mr. Bush was quoted in a new book as saying that American policy had been “to keep the army intact” but that it “didn’t happen.”

The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents. In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush’s comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House.

“We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddam and the Baathists are finished,” Mr. Bremer wrote in a letter that was drafted on May 20, 2003, and sent to the president on May 22 through Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.

After recounting American efforts to remove members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein from civilian agencies, Mr. Bremer told Mr. Bush that he would “parallel this step with an even more robust measure” to dismantle the Iraq military.

One day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. “Your leadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.”

So which is it? Is Bush's brain (his biological one, not his doughy, smirking Rasputin, Karl Rove) so destroyed by alcohol at this point that he simply can't remember? Is his psychopathology so far gone that he has simply rewritten history to fit his delusions? Or is he simply lying? Any of these explanations is equally appalling, and equally terrifying, given the current talk of an imminent attack on Iran.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, August 25, 2007

Barack Obama: I'll play nice with these Republicans
Posted by Jill | 9:40 PM
*sigh*

You want to know why I'm not on Team Obama?

This is why:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama often says he will be a candidate that will bring both parties together and Saturday he named a few of the Republicans he would reach out to if elected.

"There are some very capable Republicans who I have a great deal of respect for," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties."

Among the Republicans he would seek help from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama said.

"On foreign policy I've worked very closely with Dick Lugar," Obama said. "I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. He's someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy."

"Senator Warner is another example of somebody with great wisdom, although I don't always agree with him on every issue," Obama said. "I would also seek out people like Tom Coburn, who is probably the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. He has become a friend of mine."


Here's what John Edwards has to say about the politics of compromise:





"My view is that if you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food."

For the last six years, we have seen Republicans, including John Warner and Dick Lugar and Tom Coburn, vote in lockstep with their party's president no matter how much they may have protested beforehand. The Republican way is "Do it our way. Period." You simply cannot compromise with these people, because the Republican Party does not believe in compromise. The Republican Party does not believe in "reaching across the aisle." The Republican Party has been about destroying its opposition by any means possible -- and then spitting on and stomping on the corpse.

And Barack Obama wants to do business with these people? Barack Obama thinks that by being a "nice guy" he'll be ABLE to do business with these people? How's he going to do that? We need to know just how much he plans to "compromise" with a guy like Tom Coburn.

Tom Coburn, on the network television airing of Schindler's List, 1997:

``the fact that it aired on public television on a Sunday evening during a family time should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere...I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program. They were exposed to the violence of multiple gunshot head wounds, vile language, full frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity. It simply should not have been allowed on public television.''




Tom Coburn, July 2003:


"I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life,"


Tom Coburn, Spring 2004:

"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."


Tom Coburn, Medicaid Fraudster.

And this is one of Barack Obama's "good friends"?

Sorry, Barack, but the days of Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy going at each other on the floor of the Senate and then going out for dinner are over. Republicans decided what their rules are going to be, and they do not include reaching across the aisle to you. And do you know what you call candidates who continue to believe that they can work with these people?

Losers.

Ask John Kerry.

UPDATE: Saje Williams at the John Edwards blog has it exactly right:

We'll make peace with the Republicans. On OUR terms. As soon as they surrender their racist, sexist, homophobic, holier than thou certainty that THEY are right and WE are wrong. As soon as they apologize for calling us traitors, or allowing others who claim to represent them to do it. As soon as they apologize for branding people like Natalie Maines, Dick Durbin, Tom Dashle, and others as "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers" for disagreeing with President George W. Bush on the way to handle the so-called "War On Terror."

We'll bury the hatchet as soon as they repudiate the self-centered, self-aggrandizing, and inflexible "conservative" notion of "voodoo economics." As soon as they recognize that not everyone in America gets an even shot at success, and as soon as they join us in fighting to change that. As soon as they step up to defend the middle class, and the helping hand the middle class extends downward to those in need. As soon as they realize that the ultra-rich shouldn't be able to decide for the rest of us what our priorities should be.

We'll shake hands with the Republicans as soon as they admit that their religion, and their religious book, should NOT be the answer to all arguments about the nature of the cosmos, the history of the human race, and whether gays have the right to live in peace. We wouldn't put up with the Taliban here in the United States, and we will NOT put up with similar inflexibility from them either.

We'll kiss and make up when they recognize that we have a duty to this planet, to all the other forms of life that live here, and that we are both responsible for the damage we've caused and for striving to fix as much of it as we can. When they roll up their sleeves and stand beside us, working to make this world a better place again. When they too decide that the long-term fate of their children and grandchildren are more important than short-term profits.

We'll play nice as soon as they stop insulting us, insulting our intelligence, treating us like second-class citizens, and tell people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and their ilk that they DO NOT speak for them. As soon as they make it clear they DON'T want us jailed, or killed, for the crime of disagreeing with them or the Bush administration. As soon as they stand up and say to their representatives that they respect the Constitution and don't respect anyone who refuses to abide by it.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, July 07, 2007

Is this what's called Joementum?
Posted by Jill | 5:57 PM
Joe Lieberman, July 1, on This Week with George Snuffalupagus:

As long as we have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then I'm going to say it's worth it for us to stay...The surge is working. So you might say that, in Iraq, we've got the enemy on the run.


Reality, today:

A deadly truck bombing in a busy market in northern Iraq has killed 105 people and injured 240, police say.
The morning blast destroyed the market in the small town of Amirli, south of Kirkuk, killing many people instantly and trapping dozens among the rubble.

It was the deadliest single attack in Iraq since April, correspondents say.

It came as 29 people were killed in separate violence, including 22 people who died overnight in Diyala province when a suicide bomber hit a cafe.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share