I knew there was a reason I only check in on the news once a day instead of looking at the 24 hour news cycle! What a horrible world we live in. To wit:
The NYT published this article on that troop surge's lack of efficacy. I found it surprisingly even-handed towards the Bush admin for their plan's failure... but then, he can only go so low in the polls, right?
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
After the NYT broke it, the Post picked it up
here.
Also in Iraq news, the Guardian reports that all three of the captured soldiers from May are now dead.
The Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of insurgents that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, released a video yesterday in which it claimed to have killed all three American soldiers who went missing in the country last month.
...
In a translation by Associated Press, the video makers say the captives were killed in retaliation for the intense US search for them: "Fearing that this will have bad repercussions, the State of Islam decided to, and announced, their killing, making it a bitter result for the enemies of God, because they were alive and then dead."
On the environmental front,
Bush is asking for countries to set "aspiration goals" regarding greehouse gas emissions when you really know that he and his cronies are just going to try to find a way to make money off of carbon trading. Meanwhile,
China Outlines Modest Environmental Goals, rejecting caps because they "hurt economic development". My real problem with the whole "hurts economic development" excuse is that I don't think it's a worthwhile excuse for polluting the environment. Production and profits may be sky high, but there's a larger cost that really needs to be considered. Someone needs to send China a copy of
The Lorax and CC Bush while they're at it.
And last, but not least, Hillary speaks out about how her "faith" helped her deal with Bill's infidelity. Notice her non-demoninational use of the word "faith" and then ask yourself whether this is all just politics. And she really had me liking her after the debate last night on CNN!
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values.
"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," she said in response to a question about how she dealt with the infidelity.
"I take my faith very seriously and very personally," she said. "And I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves."
As far as what she says about tradition, I actually understand since my Mom went to the same high school as Hillary and also has the same Mid-Western approach towards keeping religion personal.
Per the article, my candidate
Obama had some good points that
didn't talk about Bill's tomcatting.
Obama's appearance focused more on policy than the personal. Asked whether he agreed with President Bush's portrayal of the current global struggles in terms of good verses evil, Obama said there is a risk in viewing the world in such terms.
He said he believes that the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were the result of evil. But he said that the United States' treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is unjust.
"The danger of using good verses evil in the context of war is that it may lead us to be not as critical as we should about our own actions," Obama said to applause.
OK, that's all I've got.
Read More...
Summary only...
