TAP delivers ten expert opinions on the importance of the surge in Iraq. They seem to be inclined to emphasize the distinction between the increase in troop levels and the change in tactics, but of course the original surge as explained by George Bush in Jan 2007 involved both - more troops were needed for a broad clear and hold approach:
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
MORE: The Anon Lib points out that the threat of US withdrawal hung over the actions of the various participants and was cited in the Aug 2007 NIE as having motivated cooperation with the US:
Two new drivers have emerged since the January Estimate: expanded Sunni opposition to AQI and Iraqi expectation of a Coalition drawdown. Perceptions that the Coalition is withdrawing probably will encourage factions anticipating a power vacuum to seek local security solutions that could intensify sectarian violence and intra-sectarian competition. At the same time, fearing a Coalition withdrawal, some tribal elements and Sunni groups probably will continue to seek accommodation with the Coalition to strengthen themselves for a post-Coalition security environment.
Well. Elsewhere in the same NIE is the news that US troops helped the Anbar Awakening:
• Sunni Arab resistance to AQI has expanded, and neighborhood security groups, occasionally consisting of mixed Shia-Sunni units, ave proliferated in the past several months. These trends, combined with increased Coalition operations, have eroded AQI’s operational presence and capabilities in some areas.
If we are going to cite past NIE's, here is their Jan 2007 thinking about the impact of a withdrawal:
Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
That was the best guess of the intelligence community at the time that Obama was putting forward his " Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007", known here as the surrender speech (but see the WaPo coverage).
It seems pretty easy to make the case that the surge helped and that expert opinion in Jan 2007 was that rapid withdrawal would have been a disaster, at least in Iraq; as Obama explained to Ms. Couric, it would have freed up troops and money for Afghanistan, energy independence, or improved health care. The Big Picture is important!
And of course, this is not a laboratory so we can't prove anything.
Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings gets it about right - the rest are playing memebot very well.
It's amusing that these experts (O'Hanlon excepted) make no reference to the length of time required to raise and train reliable Iraqi security forces. It is also interesting to note the abject failure of these experts to assign any value to Maliki's operation in Basra - the one that makes their reference to Mookies "truce" rather risible.
An excellent meme production effort with the result that the analysis is lacking.
Shocker, I know.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 28, 2008 at 06:50 PM
No mention either,that Sadr is Iran's,lock stock and beard.Time to resurrect the word Quisling.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 28, 2008 at 07:13 PM
Rick, Lt Col Nagl doesn't deserve to be thrown in with the TAPists.
Posted by: bgates | July 28, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Bear in mind that it takes twenty years to train a US infantry battalion commander. What the US has accomplished with the Iraqis in roughly four years is pretty amazing to me.
I didn't fly-speck all of the comments, although for many years I have found it easy to ignore anything said by Juan Cole or Lawrence Korb, both of whom are contentious ideologues. (It was Cole who declared that a principal cause of 9/11 was some event in Israel that actually didn't occur until April of 2002.)
I tend to agree with the multiple-cause analysis, with the surge being an important and essential one. We've had some good luck; we had some good luck at Midway, too, but that's warfare.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2008 at 08:20 PM
bgates,
You're absolutely correct - I thought I read all ten but I somehow missed him. Totally an error of omission on my part. His last sentence
encapsulates what I've been attempting to say.Our armed forces have done a suberb job in aiding and advising the Iraqis as they raised the forces necessary to maintain order. The surge troops provided the backstop necessary in case the Iraqis slipped. They didn't slip and Maliki's operation in Basra showed that they can do the job without much more help.
Time to fire up the Tommy Franks/Al Anbar Joint Armor Training Facility in preparation for the Tehran/Damascus show. By '10 it will be time to raise the curtain.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 28, 2008 at 08:26 PM
" The surge's purpose was to have a military time frame where there would be military, uh, security to enable the government of Iraq to make the political changes necessary for reconciliation. I said it before when I was here, and I'll say it again. Even with all the time that has elapsed, they still have not done that. The purpose of the surge was to pass the laws to bring reconciliation, so we could bring our troops home safely soon, honorably and responsibly; and that has not happened. Now the government of Iraq is saying, "We want you to go home," so maybe the time has come for us to sit down with them and figure that out."
-Nancy Pelosi on "The View" this morning. (She also reminded everyone that she is third in line for the thrones of the Presidency)
Don't remind me Nazi Pelosi, I am scared enough. :)
Posted by: Ann | July 28, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Ann,
Never forget to include Reid with the Dem Oil Nazis.
"No oil for you, America"
Harry, Nan and the Copperhead Caucus say so.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 28, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Basically, there are many disgruntled lefties who hope to split so many hairs that Bush can receive no credit for success in Iraq. I'd rather be head butted by Hulk Hogan than yes, butted by that crowd.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | July 28, 2008 at 09:42 PM
I love the stuff about how what really caused our success was the tribes' decisons to oppose Al Qaeda and side with us, and Sadr's decision to cool it.
What really caused our success in World War II was Hirohito's decision to surrender, and Hitler's decision to commit suicide. Without those two events, all of our effort would have been wasted. The "surges" at Normandy, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were pretty much distractions.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2008 at 09:43 PM
This could be a lot of fun...
The principal reason for the British success at the Nile was Adm. Brueys's decision to anchor in Aboukir Bay. Horatio Nelson really had very little to do with it.
You want more?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Rick,
It seems that when gas hit $4.00 a gallon is when people started paying attention and voicing their anger. If it stays under $4.00 until the election, will the Democratic Congress do anything? Since gas is always higher in the summer time will it go down? (That of course, does not take into any concideration of Iran and their war games)
Also, all amendments would need 60 votes to pass the senate and Nazi Pelosi says she won't allow a vote on a bill that includes new offshore oil drilling. What a mess but a great issue to win in November if we had anyone with a backbone on our side.
--------------
I should of mentioned that clip was from RUSH who made a point of contrasting it with Obama's remarks on MTP. Which was:
OBAMA: There's no doubt that the violence has gone down more than any of us anticipated, including President Bush and John McCain. If you -- if you -- if you had talked to them, uh, and -- and said, you know, what, we're going to bring down violence to levels that we have, I think -- I suspect USA Today's own editorial board wouldn't have anticipated that.
Rush's point was:
Pelosi today on The View says the surge isn't working because the politicians of Iraq have not taken control of their country. Obama says it's worked better than even Bush or Cheney thought, or McCain thought.
Posted by: Ann | July 28, 2008 at 10:17 PM
The real reason we succeeded at Iwo Jima was that all the Japanese defenders died. The US Marine Corps' role was more or less a peripheral one.
OK, I've had two Martinis and I'm on a roll. I'll kick back and wait for the contributions of others, but I do think this is a target-rich environment.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Cole's point about the Dulaim tribesmen, is important. However, the same dynamicoccurred
in Salahuddin, (Nineveh)Mosul, and other areas (Mosul was where one of the leading lights of the Ilkwan; Ahmed al Ghamdi, son of the Saudi Ambassador to Sudan; detonated himself at a base canteen back in Christmas 2005; apparently using an Iraqi Natl Guard uniform) Now it's one of one stalwart bases
of the Sahwas. Had the US pulled out, as most who had "Civil War" at the peak of the tribal Awakenings or Sahwas; had recommended
they would not have likely prevailed. That is the point about Col. (now Gen.McFarland's
remarks) Not only that, but the Sadr and Badr onslaughts, would have likely brought more direct intervention by aggrieved Sunni parties in Arabia, Egypt, et al; not to mention the intervention from AQ elements in Shia sanctuaries like Seyf al Adel. Biddle, was among the more nuanced voices arguing it was a 'consocial civil war' but
none the less argued against continued deployments. In that he echoed
unintentionally? the remarks of the likes of Maliki; who previously was considered so inept that he was nearly given the Diem or
Khanh treatment.
on
Posted by: narciso | July 28, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Isn't this all we really need to know about the war and the surge:
Michael O'Hanlon: "I]t was the United States that organized the Awakening tribes into a coherent military and policing effort. It was the United States, with Iraqi Security Forces, that cleared cities like Ramadi — and unlike in past efforts, kept forces there afterwards to preserve the stability and keep extremists like al-Qaeda in Iraq out of the places from which they had been driven. It was the United States that sufficiently intimidated Muqtada al-Sadr into realizing a ceasefire better served his interests than would a renewal of battle. It was American and Iraqi security forces that, in larger numbers than before and with new operational guidelines and tactics, built blast barriers near markets, put up concrete dividers along sectarian fault lines in Baghdad, created joint security stations and started walking the streets to protect the Iraqi population, and conducted raids on insurgent safehouses and weapons caches at two to three times the rate of previous years (largely due to improved intelligence made possible by a safer, friendler, better protected population). And through all these combined efforts, it was largely the United States that was able to figure out which Iraqi commanders needed to be purged — and that then put pressure on the Iraqi government to replace them.” (via HotAir plus exciting Pelosi video if you have the stomach)
Obama can get away with his meaningless carp but not this!!!
Posted by: Ann | July 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I like a man who drinks Martini's and then just sits back waiting to knock down targets!
Meanwhile, back to my Manhattans and being a target (a little inside joke DOT).
Posted by: centralcal | July 28, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Let us not forget that Alexander only conquered large swaths of Asia because of the assassination of Darius III. The retreats from Issus and Gaugamela were a crucial part of Darius' campaign, a fact that is only appreciated by such great tacticians as Barack Obama, who, like Darius, saw his well-conceived strategy undone by the ill-considered actions of others.
Posted by: Elliott | July 28, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Horatio Nelson really had very little to do with it.
DoT,
Same with Trafalgar. The real reason the British won was becuase the French and Spanish lost all those ships. Nelson's unorthodox battle plan had nothing to do with it. And Napoleon was off mucking about with Austria and Russia and didn't care about England anymore so it didn't really matter anyway.
Posted by: Porchlight | July 28, 2008 at 11:07 PM
HotAir says Wikipedia has "locked" in John Edwards' entry so no "rumors" can be entered. How does he rate?
Posted by: centralcal | July 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Napoleon only lost to Wellington because he wanted to be remembered inaccurately in the lyrics of the most celebrated of all Eurovision Song Contest entries.
Thank you for the music!
Posted by: Elliott | July 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I love the stuff about how what really caused our success was the tribes' decisons to oppose Al Qaeda and side with us, and Sadr's decision to cool it.
So we win, they lose. Nice to see Congress getting on board with Reagan's strategy.
Posted by: bgates | July 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Seriously, folks--in the long term (next 99 days), I don't think that downplaying the role played by American soldiers and marines in this thing is a good way to win over the undecideds. If this glib fraud doesn't come up with a better line of spin he could regret this whole dispute.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 28, 2008 at 11:33 PM
President Bush - March 22, 2006
I suppose that was way too complicated for the experts to understand.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Rick,thanks for posting that. I remember listening with some smalle trepidition as he said:
"They can't beat us militarily, but they can try to shake our will. See, remember, I told you, they have said that it's just a matter of time, just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve. I believe we're doing the right thing, and we're not going to retreat in the face of thugs and assassins. (Applause.)"
and saying a prayer for the President who was taking such a beating from all sides.(please God, let it work.)And now thankfulness for a steadfast President and our incredible troops. God bless 'em all!
Posted by: SWarren | July 29, 2008 at 01:21 AM
Amen.
Posted by: arrowhead | July 29, 2008 at 02:15 AM
Amen here too.
Posted by: Sara | July 29, 2008 at 04:07 AM
Good Morning to all!
I'd like to add my amen. I thank God that President Bush occupies the White House today and not John Kerry. As SWarren says our troops are incredible. May God bless everyone of them and their families.
Posted by: Pagar | July 29, 2008 at 06:17 AM
Good Morning, all:
Clarice and other esteemed members of the Bar--DID YOU CATCH GORELICK'S OPINION PIECE IN THE POST? Oh my gosh, she/the ??? author of the "wall" at justice complains about republicans actually wanting to work with republicans when they were the ones who actually had won the past two executive elections whose right it was to hire/fire?
This is not original. They are starting to bring out their old dems in charge to destroy President Bush's legacy. But it won't work, the bloggers are there to set it straight.
Oh, Clarice, DOT, answer her back.
Posted by: glenda waggoner | July 29, 2008 at 07:28 AM
gw, I was nauseated halfway through and quit reading it.
==================================
Posted by: kim | July 29, 2008 at 07:47 AM
Hail, morning contingent.
Posted by: Elliott | July 29, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Gorelick is one of the clearest examples of media bias. She was deeply enmeshed in two of the biggest disasters of recent American history. She literally created "the wall", agaist the strong objections of career DoJ prosecutors, which resulted making 9/11 much harder to prevent. Then, after that, she was a senior exec at Fannie Mae, where she racked in millions of un-deserved bonuses thanks to "Enron style" accounting. Yet she is still allowed to publish OpEds in major papers. If she were a Republican she would have be roundly ignored and her devistating history would be brought up any time she raised her head and tried to speak.
Posted by: Ranger | July 29, 2008 at 08:32 AM
As time passes it's worth considering that the surge was necessitated by the existence of the worthless, gutless, backstabbing bastards who comprise the core of the Copperhead Caucus (as distinguished from the Blue Dog caucus - primarily by the yellow streak with a red border running down their backs). They are the ones who gave AQ and the Sunni sheiks who had invited them into their homes the will to continue and they are the ones who gave that same hope to Sadr and his followers.
Both sets of murderous thugs drew strength from the knowledge that, as brave and as ruthlessly efficient as American forces had proven themselves to be, there existed enough widespread rot within the American political system (aided and abetted by the media) that if they just kept up the indiscriminate slaughter for a while longer, the Congressional cowards, as exemplified by Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid might be able to turn the tide in their favor.
The Copperhead Caucus killed Americans and Iraqis as surely as any jihadi did and they did it in pursuit of political power. Until the Copperhead Caucus is driven from the leadership of the Democrat Party, the party will remain, IMO, the home of sedition - and treason when the Copperheads feel they can get away with it.
That's why I'll be voting for a man for whom I have very little respect. I would no more give my vote to a cowardly piece of crap like Obama than I would to Josef Stalin - and I will not withhold my vote and give such a creature support by doing so.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 29, 2008 at 08:44 AM
Bravo Rick Ballard and I agree on all points.
Posted by: royf | July 29, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Get a life.
Posted by: Neo | July 29, 2008 at 09:13 AM
Yahoo currently has a headline saying:
"UPS saves fuel by turning right".
Just think how much could be saved if all of America turned right.
LUN
Posted by: pagar | July 29, 2008 at 09:14 AM
pagar
Some of us were born right.
Posted by: bad | July 29, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Pelosi's characteristic of the warmers; they are getting shrill and desperate.
====================
Posted by: kim | July 29, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Bad, that was a good link. IMO, everyone born in the USA is born right, it's just that some
(in fact-an entire political party) went left and have ended up wrong.
Rick Ballard, that was a great post. I would have added that the killing of American and allied soldiers by the American left started in Vietnam, but you got everything you covered right. That would be a great read for Rush on his show. Even better would be a full page ad in a major pro American (are there any?) newspaper.
Posted by: pagar | July 29, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Successful Surges...Against Japanese Beetles
Today's D Section of the WSJ has letters from readers who offer their own remedies in response to the War of the Roses article about Japanese Beetles. The listed techniques include:
Domestic fowl: chickens and guinea fowl. Claims for "100%" success, although free ranging can be a problem.
Sevin: Excellent results.
Nematodes: Discourages the little buggers, but doesn't eliminate.
Milky Spores: Claims for excellent results.
Posted by: anduril | July 29, 2008 at 09:49 AM
Pelosi may be getting desperate, but she started shrill.
Posted by: bgates | July 29, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Chickens or Sevin? Nematodes or milky spores? Choices, choices.
Think I will go with the Sevin.
(I have no idea what the heck milky spores are!)
Posted by: centralcal | July 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Rasmussen today:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Barack Obama’s Berlin bounce is gone. Obama now attracts 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. Compared to a week ago, Obama has gained a single percentage point (see recent daily results). However, the week’s polling showed a roller-coaster of opinion surrounding Obama’s big speech. The event in Berlin was well-covered and initial reviews on the speech were positive"
Posted by: clarice | July 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Defeated Surge...Against Fannie Mae Bailout
The WSJ today has a must read lead editorial, Fannie Mae's Political Immunity. Now, you might ask, what could possibly buy you political immunity, and the answer of course is: money. Lots of money. But wait, that sounds corrupt, you say. Surely the purchase of political immunity is illegal? Not when the money is given to the people who make the laws, it's not. Here are some quotes.
I've been critical of John McCain, so I owe it to him to quote this brief article in full:
Posted by: anduril | July 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Karl has a truly excellent piece on The [truly gutless] One and his "achievements". It's a clip and save for review as we count down the 100 days.
Kim,
The warmer/peakers have a problem similiar to that of business writers who invested heavily in knocking the economy. Reality just isn't cooperating. Pelosi, as head of the progressive immiseration movement, can shriek until she's hoarse but the ice won't melt and it still snowed in Sydney.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM
They let the 'zelig of disaster' back in the pen; I'll coin the phrase as my own,
mentioned it twice now. So she went from
authorizing the 'rendition' of Elian Gonzalez (to paraphrase the apocryphal line
attributed to Baker, F!#$$ @#, They don't vote for them)at the same time, that her memo made discovery of Al Midhar and Al Hamzi; the Mecca twins, motivated by Bosnia
and Chechnya, almost impossible to identify.
She then goes on the 9/11 Commission, effectively whitewashing her negligence and Berger's 'editing of the 2000 after action report' wait for it, goes to Wilmer Cutler Pickering, represents a plaintiff in the 9/11 class action suits; the head of the Islamic Banking Federation, possibly using
inside information, she gleaned from the commission (conjecture, but reasonably arrived) receives a 'botella' as the political sinecures that Charles Magoon
brought from Ohio's political machine,
would be characterized; as a director with Fannie Mae, which along with Freddie's exposure, could cost 40 years in Iraq. Thanks to Raines (who cooked the budget books, Enron/Global/World Com after '97,
the real reason, that Cogan chart from
Hoover is samizdat)Meanwhile, it seems the only punishment is to aggressively look for conservative candidates and Sampson & Goodling are learning. To prevent another Walsh, Fiske (at Justice, or more to the point, a recess appointment like Glenn Fine) McCarthy, Armstrong at CIA, is apparently a criminal offense. Only Bolton, Reich (A Cuban Jew whose parents were Holocaust survivors can be characterized as Nazis) Negroponte, (because he chose not to betray another people to communism; Honduras)the former Congressional staffers who made up Goss's top staff are to be barred from high office. Rodriguez, the only top Company/NCS man who was burned
without consequence, and will likely be forced to regret defending his associates
from malicious law suits (re; the tapes) Stimson, Coughlin, can actually be forced
out of the Pentagon, for haramunderstandings
of the facts; regarding the War on Terror. A fellow like Brennan can go from Tenet's briefer to chief of Station in Riyadh; the Temple of Doom, to the TTIC to the Obama campaign; while running the Analyst Shop; whose security is pitiful without nary a comment.
That is the irony of the outrage over
'outsourcing intelligence' and green badges
at Langley; most likely like Maguire, the station chief who leaked his way out of his Baghdad posting; Armitage, Zinni, Grenier,
et al, they are more likely administration critics rather than agency stalwarts of the administration. What's Herr Drumheller doing now a days; what does one when you're in between return gigs to Matthews and Olbermann. Pay attention, Scott (this is your life now) ;'Jacob Marley's chains clanging in the distance.
Lake, it is suggested can preside over the toppling of half a dozen friendly regimes
(Diem, '63, Minh, Tranh, Cambodia,Nicaragua,
Iran, with efforts in Guatemala, El Salvador ,et al) and be on the cue for Secretary of State, in the "Prophet's" administration; one saw the arrogance when he was denied his rightful posting at CIA
based on his record. Richardson is never to be asked what were the terms of his negotiations in Iraq, Sudan, N. Korea, Cuba
(most fatally and faithfully)Leverett, who probably arranged the 'Rendition Express' to the Dar Falastin office of the Syrian
Mukharabat, that gave the Maher Ahar case, will likely be promoted to division chief.
Posted by: narciso | July 29, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Incipient Surge...Against India
A sobering article from the WSJ (I do read other papers, but...): Target: India.
Now I'm off to prime woodwork and leave you in peace.
Posted by: anduril | July 29, 2008 at 10:25 AM
narciso--zelig of disaster is certainly copyrighted to you and it is a brilliant phrase.
I wish I could get you to slow down and write with more detail and explanation so even a dunce like me could get all you are saying.
Posted by: clarice | July 29, 2008 at 10:37 AM
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that Barack Obama’s Berlin bounce is gone."
Never hath such a great figure traveled so many miles and made so many photo ops and spoke to so many people for so little a bounce.
Posted by: ben | July 29, 2008 at 10:39 AM
And in the "no limit to arrogance category"...
ARLINGTON, Virginia (CNN) – Barack Obama told donors at a Monday night fundraiser just across the Potomac River from Washington that “the odds of us winning are very good."
Posted by: ben | July 29, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Did you guys see LUN from Gateway Pundit? Apparently Obama made it pretty clear in Iraq that it was important to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq in order to validate his "judgment".
What a guy!
Posted by: Jane | July 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Ben
Here is what I am rapidly coming to as a conclusion on this. I too have never seen a bounce evaporate so fast. Like morning dew, gone by 10 am.
I am starting to think that Obama's one strength, his speechifying is becoming a weakness. The press told us the Berlin speech was amazing. And some voters obviously initially reacted positively.
But it appears to me that soaring rhetoric speech well delivered, are quickly becoming olestra filled speechs. That is there is no substance and when the speech is read and comprehended, that is quite apparent. Plus there is the whole arrogance and not having much to be arrogant about. Kerry lost partially because he was not likable. Obama seems to be heading in the same direction.
What happens to this guy when his handlers can no longer tightly script every move, keep press and public well behind the rope lines and artificial boundaries and he must react in public debates? I would say thinking Democrats should be concerned. Of course Hill Democrats may be secretly gloating.
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM
important to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq in order to validate his "judgment".
At the risk of sounding bitter AND cynical-- did you really expect any better from the speech spewer?
Posted by: bad | July 29, 2008 at 11:05 AM
GMax--remember, too--his only debates were as part of a giant kickline with the moderators generally giving him the fluff questions and no follow up.
Even lefty Richard Cohen of the Wa Po can't think of a single accomplishment of note other than the 2004 speech he gave at the Dem convention.
As for his strong point--his speechifying, not a single phrase is as memorable or quotatble (or steal-able as narciso's "zelig of disaster" or Rick's "Ambassador Munchausen").
Posted by: clarice | July 29, 2008 at 11:06 AM
At the risk of sounding bitter AND cynical-- did you really expect any better from the speech spewer?
Yeah I guess I did.
Posted by: Jane | July 29, 2008 at 11:07 AM
What happens to this guy when his handlers can no longer tightly script every move...
What happens to the US after he is elected when his advisors are busy doing the bidding of Pelosi and Reid while this guy is spending large chunks of time thinking?
Posted by: bad | July 29, 2008 at 11:08 AM
**quotable***
Posted by: clarice | July 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Not to mention energy, passion, or excitement in Obama himself in his recent speeches. They seem to be as though coming from a robot. And, after most of the public hearing the Rev. Wright there is a ghost of him in some of Obama's cadence and pronunciation.
Posted by: centralcal | July 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM
"I am starting to think that Obama's one strength, his speechifying is becoming a weakness."
Could be, Gmax, especially if the perception really sticks that its all fluff and no substance. If the election can be shaped into "wow Obama is a great orator, but he is going to double the capital gains tax and cost me a lot of dough" people might be able to live with "my friends" instead.
Posted by: ben | July 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Mornin', Jane et al.
Did I simply get out of bed on the right side this morning, or is the bloom finally coming off the rose? Are we gonna look back at the European trip and say that was his peak, and he peaked too early?
I'm fascinated by the wailing-wall note story. The paper that published Obama's prayer--and got attacked for it--now says that publication was pre-approved by the Obama campaign. Not only that, copies of the handwritten prayer were distributed by the campaign at the King David Hotel. In the meantime, the campaign has acquiesced in the whole invasion-of-privacy theme adopted by the press. If these facts are accurate, we're looking at wilful deception, exposed. Eager to see how this plays out.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Any of the regulars who remember back when I tried to explain Collateralized Debt Obligations and residuals using a cookie dough reference, I wanted to point out that yesterday ML agreed to sell the CDOs for $.22 on the dollar. That is quite low and while not zero gives you an idea of how crazy some of the valuations on the residuals and B pieces got.
I happen to believe that well studied they are worth a lot more than $.22, so that someone is going to make a lot on Wall Street ignorance but brokerage houses are not good places to park long term illiquid investments.
If Citicorp follows soon with a sale of their own, we will start to be on the road to solving the investment bank crisis.
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Glenn Greenwald has an surrealistic article in Salon (via Real Clear Politics) claiming that the reason Congress is unpopular is that the Blue Dogs wont help with a far left agenda. His prescription is that they should be defeated, even if it elects Republicans in their place, in order to achieve "ideological purity" (my words). If you can stomach the idea that Nancy Polosi is part of a "functional right wing dominance of Congress" you can pick up the link at RCP.
Posted by: ben | July 29, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Was it Glenn or one of the sock puppets that wrote the article? You have to look carefully as they all sound the same!
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Amir Taheri in the NYPost today:
"Iraqis were most surprised by Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he'd been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. 'He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,' a senior Iraqi official told me. 'As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.'
"Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they're still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can't do what his antiwar base wants - declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which 'citizens of the world' build bridges between civilizations.
"That's why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as 'his' war. He claims that Bush's focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 29, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Now the question is, who was on the Citicorp board, when they turned to subprime as collateral for their portfolios.
Deutsch and Nora Slatkin; the former CIA chief and executive director respectfully; for their financial acumen. Who together purged those officials in the DDO who had been considered too zealous in their work, (Ward, Brugger, et al)purged an asset list in the thousands, closed down CIA bases in key locations, like Hamburg and Dusseldorf
Of course, Rubin, joined later, managing their European outreach which as burned not a few foreign banks, like Northern Rock, now rising to the top over John Reed's body, and advising how to get out of the economic 'recession' in NewsWeek he had a not so insignificant role in precipitating. Chutzpah never smelled so rank. Lay at least
had a track record of achievement, both in govt and without; that's why the Golden boys, Rubin and Corzine, picked him to head
the HNG/ merger called Enron.
Posted by: narciso | July 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
narciso,
We mustn't skip Greenspan's very heavy thumb on the interest rate scales in '04-'06. Much of the mortgage fiasco just wouldn't have been possible without the Fed dishing out basically free money for much longer than the circumstances warranted.
BTW - for those following the effects of the Bush Drilling Rescission, the total drop is now over $27 with resistance at the $120 level. If it cracks $120 there really isn't another support level until $100 (maybe). Warm your thoughts with a contemplation of all the 30-50 year old women who are limiting their shopping forays and summer fun trips with the house monkeys watching the Dem Oil Nazis do their "No oil for you, America" dance in front of the cameras.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Well mark this as a turning point in the market. Minyanville who has been a doom and gloomer for quite some time now, has announced long positions in both Merrill Lynch and Wachovia Bank today. Next he will be buying homebuilders.
These sectors are pretty beat up, and if this guy sees bottom I would suggest at least some financial spiders long may make you a pretty return in the coming year.
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I must have imagined the time,when Greenspan
hiked rates, 18 times consecutively,between 2004 and 2006. A large number of the
mortgages reset at that point. This is not new in practice; Greenspan raised rates in the mid to late 90s, and it's impact, along with that of the modest surge in oil prices back then; popping the tech bubble, and toppling regional economies like Venezuela. This may have had something to do with the
Asian and Russian crisis, provoked by Soros.
Posted by: narciso | July 29, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Narciso,
You're right, of course, the thumb on the scales was '03-'04. The increase in '95-'00 were off of lows generated by the almost a recession in '92 weren't they?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 29, 2008 at 12:42 PM
GMax-
Can you drop in the link to your CDO comment?
Something that I was wondering about with those things-has anyone ever looked into if they were put together as "political candy" so the banks could pass out high return favors to get into international markets. One of the back drops on the global economy, which always seemed a bit odd, was the collapse of Middle East markets from late 05 to early 07. My point: were these CDO's held by Middle East banks first (which puffed up ME equity markets from 02-mid05) and when they started to go bad in late 05 the banks had to take them back and parked them offshore. It then took another year before the rot creeped over to Wall Street and they had to deal with them. Probably not, but nothing would really surprise me.
Posted by: RichatUF | July 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Clarice:
"However, the week’s polling showed a roller-coaster of opinion surrounding Obama’s big speech. The event in Berlin was well-covered and initial reviews on the speech were positive"
It's the Chinese Buffet Syndrome on the hungry left. On the right, it's the The Jane Effect.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Rich,
This Bloomberg piece covers the Merril Lynch shell game pretty well. It looks like Lone Star Funds would be the play that GMax is looking for.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 29, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Yes Lone Star ( whoever that is , my WAG would be a Bass Bros entity ) bought at 22 cents on the dollar. The link that Rick has up does say they round to 1/5 ( 20% ). Another key that I had not as yet picked up is ML is financing 75% of that, and its non recourse meaning after the 25% is eaten through ML has the next dollar of loss. Limited their downside and got all ups and leverage. I like their style. ML can thank their previous CEO ONeill for the paddling they took.
The whole swapping of equity thing is pretty suspect too. ML only got a fraction of new money in a separate transaction since the two transaction were simultaneous. That smells a little like the dead cats for dead dogs swaps that the thrifts tried back in the 80s. But maybe the positive publicity will help with perceptions.
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Thanks Rick and GMax.
Posted by: RichatUF | July 29, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Found this blurb on the WSJ if you are wondering about what ML sold:
Many CDOs held by Merrill were viewed as highly likely to default and lose some or most of their principal value. Of around 30 CDOs totaling $32 billion that Merrill underwrote in 2007, 27 have seen their top triple-A ratings downgraded to "junk," according to data compiled by Janet Tavakoli, a structured-finance consultant in Chicago. Their performance has been "dreadful," she says.
"Merrill is dealing with one of its issues, but they haven't explained how they could have had a team of highly paid and experienced professionals that ended up with this disastrous performance," said Ms. Tavakoli.
Actually I can help Ms. Tavakoli out. Go look at ONeil compensation and this group compensation. They got paid for volume, not quality. The bonuses are gone out the door with most of these rocket scientists.
Posted by: GMax | July 29, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Posted by: cathyf | July 29, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Anyone have the inside skinny on the new head of Wachovia? He's the head of Duke U's trustees (don't know if he was in the rape case mess), which doesn't inspire confidence.
I guess I shouldn't have expected the old idiot CEO to blow his brains out for buying a mortgage company at the height of the real estate bubble, but the gesture would have been nice. Wachovia (pre-First Union) did so well before the past year that it was a big chunk of my portfolio. "Not any more," as Inspector Cleusseau used to say.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 29, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Posted by mistake on a different thread. From Yahoo news:
LUN
Posted by: bad | July 29, 2008 at 05:43 PM
Here's a Friends of Duke University blog with a note on Chairman Steele:
"In criticizing President Brodhead, it should be kept in mind that he alone is not responsible for the University’s official policies and conduct. Indeed, those above him and below him bear greater culpability and their status needs to be addressed as well."
" Robert Steel, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees bears the greater responsibility for Duke’s official policies regarding the lacrosse case. Getting rid of him is a bigger priority for me than getting rid of Brodhead."
It's buried in the story about the middle of the last paragraph.
Thanks for bringing his role with Duke up, Ralph L. I had not noticed that when I read the Wachovia info. I had planned to close my account with them when Wachovia published their apology to whoever for whatever happened years before any current shareholder or employee was alive.
After reading of Chairman Steele and his role at Duke I am closing my account.
LUN
Posted by: pagar | July 29, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Sorry, I disagree..Brodhaed's was the principal responsibility..If the claim is that he behaved like a jackass to kiss a trustee's ass, that's still HIS problem. He is the person charged with the day to day administration of the school.
Posted by: clarice | July 29, 2008 at 05:54 PM
Clarice, I'm not in disagreement with you regarding Pres Brodhead and his duties, I just don't see Robert Steele as someone I want to insure the care of what little money I have.
Also, based on this report, IMO, Pres Brodhead had already established a reputation for destroying people and their lives. Given these facts the Board of Trustees should have never bought him to Duke University, IMO.
The article is long, to get a real sense of what was done to destroy the individual cited, one needs to read the entire article.
''When Jovin was murdered, justice took a backseat to damage control. Within days New Haven police and Yale officials publicly fingered political scientist James Van de Velde, Jovin's senior essay adviser. He was a star lecturer and had been a residential college dean. He was also a former White House appointee under George H. W. Bush and a member of the U.S. Naval Intelligence Reserves. Most Yale professors lean to the left of the student body; few in the political-science and international-relations departments have real-world experience. Van de Velde was the subject of personal jealousy and political animosity. Many faculty members — including Brodhead — looked askance at his desire to emphasize practical policymaking over theory. Some questioned, for example, his willingness to help Jovin write — in 1998 — about the threat posed by Osama bin Laden to the U.S. to be unscholarly. From an academic point-of-view, Van de Velde was a black sheep.
"Yale administrators did not care that there was neither evidence nor motive linking Van de Velde to Jovin. Her body had been found a half-mile from his house. Just as at Duke, Brodhead spoke eloquently about the principles of due process, but moved to subvert it. Citing the New Haven Police Department's naming of Van de Velde among 'a pool of suspects,' Brodhead cancelled Van de Velde's spring-term lecture, explaining that 'the cancellation of the course doesn't follow from a judgment or a prejudgment of his hypothetical involvement in the Jovin case.' As at Duke, Brodhead insisted that due process would prevail. Despite Van de Velde's stellar student reviews and distinguished record, Brodhead then let his contract lapse. Van de Velde left New Haven, his career in shambles."
LUN
Posted by: pagar | July 29, 2008 at 07:00 PM