It all sounded so simple during the campaign. There was nothing wrong with Afghanistan that couldn’t be sorted out by ditching the idiot Bush for a president who knew what he was doing and who would not be “distracted” by Iraq.

That was then. Now Obama faces a situation that every day becomes eerily more like the one that confronted LBJ 45 years ago.

Your commander in the field tells you that without more troops the war is lost. You doubt whether pouring more men in will bring victory and are frankly desperate to get out. You could probably weather the resulting political firestorm by blaming your predecessor for the mess you inherited.

But you cannot afford to quit because of the effect, both psychological and material, on neighbouring territories.

Obama is stuck. He cannot honourably stay in Afghanistan without giving the general the forces he says he needs. But if he gets out, the effect on Pakistan could be catastrophic.

Barack Obama, hero of the anti-war left, and now a prisoner of the hated Domino Theory that gave us Vietnam.

Posted in Obama | No Comments »

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Guardian this morning over climate change. It seems that the Obama administration doesn’t like the Kyoto treaty any more than its predecessor did.

So the whole thing wasn’t Bush’s fault after all? Ah well, not so fast. It’s still all the Republicans’ fault, according to Jonathan Freedland, who somehow manages to admit one minute that ”it was not Bush who killed the Kyoto treaty in the US. The Senate rejected it by a margin of 95 votes to none” and in the next breath characterise its opponents as “Republican headbangers”.

The new administration is kicking the sainted Kyoto treaty into the long grass. Score another one for the Obama-Bush doctrine.

Posted in Bush, Obama | No Comments »

At around midnight on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend, the Obama administration announced the resignation of its green jobs czar, Van Jones.

It brought to an end the most extraordinary news blackout on the part of the mainstream networks, who had declined to cover a story they now refer to as a week-long controversy over his past statements and associations. Read the comments for a taste of the conservative apoplexy over the cover-up.

Byron York in the Washington Examiner on Friday morning detailed the blackout, updating on Friday night to acknowledge the CBS Evening News and Washington Post finally reporting on it.

ABC’s Jake Tapper had mentioned the story online but his reports were kept firmly quarantined in his blog.

Shades of the abdication crisis here in 1936 when the first Joe Public heard of it was when King Edward VIII actually stood down. It’s been held up ever since as an example of how shamefully subservient the press was then, in contrast to the modern era…

Posted in Media, Obama | No Comments »

On Tuesday night’s Hardball, the scales finally fell from Chris Matthews’ eyes about the bogus enthusiasm on the left for the war in Afghanistan.

Matthews: ‘I believe that what Barack Obama, who I support generally, did in this campaign… was back into this policy. I think he wanted to say he was for some aggressive action against the enemy because he wasn’t for the Iraq war.’

Bang on, Chris. You’ve just admitted your hero committed himself to a war he didn’t believe in just to make himself look tough. What are you going to do about it?

Here’s the video. Matthews’ guilty confession comes right at the end.

Posted in MSNBC, Obama | No Comments »

Is anyone surprised by the lack of appetite for the Afghan war shown in the latest ABC-WaPo poll?

As we’ve said before, Obama and his party have, all along, been faking enthusiasm for Afghanistan to give themselves political cover for opposing Bush on Iraq.

Now they’re stuck with it.

What’s more, some commentators are starting to notice the silence of the anti-war movement. As Cindy Sheehan says, it should really be renamed the anti-Republican War movement.

And she has an interesting story to tell regarding press coverage of her activities since January 20.

I’ve been protesting every time I can, and it’s not covered.  But the one time I did get a lot of coverage was when I protested in front of George Bush’s house in Dallas in June.

Posted in Bush, Media, Obama | No Comments »

Robert Fisk in the Independent excoriates Gordon Brown for his Catch-22 style justification for staying in Afghanistan (’We can’t pull out having taken so many casualties, so we’ll stay in and take more casualties, each of which will then be another reason why we can’t pull out’).

Fisk also takes a swipe at George W Bush in the process.

But one man is strangely absent from Fisk’s gallery of shame: the man who spent his presidential campaign cheerleading for the Afghan war and whose first act as commander in chief was to throw another 20,000 troops into the fray.

Don’t mention the war? Don’t mention Obama.

Posted in Media, Obama | No Comments »

When mayor Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charge in 2003, the US embassy refused to pay, claiming it was a form of local taxation and foreign diplomats were therefore exempt.

Inevitably this was portrayed as typical Bush era arrogance.

So with a new Obama-appointed ambassador in residence, one Labour member of the London assembly, Murad Qureshi, wrote to the President asking him to reverse the policy.

His letter is an absolute must-read. Check out the fawning references to the “mean-spirited decision taken under your predecessor’s administration” and its “ignoble attitude” and “unfortunate tone”.

“I know you are seeking to introduce a new era of international relations with your Presidency, one based on decency and mutual respect,” he goes on, “and in that spirit I respectfully ask you to . . .” You get the idea.

Sadly, it seems that in between his very decent and respectful bombing of Pakistan and continued detention of the Gitmo prisoners, our hero has told Mr Qureshi where to go. The policy on the C-charge stands.

Score another one for the Obama-Bush doctrine.

Posted in Bush, Guantanamo, Obama | No Comments »

Protest queen Joan Baez looks back 40 years.

Posted in Flashback | No Comments »

For American viewers, that is (and naughty file sharers).

The LA Times has a preview of what’s happening at the start of the third series, with a new arrival due in the Draper household.

Posted in LA Times, Media | No Comments »

Finally the New York Times condescends to cover the story everyone’s been talking about.

At least it does clear up one thing: the question wasn’t mistranslated, the questioner misspoke and said Mr Clinton when he meant to say Mr Obama.

Posted in Clintons, Hillary, New York Times | No Comments »