AP – Research firm Gartner Inc. on Tuesday lowered its forecast for global shipments of personal computers in the second half of the year, saying the change stems from economic uncertainty in the U.S. and Western Europe.
See the article here:
Gartner cuts 2nd-half PC shipment growth outlook
(AP)
If President Obama’s visitors ever grow bored, they can always read the mottos woven into the border of the Oval Office’s new rug. There are five of them “of meaning to the president” on the outskirts of the traditional presidential seal, according to a White House spokesman, and definitely not …
President Obama made brief mention of his predecessor Tuesday night, but the end of combat operations in Iraq has some wondering whether former President George W. Bush deserves more acclaim for having left in place the framework Mr. Obama is following to wind down the war. Mr. Bush slinked out …
See the original post:
Does Bush deserve more credit for Iraq?
Endgame? Larry Sabato tweeted three hours ago that while she was making bigger gains than expected, there’s simply too much daylight between her and Miller for her to win. Does Team Murky now agree? In an interview with CNN, Murkowski campaign spokesman Steve Wackowski was emphatic that the vote could still swing their way. “We’re being Read this post
The Securities and Exchange Commission warned credit rating agencies that it now had the authority to bring fraud cases over conduct outside the US that has ‘foreseeable effects’ in the country
Continue reading here:
SEC drops probe into Moody’s
The beginning of the end. 8 p.m. ET across the dial. It’s billed as an Iraq speech, but that’s not really what it is. The “key part,” apparently, will be a renewed call to “take the fight directly to al Qaeda” by finishing the job in Afghanistan. (Wouldn’t taking the fight to AQ require operations in Pakistan, not Afghanistan?) It’s Read this post
Don’t count on it, Sarah. His spokesman is already claiming that Obama said the surge would succeed… Which, of course, he didn’t . In fact Obama actively opposed the successful surge. ( CSMonitor ) Sarah Palin asked Barack Obama to be honest with the American people tonight. From Sarah Palin’s Facebook Page : Later today, President Obama will speak to the American people about Iraq. No doubt he will laud the “end of major combat operations” by the date he randomly selected some 18 months ago. His press secretary Robert Gibbs also gave us a glimpse of what else he might say, telling the Today Show this morning that ”What is certainly not up for question is that President Obama, then-candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did.” Iraq in 2010 is indeed a very long way from Iraq in 2006, when violence and sectarian conflict threatened complete chaos. But then-candidate Obama did not support the course that brought us here as his press secretary now claims. On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced the surge, Senator Obama insisted that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence : “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Barack Obama was clearly in opposition to the surge strategy. Had we followed the course advocated by then-candidates Obama and Biden, the Iraq war would be remembered now as a crushing defeat for the United States and our allies. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian supported extremists would have claimed victory over America – with grave implications for us throughout the region and the world. Iraq would have descended into full-scale civil war. Iraq’s neighbor would have likely been drawn into the conflict. Parts of Iraq would have been made a safe haven for terrorists to train and plan for attacks far beyond Iraqi borders. Fortunately for all of us, these events did not occur. They did not occur because America changed strategy in Iraq. President Bush decided to increase our forces in Iraq and pursue a counterinsurgency strategy – a course long advocated by Republicans in Washington. This “surge” policy in 2007 was opposed by many – most notably and adamantly by Senators Obama and Biden. In October 2006, as the violence was spiraling out of control, Senator Obama actually advocated reducing our troop presence: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.” In response to President Bush’s State of the Union address on January 23, 2007, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work…My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.” Senator Joe Biden, just before the surge was formally announced, actually declared: “If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake.” In May 2007, Senator Obama voted against funding our troops in Iraq. Reporters have insinuated that I haven’t been telling the truth on this fact, but consider the fact: he did not support additional troop funding. Had his position prevailed, our troops would have been forced to leave Iraq precipitously and chaos would have ensued. Goodness, even Senator Biden voted for the funding and had to admit this about Senator Obama and others who opposed it: “My colleagues voted against the funding to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anyone’s life.” As the mother of a soldier who spent his year in Iraq recently, I have to agree with Biden on that point… Along with the points that Bill Kristol made yesterday, I too have some suggestions for the president. President Obama, please show grace, humility and some honesty before the American people tonight . Please don’t declare “Mission Accomplished” and then saunter away with an assumption that your opposition to the Iraq strategy was key to our troops’ success. Please end the political posturing. Admit you were wrong about the surge. Recognize what our brave armed forces have achieved. Admit that the strategy long advocated by Republicans, proposed by President Bush, led by Generals Petraeus and Odierno, and executed by thousands of America’s finest – our brave men and women in uniform – brought violence under control and made responsible withdrawals possible. The more honest you are about the past, the more likely it is you will gain the support of the American people for your Iraq policy in the future. There’s more.
Excerpt from:
Sarah Palin to Obama: Be Honest In Tonight’s Speech & Admit That You Were Wrong
It almost sounds like the set up to a “guy walks into a bar” joke — or maybe a knock-knock joke — but the Washington Post ’s Dana Milbank made an assessment of his own political ideology that can’t help but draw a laugh. As WaPo columnist Howard Kurtz reports , Milbank is being moved to the Post’s editorial pages. But it is what Milbank said of himself that amuses. “Anybody reading my column would make an informed judgment that I’m left-of-center, and I wouldn’t quarrel with that,” he says. “But strongly ideological people on the left do not recognize me as one of their own.” I see. So because the wholly whacked-out fringe of the far, far left (see the Communist Party USA, George Soros, or MoveOn.orgers) don’t consider him a sufficiently whacked out, moonbat to suit them… then what, Dana? Is that supposed to be some sort of mitigating factor for Milbank? He admits to being a leftist, but because the most fringeworthy left doesn’t accept him are we supposed to slap him on the back and welcome him to the right side of the aisle? The fact is he’s still a leftist ideologue and his work should be taken as that of a leftist ideologue, no matter whether he isn’t left enough for the left-wing fringe. But let’s have some fun with Milbank’s distinction-without-a-difference style of reasoning. Let’s take his logic and see what other situations we can excuse using it… As a young adult, John Doe dealt drugs and ran prostitutes but he was never accepted by the Hell’s Angels, so he’s not one of those guys , I’ll tell you what! Jane Roe is a member of the communist party but not a leader, so she’s OK. Joe Macadangdang once stole a million dollars once, but he never hung out with Bernie Madoff, so everything’s cool. George Spelvin ran over a kid drunk-driving once, but ever since then he wears his seatbelt, so that makes up for it. There are all sorts of ways you can use Milbank’s logic to explain yourself away, but the most common one is the one almost every 12-year-old boy used on his mom: “But mom, Jimmy did it, too.” Yes, if Jimmy did it too, why Mom should realize that whatever was done must not be so bad . Yes, Dana, if the fringe left thinks you aren’t left enough for them, I guess the fact that you admit to being a leftist isn’t so bad. After all, Dana, Jimmy is a leftist, too.
Go here to read the rest:
This Just In: Washington Post’s Milbank Admits He’s a Lefty
Chris Matthews almost got another tingle up his leg on national television Tuesday talking about how wonderful Barack Obama is. So did Salon’s Joan Walsh, In the opening segment of “Hardball,” the host and his perilously liberal guests concluded by trying to figure out why conservatives don’t like the current White House resident. In the end, and sadly predictable, the conclusion was the color of Obama’s skin. But before that, the sycophantic praise and exultation for the object of their affection was literally breathless (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: It’s about being an American, and the wonderful thing about this country is you can grow up to be basically what, you know, it’s a Great Gatbsy country, you can actually create your own identity and become a person. This guy Barack Obama, not to get too basic about it, did everything right. JOAN WALSH, SALON: Yes. MATTHEWS: He studied hard in school. He obeyed the law. He raised a family. He took care of his family. He was an excellent student. He was on the Harvard Law Review. He did everything. He went through the democratic process. He didn’t go out and make a lot of money on Wall Street. He gave himself to his community. This guy is almost pluperfect and they don’t like him. WALSH: He is the American dream. He lived it, he embodies it, and somehow he did something wrong, I don’t know what it is, but it is a little to do with the color of his skin. MATTHEWS: He didn’t show up at Glenn Beck’s House of Love, or whatever it is. BOB SHRUM: They might have made him sit in the back row. Did you hear Matthews almost panting when Walsh called Obama the American dream? Makes you wonder if studio assistants had to come in and give him a sponge-bath during the commercial break.
View original post here:
Chris Matthews – ‘Obama is Almost Perfect’; Joan Walsh – ‘He’s the American Dream’
AP – Federal Reserve officials signaled at their August meeting that they would consider going beyond a modest program to purchase government debt if necessary to boost the economy.
See the article here:
Fed officials discussed further stimulus steps
(AP)