Prairie Weather

Petraeus' surge? R.I.P. -- death toll once again on the increase.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq increased in January, ending a four-month drop in casualties, and most of the deaths occurred outside Baghdad or the once-restive Anbar province, according to military statistics.

In all, 38 American service members had been reported killed in January by Thursday evening, compared with 23 in December. Of those, 33 died from hostile action, but only nine of them in Baghdad or Anbar.

Whew!  Not that many where the media's cameras are located!  Still, it's enough to justify calling off the troop withdrawals scheduled for later in the year.

American commanders in Iraq are even more circumspect. Nearly all agree that al Qaida in Iraq is weaker since the U.S. troop buildup began, but they caution that violence probably would return to places such as Baghdad and Anbar if American troops left.

Earlier this month, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander of Multinational Division Central, which includes Baghdad, warned against pulling out U.S. troops too quickly.

"If you've got an area that you've taken away and you walk away from it, 96 hours later the enemy is back — and he's intimidating the population (and) he's killing innocent people," Lynch said. "So we have to manage this transition very diligently."

Damaging to Obama, though it's one helluva stretch

Murdoch's London Times reports:

An undeclared $3.5 million (£1.8 million) payment from a corrupt Iraqi-British businessman has landed Barack Obama’s former fundraiser behind bars.

The payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that Mr Obama’s long-serving bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain’s richest men. The relationship is a potential embarrassment for Mr Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a central plank of his campaign.

Court papers describe Mr Rezko as a close friend of Mr Auchi. The two are involved in a large Chicago land development together. But it is unclear how long the two men have known each other or whether they were linked before the 2003 Iraq war. Neither side would discuss their relationship.

The Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to Mr Obama’s fundraiser in May 2005.

Bottom line:  it's a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" deal.  Not as close as, say, Hillary Clinton's "warming"  relationship with London Times owner, Rupert Murdoch. 

Still, because an Anglo-Iraqi businessman (Nadhmi Auchi) has "been linked to" (no specifics)  a Chicago real estate developer (Antoin Rezco) who once donated to Obama's state legislature campaign, Obama should worry.  Why?  Well, simply because it's the kind of publicity Obama's campaign doesn't need and the Clinton campaign needs all the help it can get.  This tactic is based on the notion that "Iraqi" signifies "dangerous and corrupt."  That in itself tells us how much we need a president who knows a little about the world.

Mr. Auchi isn't just anybody, by the way.  His lawyers attest that he's "one of Britain’s wealthiest men, has been a guest at the White House and met with two of the last three presidents, was Co-Chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is President of the Anglo-Arab Organisation, and has received numerous awards and honorary positions from heads of state, including Queen Elizabeth II, Pope John Paul II, and King Abdullah II of Jordan."

Check and see if he's related to Ahmad Chalabi, Bush's buddy.

It's not just Diebold that's disenfranchising America now...

We're actually in the process of disenfranchising ourselves, according to the editors of the New York Times in their blog.  They have a point.  Actually they have 9 points.

Votes cast so far in primaries that count: About 4 million.
(That’s less than a million on the Democratic side because the party said the primaries in Michigan and Florida would not count after those states broke party rules by moving up their votes.)

Total population of states that have held some kind of nominating contest: Roughly 37 million.

Total population of just California, which has not yet voted: Roughly 37 million.

Total population of the United States: 301 million.

Total pledged Democratic delegates won so far: 137 out of 4,049.

Total pledged Republican delegates won so far: 208 out of 2,380.

Total candidates driven out of the race: Eight.

The total tab for this absurd display: Well over $300 million. Probably more like $400 million.

The inevitable result: Ralph Nader announced an exploratory committee today.

Nader is looking kind of sane.  Even if he weren't, those who are fed up if, say, Hillary gets nominated, will have a way of saying "none of the above" in the voting booth.

Money. Clinton and Obama money. Where it comes from.

It appears that the very moment Hillary Clinton seems to be ahead, new money flows to Barack Obama. 

Does this translate into "the money's on Barack"?  Maybe. Salon's Alex Koppelman reports that the Obama campaign has accumulated a record amount:  $32,000,000.  "This total includes contributions from 170,000 new donors."  Or under $200 per donor, according to the official Prairie Weather low-battery calculator.  Koppelman writes:

The Trail, a Post blog, says Obama campaign manager David Plouffe claims that the campaign's single biggest fundraising day came the day after Obama's surprise loss to Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

Jeff Zeleny writes at the New York Times' "The Caucus":

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential bid a year ago, the campaign has signed up 650,000 contributors, many of whom are contributing far below the $2,300 maximum limit and are able to donate again and again.

[Wait!  Does that mean if each contributor antes up the full $2,300, then Obama will have almost $1.5 billion?]

Meanwhile, the Clintons seem to have a fool-proof  money system.  That is, they have what appears to be a good-cop/bad-cop marital arrangement that we're foolish enough to give a pass to.  It kind of looks as though she does the politically correct thing while he does the politically incorrect thing which nets them millions. 

Or so the New York Times article on the contributions to Bill Clinton's foundation makes it seem.  Bill Clinton, thanks to his political savvy, has made out like a bandit.  For example, Bill Clinton gives the autocratic leader of Kazakhstan a big ol' bear hug.  The autocratic leader of Kazakhstan okays a very, very lucrative deal which enriches a friend of Bill's.  FOB then rewards the Clinton foundation with $31,000,000 -- with a promise of much, much more.  Which rewards the Clintons in general.  The Senator Mrs. Clinton does the "right thing" and condemns Kazakhstan's human rights record.  Everyone goes away happy.  Did we get that right?  If so, then we'd say the Clintons are right up there with the Bush League.

(Bill Clinton also helped Dubai set up the ports deal that Senator Clinton helped to end.  The Times doesn't say whether Dubai had already contributed, in the meantime, to the Clinton Foundation.)

Ken Silverstein wrote a fascinating (and controversial) article about his experience as an investigative reporter, acting as public relations flack for Turkmenistan, in the murky precincts of K Street.  He writes:

...One cannot help but notice how many of the countries that flout “the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” seem to have negotiated themselves significant support from the U.S. government, whether military assistance (Egypt, Colombia), development aid (Azerbaijan, Nigeria), expanded trade opportunities (Angola, Cameroon), or official Washington visits for their leaders (Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan). The granting of favorable concessions to dictatorial regimes is a practice hardly limited to the current administration: Bill Clinton came into office having said that China’s access to American markets should be tied to improved human rights—specifically its willingness to “recognize the legitimacy of those kids that were carrying the Statue of Liberty” at Tiananmen Square—but left having helped Beijing attain its long-cherished goal of Permanent Most Favored Nation trade status. ...

Hopes dashed

A commentator on the CBC was saying just now, "Aw, gee.  John Edwards has withdrawn from the race.  So much for all those hopes of seeing a white male from the South become president!"

If this doesn't make you feel guilty about how you've treated the right, nothing will

... The nation's poor War Cheerleaders of the Right are always so besieged by vicious Enemies lurking on every corner -- people who are ruthless, without scruples, and who are even willing to break the law. Like Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, and Harry Reid.

They're treated very unfairly everywhere -- by the press, by colleges, by political elites, by other countries, by the U.N., by minorities. There is no more besieged and victimized group anywhere on the planet than white, Christian, American conservative males (except, perhaps, right-wing Jews, the only worthy competitor for the glorious mantle of Most Persecuted). Among other things, they must battle "the unholy alliance of leftists, Islamists and multiculturalist racial pressure groups."

Every institution treats them unfairly; every sector poses a threat to their Goodness; they are surrounded by soul-less Enemies who wish to do them harm. Nobody deserves the slightest sympathy -- nobody's plight merits the slightest concern -- except for theirs. They are the best people on Earth -- actually, the best people ever in all of human history. And everyone is against them. Everyone is waging war on them. Enemies everywhere work together to threaten and harm them. It's all deeply unfair. And they must wage vicious war -- against all the Enemies, Everywhere -- if they have any hope of being protected. ...  Glenn Greenwald ...