First things first: Shaquille O’Neal is on Twitter and if you’re not following him, you’re missing out.
Second thing: that piece I referenced writing on Thanksgiving was published yesterday. It was an attempt to put together some changing developments in South Asia and contend that they might add up to an early flash point for Obama. I’m getting beaten up in comments because, it seems, people read the headline — "Obama’s First Test?" — and concluded I was blaming Obama for the Mumbai attacks. Good times. But one person asked me why I didn’t write a piece that called this a test for Bush, who, after all, is still president. I replied:
I don’t know how many times I can write the "Bush: Still A Catastrophe & A Douchebag" story, and to be frank, I’m looking forward to Jan. 20 for many reasons, but among them is the fact that I’ll no longer have to.
But I don’t know. This might be a situation where I don’t see things the way readers do. I read that suggestion and it seemed to cash out to writing a story about an irrelevant man. But there’s something worth writing about how U.S. policy contributed to the atmosphere that led to the deterioration of South Asia. (Though I gather the commenter’s point was, "Isn’t Bush an asshole and aren’t the Mumbai bombings his fault, really?")
Meanwhile, I see via Josh that one of the points referenced in the piece — the ISI chief helping India with the investigation — is no longer operative. Prima facie suspicious. And surprisingly incompetent! Why float the idea of your cooperation and then rescind it, knowing that such an act will appear like a tacit admission that you don’t know if you’re actually responsible for the killing spree? I suppose an alternative explanation is that’s just gangster, but ISI doesn’t seem to play the game quite that way, either.



7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Kinda funny. Write something when you’ve got nothing and get jumped on. Why Bother?
i see reading comprehension is just as much a problem on the “left” as perhaps it is on the right .. with the exception of course that we tend to generalize from the microcosm to the macro ..eh ..
i mean it’s weird .. but a majority who felt obliged to post in negative response to the aim of your column by no means inplies the “real majority” [thank you sarah ] interpreted it that way ..
i see the distinction and i agree with you .. yet still .. the urge to “dogpile” spencer ackerman is tempting indeed ..
so yeah .. “why is you blamin’ obama” danm yore hide .. eh .. ??
i’d prescribe “a grain of salt” and a bit of sarcasm .. i knows ya got it in ya …
gaaahhhh .. “inplies” .. should be implies.. but as a new word i kinda like “inplies” as well .. which could be defined as “replies in kind” .. damn teh typos eh ..
I don’t know if I’ve seen this mentioned elsewhere, but on Friday the NYTimes published an article quoting American intelligence officials who suggested that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Kashmiri-focused terrorist group connected w/ the Pakistani intelligence services, was responsible for the attacks in Mumbai. I can’t be sure of the timeline, but if this story was leaked after Pakistan announced it’s plans to send it’s spy chief to India, but before they announced that those plans had been scrapped, it’s tempting to see Pakistan’s retraction of such a gesture as a very predictable response to the leak. (From a political stand point: how could Pakistan send a high level official to India after being publicly bitch-slapped?) So why was this leaked? I don’t know enough about the situation to figure that out, but definitely curious. Any ideas?
backgrounders
OHS- Obama Hyper-sensitivity Syndrome… a lot of that going around.
We’ve already lived through 8 years (almost) of a Preznit we darest not question. Don’t think we need another.
Plus, reading your post, it’s hard for me to see how it can be taken as criticism.
One of the more remarkable aspects of the proposed/planned Obama administration is that he does not feel compelled to surround himself with a bunch of yes-men. I know I’ve been able to learn a lot from being questioned/tested.
@sdrDusty, Yeah, that’s where the Bush/Obama staffing parallels seem to break down. It’s hard to imagine Obama allowing any of these guys to run over him. Obviously this proposition requires evidence that can’t be obtained before the administration begins, but it strikes me that Obama is the executive Bush thought himself to be.