USS Cole sent to Lebanese coast

USS Cole sent to Lebanese coast

The United States has sent the USS Cole warship to the coast of Lebanon in a “show of support” for regional stability, US officials said today.

A senior Bush administration official said the US was concerned about the political deadlock in Lebanon, which Washington blames on Syrian interference.

“The United States believes a show of support is important for regional stability. We are very concerned about the situation in Lebanon. It has dragged on very long,” said the senior official, who spoke on condition anonymity.

Lebanon’s western-backed governing coalition and its Syrian- and Iranian-backed opposition have failed to reach a deal to end the country’s political conflict.

“Our sense is that there is increased nervousness, with Hezbollah people making threats and a general sense that this is not going to get resolved,” said the official.

The United States has increased pressure on Syria in recent weeks, targeting individuals with sanctions.

The presidential election in Lebanon was postponed again this week to March 11th – the 15th such delay – after rival leaders failed to reach a deal.

The deadlock has threatened to degenerate into sectarian violence and continues to poison inter-Arab relations in the run-up to an Arab summit in Syria next month.

A US defence official said the USS Cole left Malta on Tuesday and was headed toward Lebanon, adding it would not be within visible range of Lebanon but “well over the horizon.”

The official said the Cole could be replaced by the USS Nassau , an amphibious assault ship. The Nassau is in the Atlantic and en route to the Mediterranean, the official added.

Robocalls


A hangup about robocalls
By: Josephine Hearn

Back in 2004, Fannie Mae executive Shaun Dakin quit his job and boarded a bus to Cleveland to volunteer for John F. Kerry’s presidential campaign. “I wanted to do something that would make a difference,” he recalls.

But midway into working the phone banks for Kerry, Dakin became disillusioned. “People would say, ‘I’m sick of these calls. I’m going to teach you guys a lesson and vote for Bush!’” The other volunteers were getting the same hostile responses. “We decided we could help the campaign more if we just went and got a beer,” Dakin said.

Three years later, Dakin has devoted his professional life to fighting the political campaign calls he used to make. It’s an unusual cause but not an entirely implausible one. A study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that 24 percent of voters nationwide had received robocalls as of early December, well before the real campaigning started. Of those, 65 percent said they normally hang up, and 24 percent of those who hung up said the calls made them “angry.”

And robocall technology is only getting more advanced. One firm told Politico that it can now place 1 million calls in less than a half-hour. “Some days, we call 10 to 20 percent of the U.S. population,” an executive at the firm said.

To combat the calls, Dakin launched a nonprofit group in October, the National Political Do Not Call Registry. “I thought, ‘I’m spent with red versus blue politics of the past 20 years. How can I be part of the solution?’” Dakin said.

Read the rest here:


Equal Time:

Main Stream Media


Walter Cronkite, Vietnam, and the Decline of Media Credibility

By Lee Cary

Walter Cronkite’s remarks at the end of his February 27, 1968 evening news broadcast, four decades ago today, were a watershed in the history of the MSM’s credibility.

Unless you’re at least 55 years old, you probably don’t remember that CBS broadcast 40 years ago. The most trusted man in America had recently returned from Vietnam where he hosted a documentary on the VC/NVA TET (New Year) offensive that began January 31, 1968. Back in NYC, he closed his program that night by introducing “an analysis that must be speculative, personal, [and] subjective.” Among his comments were these:

Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.

It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. (Emphases added)

Most evenings Cronkite ended his broadcasts with “And that’s the way it is.” That night he ended with a more somber, “This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.”

Today, it’s hard to fully appreciate the stature and status Cronkite held in 1968. He was the successor in fame to the demigod persona that had been Edward R. Murrow. When President Johnson heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”

In January 2006, Cronkite said his statement on Vietnam was his proudest moment. When asked then if he would give the same advice on Iraq, Cronkite didn’t hesitate to say “Yes.”

At the time, Cronkite’s pronouncement added credibility and importance to all the network anchors. His was a stunning exercise of media power. But, in the perspective of history, the outcome of his pronouncement is not universally recognized as having been positive. He overtly and figuratively stepped out from behind the microphone to add his personal commentary to the news. We had not seen this before. By doing so, Cronkite issued an implicit license to his journalistic colleagues to interject personal opinions into their factual reporting of the news. The difference is that Cronkite clearly labeled it as personal opinion, while many MSM news personalities today weave their opinions into reporting. His sentiment registered with many, perhaps most, of his viewers that night. He changed opinions by offering his own. But in hindsight, his analysis was wrong – dead wrong for some.

Generally, the “referees of history” have not rendered the TET offensive a military draw. The VC/NVA suffered unexpectedly high casualties, from which it took years to recover. In particular, the ranks of the Viet Cong were decimated. General No Nguyen Giap, the Supreme Commander of the Viet Minh (NVA) forces said, in a 1989 interview with CBS’s Morley Safer,

“We paid a high price, but so did you…not only in lives and material…After Tet the Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into…dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory…The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.” (The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations, Howard Langer, 2005)

The Vietnam War did not end in a stalemate, particularly for those S. Vietnamese who, at risk and often loss of life, loyally supported the U.S. Armed Forces (not all did, but very many did). We left them in a lurch, cut off their military aid, and watched while they suffered the consequences when the North Vietnamese blatantly ignored the negotiated resolution (they never intended to honor) that Cronkite advocated.

Many of those of us who served in Vietnam do not look upon its ending as reflecting “honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy.” A compelling case can be made that we should never have sent troops to Vietnam in the first place. But we did. And then, after nearly 60,000 U.S. deaths and countless Vietnamese casualties, we bugged out. There’s no way to put an honorable face on that unavoidable truth.

Once upon a time, I lived for awhile not far from a village called Ba Chuc in An Giang Province in the Mekong Delta. After the U.S. evacuated Vietnam, there was nothing to stop old animosities between the Cambodians and Vietnamese from turning hot. Here’s a description of what happened in Ba Chuc.

“On April 30, 1977, Pol Pot’s troops launched a surprise attack on 13 villages in eight Vietnamese border provinces. Ba Chuc was the hardest hit. The massacre was at its fiercest during the 12 days of occupation, April 18-30, 1978, during which the intruders killed 3,157 villagers. The survivors fled and took refuge in the pagodas of Tam Buu and Phi Lai or in caves on Mount Tuong, but they were soon discovered. The raiders shot them, slit their throats or beat them to death with sticks. Babies were flung into the air and pierced with bayonets. Women were raped and left to die with stakes planted in their genitals.”

There were two survivors to the massacre.

Cronkite didn’t cover it on the CBS evening news.

As judged by subsequent events, Cronkite was wrong. And over time, his words became a watershed marking the place where the gradual erosion of the MSM’s credibility began.

Looking Back: WTC 1993

Feb. 26, 1993
By Howard Lutnick
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003

The bomb went off shortly after noon and shook the building like an earthquake.

Our offices on the top floors of 1 World Trade Center (the north tower) went dark.

No one knew what had happened, but within minutes the emergency lights kicked on and our 700 employees at Cantor Fitzgerald calmly headed for the stairs.

The stairway quickly became a traffic jam as 20,000 workers on lower floors were also evacuating that cold February day, but the Cantor folks didn’t panic.

Some of them lashed their ties and belts to the wheelchairs of handicapped people and carried them down the 105 flights of stairs. Others helped those who were unable to walk unaided down to the 25th floor where fire fighters, who were on their way up to help, took over.

We all made it out.

As we look back now on the 1993 attack, in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured when a terrorist bomb exploded in an unoccupied van in the Trade Center’s underground garage, it’s clear that for many of us the event was a false ceiling on the limits of terror.

We thought at the time the attack was a warning to be prepared. And so, Cantor Fitzgerald and the other tenants and building managers of the World Trade Center tried to prepare.

We took what we thought were exhaustive efforts to safeguard ourselves from any future incidents. Security at ground level and below was tightened.

Stairways were rebuilt to make it easier for police and fire fighters to enter. Many businesses, including ours, worked on detailed disaster-recovery plans in the event we lost our buildings.

And then life went on. Somewhere in the consciousness of those of us who worked in the Trade Center was the belief that terrorists, like lightning, would not strike the same place twice.

When it did, on Sept. 11, our preparations were not in vain.

The added measures no doubt saved the lives of thousands of people who evacuated safely. Yet to a tragic extent, we had erected defenses against the past.

We could not have foreseen the horror and destruction that Cantor Fitzgerald, New York City and our nation would experience. We lost more than anyone could have imagined.

In the months following Sept. 11, our employees committed to rebuilding with a new purpose: to care for the families of the 658 victims we lost.

We announced on Sept. 19, 2001, that we would distribute a quarter of our company’s profits to these families for a period of five years, and cover 10 years of health care.

We can never regain what was taken from us that day, but we keep the memory of our friends in our hearts and their families by our side.


Lutnick is chairman and CEO of investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald

More pictures here.

History note: The first WTC attack came on the second anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait.

Hezbollah chief: “disappearance of Israel inevitable”

Hezbollah vows to avenge Mughniah

Waving Hezbollah flags Shiite Muslims watch Nasrallah as he delivers his speech

BEIRUT (AFP)
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah on Friday vowed to avenge the death of one of his group’s top militants through the destruction of Israel, which he said was destined to disappear.

“The disappearance of Israel is inevitable, it is divine law,” said Nasrallah at a ceremony to mourn the death of Hezbollah top commander Imad Mughniah and other militants killed in attacks blamed on Israel.

“The presence of Israel is but temporary and cannot go on in the region,” Nasrallah added in comments transmitted via video link to thousands of Hezbollah supporters massed in southern Beirut. “Oh Hajj Imad, I swear by God that your blood will not have been spilled in vain.”
Mughniah was killed in a car bombing in Damascus on February 12 in an attack Hezbollah has blamed on Israel.

Although Israel welcomed his death, it has denied any involvement.

Nasrallah said that Mughniah’s killing was a clear sign that Israel was preparing a new war against Lebanon but said his troops stood ready for a new “victory”.

“We will kill you in the fields, we will kill you in the cities, we will fight you like you have never seen before,” said Nasrallah, whose Shiite Muslim group fought a devastating 34-day war with Israel in 2006. “Israel will be left without an army, and without an army Israel cannot exist.”

He also questioned why countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and France had upgraded security measures in Lebanon, telling them that his sole enemy was Israel.

“We tell them that they have nothing to fear from us because Israel is our sole enemy,” he said.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia this week advised their citizens to avoid travel to Lebanon and France shut down two of its cultural centers in the south and north of the country for security reasons.

Their actions followed Nasrallah’s declaration of “open war” on Israel following Mughniah’s death.

Lebanon has been mired in its worst political crisis since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war.

The country has been without a president since November because of a standoff between the Western-backed ruling majority and the Hezbollah-led opposition backed by Syria and Iran.

So far, 14 attempts to hold a parliament vote to choose a new head of state have been cancelled and the political tensions in recent weeks have occasionally boiled over into street clashes in Beirut.

Bon Voyage

Friends and family wave to U.S. Navy sailors on board amphibious assault ship USS Nassau as it departs Naval Station Norfolk, Va., Feb. 20, 2008.

Nassau, which is a part of the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group, is deploying to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of responsibility.

U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Julie Matyascik.

Iran: Nukes?

Iran opposition: Teheran making nukes
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

An exiled Iranian opposition group on Wednesday claimed that Teheran has accelerated its alleged nuclear weapons program, including the production of nuclear warheads.

“The Iran regime entered a new phase in its nuclear project,” said Mohammad Mohaddessin, a representative of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran.

He claimed that, for the first time, Teheran had established a command and control center to work on a nuclear bomb and that southeast of the capital it was also setting up a center to produce warheads.

Iran has steadfastly denied it is working to obtain a nuclear bomb, arguing that its nuclear program is purely civilian. In December, the US National Intelligence Estimate said that Iran halted a nuclear weapons development program in 2003 because of international pressure.

Mohaddessin told a news conference that Iran had closed down one center only to open another later with the same purpose. He called the US report “not accurate.”

He said he had provided the latest information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday and urged them to investigate more sites in Iran and interview more scientists.

Meanwhile, just days ahead of a new report by the UN nuclear watchdog, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that Iran has brought world powers “to their knees” and successfully resisted US-led efforts to get Teheran to halt its uranium enrichment.

Read the rest here.


Related reading -

Ahmadinejad: Israel filthy bacteria
Iran: ‘Cancerous’ Israel to soon disappear

Britain: New Sharia Row

New sharia row over Chancellor’s plans for ‘Islamic bonds’
By SIMON WALTERS

A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special “Islamic bonds” to pay for Gordon Brown’s public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.

Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as “sinful”.

The scheme would mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world.

It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.

The Government sees sharia-compliant bonds as a way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal systems.

Read more here.


How long will it take for our legislators’ hands to find their way to this new source of money?

Reporting The War In Iraq

Over Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the Abstraction
George Packer

One day in the summer of 2004, while I sat in the western Baghdad studio of Radio Dijla, Iraq’s first all-talk station, listening to a deputy interior minister being interviewed, a man named Haithem called in. His story sounded garbled and frantic: late at night bandits had forced him off an unlit highway overpass, destroying his car, crushing his chest against the steering wheel, and shattering his leg. After twelve hours, American soldiers found him under the highway and called the Iraqi police, who stole his money and gun before loading him into an ambulance. The next day I went looking for Haithem in a modest neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. He lay sweating in a dark room, a radio and phone by the bed, sunlight burning around the window curtain. There was a towel wrapped around Haithem’s waist, and his bandaged knee was held in traction by metal pins and a primitive sack of bricks, sand, and lead weights that hung from a wire over the bed frame. It looked as if torture, not healing, was going on in Haithem’s room.

As it happened, the same leg had been fractured by Saddam’s secret police in 1992. This latest injury seemed to have broken Haithem’s will; he said that he’d attempted suicide by sticking his finger into the power strip on the floor. “I have no manhood right now, I can’t feel my manhood. I’m asking you through the spirit of brotherhood to help me find compensation. I’m desperate–I have three children, how can I raise them, what can I do for them? I took money from my brother for cigarettes–it’s killing me to say this. I don’t want to go to charities as a beggar. I want to be a human being, and I want a human being in front of me who can give me my rights. I want any person to come and help me just like the Americans did–just for anyone to come here and help me as a human being.”

As for the American soldiers, he was still marveling at their kindness. This was his second encounter with Americans; the first occurred a month earlier and did not go well. On that night, he had been careening down a side street at high speed when a Humvee emerged from the darkness. Unsurprisingly, Haithem ended up on the ground with soldiers screaming at him. But the Americans who heard his cries from under the highway were different; they offered him water and spent an hour dressing his wound. “This latest accident changed everything for me. I understood not everyone is the same. The soldier who treated me–the last thing he said as they put me in the ambulance was, ‘Don’t cry, you won’t die,’ and he wiped my tears. I never got the name of the soldier, and I’m sorry about that.”

In Haithem’s telling, the story became a parable of how some things had changed in Iraq while other, more fundamental truths had not. Ordinary Iraqis could now complain to a deputy interior minister on a call-in radio show, and the official might order his men to follow up; but the police were as corrupt as ever, the hospital care just as indifferent. Americans had humiliated Haithem and Americans had shown him humanity. But the Americans could not give Haithem the justice he craved. There would be no happy ending for him.

The Iraq War introduced entirely new kinds of cruelty to the world, so it’s strange how many of my memories are of kindness. I often think of Abu Malik, a bearded, imposing man, his leather coat buttoned tight across his chest. Abu Malik would have been a frightening sight at a militia checkpoint in Sadr City, but whenever I came to stay with friends at the New York Times compound on the east bank of the Tigris, where he was chief of security, Abu Malik threw his arms around me, kissed my cheeks, and told me, in the openly tender way of Iraqi men, how much all the security guards had missed me. The last time I saw Abu Malik, a family I knew in Baghdad had just received a death threat and was trying to find a safe route out of their besieged neighborhood and then out of the country. Abu Malik, whose house was near the family’s, got on the phone and offered these complete strangers safe passage to the airport.

I think of Muna, a social worker whose husband disappeared under Baath Party rule. In early 2004, she began a weekly therapy group in an abandoned building. Her patients had all been punished by the former regime and a judicial system that indelibly marked the bodies of army deserters, non-voters, and those who spoke ill of the authorities. Some had their ears sliced off, their tongues cut out, their hands severed; others had their faces tattooed with derogatory symbols. They all called her “Mama” and she called them “my sons.” “Even the child on the street looks at them and makes fun of them,” Muna said. “This is a great humiliation for a human being. If he were dead it would be better. If his son asks him, ‘What happened to your ear?’ what is he supposed to say? If he wants to marry a girl, her family will say, ‘We can’t give you our daughter–you’re a criminal.’ For one and a half hours they talk and cry, until they get relief. Then they all laugh together.”

Finally, I think of Steve Miska, an Army lieutenant colonel. On his second tour, as the surge got under way, Miska was in command of a small base in an old Shiite neighborhood in northern Baghdad. The area had fallen largely under the control of the Mahdi Army, and Miska’s troops spent much of their time going house to house in search of fighters and weapons. But Miska also spent a lot of his time–more and more as his tour ground on–arranging passage out of the country for the unit’s Iraqi interpreters. The interpreters constantly received death threats, and once the Americans were gone, they would be easy prey. Miska understood that their fate would, in a sense, be a verdict on the war, and he likened his effort, which involved running a gauntlet of Iraqi insurgents, Jordanian border officials, and American bureaucrats, to an “underground railroad.” A few of the interpreters even managed to get visas to the United States.

In wartime Iraq, perhaps in most wars, viciousness and generosity were never far apart. The menace in the streets of Baghdad was always overwhelming–the suspicious piles of roadside garbage, the dark sedans casing other cars, the checkpoint that wasn’t there thirty minutes ago, the hard stares in traffic, the hair trigger of American gunners, the heedless SUV convoys, and the explosions that always seemed to happen three streets away. In this national ruin, any act of kindness, even as small as offering someone a ride, created solidarity. You were always meeting someone who had run out of options, and someone else who would risk far more to help than he would in normal times. Perhaps it was part of their culture, and perhaps these were not normal times, but Iraqis lacked the sense of shame about heartfelt declarations and naked emotions that people in more secure, better functioning places possess naturally. All of this made them harsh and lovable, and it was possible to spend an hour with Haithem or Muna, or to see Abu Malik once every six months, and feel that more human business had been transacted than over a hundred New York lunches or dinners. The same was true of soldiers with whom I would have had nothing to discuss back at home. Without these connections, Iraq would have been unbearable.

I linger on these memories because they capture something elusive and hard to describe that was nonetheless a signature of the war. The American invasion of Iraq was, above all else, a revolution in the lives of Iraqis. Their institutions, their everyday routines, their futures, their sense of order were all turned upside down. This revolution, which is still ongoing and will play out for years to come, was the opening of a prison. When they staggered out into the light, most Iraqis didn’t know where they were, what they wanted, even who they were, and the Americans who had so quickly and casually broken down the gate were standing around as if they had never even considered what to do next. The Americans were nominally in charge–the Iraqis expected them to be, and after the first few weeks of paralysis, the Americans flung themselves into a flurry of activities befitting an occupying power–but it was all illusion. No one was in charge. By the summer of 2003, when I first went to Iraq, it was clear that a void had opened up and the best-armed and most ruthless groups had moved in. Although it went through many phases and assumed a variety of forms, the process of mutual disenchantment between Iraqis and Americans began early. It was this process that interested me most about Iraq, because it went to the human heart of the matter: the experience of suffering, hope, illusion, need, violence, and disappointment that transformed both sides and made the war so painful for each.

You can (and should) read the rest here.

Is It About Security or Tort Lawyer Money?


Torts and Terrorism

By Robert Novak

A closed-door caucus of House Democrats last Wednesday took a risky political course. By four to one, they instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush’s bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists. Rather than passing the bill with a minority of the House’s Democratic majority, Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a 12-day recess without renewing the government’s eroding intelligence capability.

Pelosi could have exercised leadership prerogatives and called up the FISA bill to pass with unanimous Republican support. Instead, she refused to bring to the floor the bill approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. House Democratic opposition included left-wing members typified by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but they are but a small faction. The true cause for blocking the bill was the Senate-passed retroactive immunity from lawsuits for private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation’s torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.

The recess by House Democrats amounts to a judgment that losing the generous support of trial lawyers, the Democratic Party’s most important financial base, is more dangerous than losing the anti-terrorist issue to Republicans. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the phone companies for giving personal information to intelligence agencies without a warrant. Adm. Mike McConnell, the nonpartisan director of national intelligence, says delay in congressional action deters cooperation in detecting terrorism.

MoneyBig money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiff’s lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.

The bill passed the Senate 68 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting aye. They included Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller and three senators who defeated Republican incumbents in the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jim Webb of Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

That opened the door for Pelosi to pass the bill with minority Democratic support. A Jan. 28 letter to the speaker signed by 21 House Blue Dogs (moderate Democrats) urged passage of Rockefeller’s bill containing immunity. Democrats supporting it could exceed 40 in a House vote, easy enough for passage.

Instead, the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this one for 21 days. Republicans refused to go along because it did not provide phone companies with the necessary immunity. It still could have passed with support from Democrats only, and the leadership surely thought that would happen when it was brought to the floor Wednesday. But it failed, 229 to 191, with 34 Democrats voting no despite pleas for support from their leaders. The opponents included three congressmen who signed the letter to Pelosi advocating immunity from lawsuits, but most were Kucinich Democrats who intuitively vote against any anti-terrorist proposal.

Read the rest here.


Wonder if those retaliation threats currently flying around the Middle East will be encouraged or throttled back because of this well publicized spat between the Hill and the White House. If something did happen while the House was counting down to election day, the resulting albatross would be a heavy load for Congress the day after the smoke clears.

Transfer Ceremony

Iraqi soldiers march in formation, followed by Marines assigned to the 7th Marine Regiment’s 1st Battalion, during a Transfer of Authority Ceremony to the Iraqi Security Forces in Hit, Iraq, Feb. 14, 2008.

U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Seth Maggard

Online Ad Partnership


Four US Newspaper Companies Form Online Ad Partnership

A new online advertising network will let advertisers book campaigns through a single point of contact, reaching 50 million people a month.
Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service

Four major U.S. newspaper chains launched an online advertising network on Friday that will let advertisers book national campaigns through a single point of contact, reaching 50 million people a month across the U.S.

Investors include the Tribune, Gannett, Hearst and New York Times companies, which publish flagship newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, the San Francisco Chronicle and the New York Times, respectively.

The network, QuadrantOne, will let an advertiser place ads on hundreds of Web sites focused on 27 major markets, targeting users by what they are viewing, their online behavior and demographic information.

QuadrantOne is most notable for the online players that aren’t participants, such as Google, Yahoo or Microsoft. This latest move by the newspaper companies may be designed to assert greater control over their print and Web properties.

Read more here.