TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | January, 2009

Obama Should Let Holder Do His Job

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMeeXxYbho&eurl

…and let the truth fall where it may.

“We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam,” Mr. Holder said. “Waterboarding is torture.” (source: NY Times)

I’m against a “truth commission” on torture. I’m also against going after people down the chain who followed orders. Torture was deemed legal from the top, with everything falling from there. Christopher Hitchens is simply stark raving mad to say the demand for torture came from “our society.” I’ll leave Hitchens’ demand for “tongue” from Andrew Sullivan alone. To note, Digby thinks Hitches just “mildly insane,” so I could be wrong.

President Barack Obama, as of noon tomorrow (whether the oath has yet been administered or not), doesn’t have to do anything more than he has done regarding changing U.S. policies on torture. All he has to do is trust his appointment to Justice, A.G. Eric Holder, to do his job, following the law wherever it leads.

In fact, it would be beneficial to President Obama if he and his attorney general had a public and open debate about where the investigation would lead. Protecting the presidency, Obama could hold one view on “looking forward,” while Holder demands accountability in the law, because that’s his job, with is independence from the presidency secure through duty.

The U.S. has already lost through Bush-Cheney’s policy of torture. We should not make it policy to let torturers get off.

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution. – Washington Post (1.14.09)

President Bush admitted to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed on Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Now, the enhanced interrogation techniques, as some call them — torture, as others call them— are being argued over to this hour. Some are saying you never get any good information by rough stuff, and others have said — more than once — that if we hadn’t used these techniques we wouldn’t have had vital information and attacks could have been or would have been carried out on this country. Your view of that.

G.W. BUSH: My view is that the techniques were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people. One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil.

And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and they gave me a list of tools. And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal. And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made. And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they’ll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country.

Torture is illegal. It is also a war crime.

The Attorney General of the United States of America should do his job. President Obama must summon the courage to let him. If we don’t, Bush and Cheney might as well surrender their passports, because the world will likely not be as forgiving.

President Gerald Ford did this nation no favors by pardoning Nixon. Barack Obama would do well to look back on history, and though we’re not talking about pardons, not make the mistake of protecting the presidency over the rule of law.

Read full story · Comments { 44 }

Rev. Robinson’s Prayer Hits the Fan

The bald eagles didn’t bitch.

Seriously, one of the most moving moments of the event was the moment Challenger, then Mr. Lincoln, both majestic bald eagles, were brought on stage, preceded by military representatives, before Obama made his speech. No one said a word when HBO cut that moment out of the rebroadcast. The bald eagle, symbolism of our beautiful country, the importance of protecting it, as well as the grandeur beyond what is human.

I am evidently one of the very few unmoved that Rev. Robinson’s prayer was also not part of the HBO rebroadcast of Obama’s concert on the mall. …and I’m an Episcopalian.

HBO says it was Obama’s people. But they say no, to the contrary.

“We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson’s invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday’s program. We regret the error in executing this plan – but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event.” — PIC communications director Josh Earnest

It was a musical extravaganza. The only prayer required should have been one in honor of the power of the arts. Hoping that they may once again be a larger part of our national identity and spirit. Not just to educate and inspire young and old, but as a reminder of our common creative nature, as well as the redemptive power of music and song.

Instead, the prayer by Rev. Robinson took us into the spiral of bless us with tears… with anger.. etc. as so many prayers do, choosing to remind us all of the hardships of living on the mortal plane. With one exception, that like everyone else, protecting President Obama comes off my lips at my every daily meditation. But for me, Robinson’s prayer was organized religion at its worst. With all the talk about how dire things are today, which no one will doubt, the preacher ignored the lofty purposes of song and jubilation, while forgetting the event his prayer was to kick off. Tone deaf religious importance in the place of exalting the human spirit we were to celebrate through song.

It just proves that gay or straight, organized religious leaders have forgotten the place music plays in the divine, beyond a preachers’s reminder of our daily drudgery. A prayer before a festival of music should set a much different tone. But that’s how far the arts have fallen in America.

Where’s Dr. Wayne Dyer when you need him?

Another point is that we are in the throes of allowing the remarkable ordinariness of the transfer of power in this country to be catapulted into something it should never be. The deification of the presidency itself, the office, but especially the current occupant about to take the oath. Barack Obama is just a man to whom our hopes are pinned, but in whom expectations are now set far too high.

America is “we the people.” Thomas Jefferson would gag.

Why am I coming over all queasy this week? Oh, yes, it must be coronation—sorry, inauguration—week in the federation of the United States. So this is why you booted us out a couple of centuries ago. You simply replaced the pomp and ceremony of hereditary monarchy and with the pomp and ceremony of elected monarchy. [...]

Thank goodness for the day of service.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Afghanistan and Iran

The New York Times Review of Books has an important article that deals with both. Pakistan is not mentioned once, which is very curious, except for the reality that there are forces beyond Pakistan that impact Afghanistan, especially since the Iranians have a vested interest in Afghanistan’s stability. The article is a reminder of the squandered possibilities of President George. W. Bush. Flashback to 2006:

…Iran has distributed its largess, more than $200 million in all, mostly here in the west but also in the capital, Kabul. It has set up border posts against the heroin trade, and next year will begin work on new road and construction projects and a rail line linking the countries. In Kabul, its projects include a new medical center and a water testing laboratory.

Iran’s ambassador, Muhammad Reza Bahrami, portrayed his government’s activities as neighborly good works, with a certain self-interest. Iran, he said, is eager to avoid repeating the calamities of the last 20 years, when two million Afghan refugees streamed over the border.

“Our strategy in Afghanistan is based on security, stability and developing a strong central government,” he said. “It not only benefits the Afghan people, it’s in our national interest.” [...]

Though, obviously, Iran is not totally benevolent in these goals.

However, the article in the NYT Review of Books outlines the complexities and relationships that require President-elect Obama’s attention the minute he takes office. You cannot deal as Bush-Cheney did on a crisis by crisis basis. Our foreign policy must turn to integration and cooperation between countries and the U.S. if anything is to be accomplished.

But Iran also has critical interests in Afghanistan, its neighbor to the east, where it has long opposed the Taliban and is concerned to avoid the chaos that would result from the fall of the increasingly threatened Karzai government. The Iranian government places a high priority on defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban—extremist Sunni groups which it views as direct threats to Iran’s Shiites—as well as on reducing Afghanistan’s rampant drug trade.

Of course the United States has other important concerns about Iran, including Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the threat it poses to Israel—particularly in view of the recent conflict in Gaza. But the paramount issues of Iran’s nuclear enrichment and its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we argue, are closely interrelated, and the way they are dealt with could determine the US’s ability to address other problems in the US–Iranian relationship.

Under President Bush, Iran’s nuclear program and its role in Iraq and Afghanistan were treated as wholly separate issues. The US government largely refused to talk to Iran on the nuclear issue and instead relied on sanctions and hectoring. By contrast, on the issue of Iraq, it agreed to ambassadorial talks, although these were largely limited to discussions of Iraq’s internal security issues, including Iranian provision of weapons to insurgents. On Afghanistan, aside from occasional allegations about collaboration with the Taliban—this despite Iran’s well-known opposition to the group—the Bush administration studiously ignored Iran. As a consequence, little progress was made on any front.

If President Obama is to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear bomb, as well as develop a successful regional strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to develop an integrated approach toward Iran that addresses all three issues. read more

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy

It is fitting in so many ways that President-elect Obama’s inauguration follows the celebration of King’s life today. But as Obama today can work with men of all races in peaceful tones and moderation, talking of bringing men together and compromise, Dr. King’s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King had to have his day before Obama could have his. Seems King is destined to pave the way, just as he did for another Democratic president back in his day.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” offered in the video above, worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over. But watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963, JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Good evening, my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.

I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.

I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.

Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.

The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.

Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.
Thank you very much.

President John F. Kennedy

It took constant campaigning from King, but JFK came to understand that action was required. Kennedy became the first president since Truman to trumpet the cause of civil rights. President John F. Kennedy’s civil rights legislation was met with fierce opposition by the southern delegations of Congress. He was assassinated before it became law. The legislation LBJ finally signed was Kennedy’s hope for a new America. Had John F. Kennedy lived, his civil rights actions would have been met hard in the south during his 1964 campaign. JFK never lived to fight this fight. The legislation LBJ signed was Kennedy’s final vision, and the words LBJ spoke upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encapsulized the moment for history: “We’ve lost the south for a generation.”

King’s eulogy upon JFK’s death proved the respect each man had won from the other and that politicians can change to forge great hopes for those oppressed. He said that John F. Kennedy lived his life to “move forward with more determination to rid our nation of the vestiges of racial segregation and discrimination.”

King made the men of the 1960s come his way. His life force was gargantuan. His courage unbounded. His faith guided his life, because he knew his soul would live on and on. His memory has as well.
Edited from post first published 1.15.07.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Let There Be Song

History, music, song… and renewal.

Read full story · Comments { 79 }

Operation So Long Dick… and George

Got executive orders? Expect a few, but manifestation will unfold slowly.

Then there is Speaker Pelosi on Fox today, which is getting a lot of play. Fox News has quite a headline: Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials.

“I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,” Pelosi said. “Past is prologue. We learn from it.” Asked if she wants to see investigations, Pelosi responded, “Well, I want to see the truth come forth.” (via Think Progress)

“Prosecuting” and “investigating” seem to be the hyperbole of the day. I’m not buying it. “Unreviewed” is the word Pelosi used, along with “truth.” There is no inherent punishment implied in either.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

What’s in the news today?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN_NNZyh43s&eurl

Share links, have at it. As always, foreign policy topics (and discussion) appreciated. …but obviously, O-Biden is big news right now.

Robin Ghivan (of Clinton cleavage infamy) didn’t waste any time weighing in on the “challenge” Michelle Obama faces, because of “fate.” Ho-boy.

[...] We love a first lady in a classic sheath except when we think it’s inappropriately bare. We are attracted to glamour until it becomes distracting. We argue emphatically about fashion except when we’re declaring it trivial. We want the first lady’s clothes to be modern but cringe if they are too trendy. We love a first lady with an athletic physique, but we get uncomfortable when we can actually see it. We are deeply dysfunctional and tortured in our relationship to fashion. Tim Gunn, help us all.

Obama’s style so far has been mostly distinguished by her fondness for a sleeveless, body-conscious dress often adorned with playful brooches or worn with a strand of marble-size pearls. That preference has led to comparisons to Jackie Kennedy, the last first lady to rise to the level of fashion icon in the popular imagination.

But even Kennedy couldn’t please the public all the time…

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Diane Feinstein Speaks

“President-elect Obama made the comment that he doesn’t want to be told what they think he wants to hear but what they think he should hear, and that’s good enough for me.” – Diane Feinstein

No one ever doubted Feinstein would eventually get on board with Panetta, after all she is a Democrat. Besides, she and Panetta have known each other and been friends for years. She just wanted to make certain the president-elect hadn’t confused the incoming head of the Senate Intelligence Committee with your average potted plant.

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

O-Biden Looking Forward

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSo1ZgQtMo&eurl

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospQeSnsc8E&eurl

Barack Obama is the first president-elect since Ike to take a train to Washington. He picked up Joe Biden in Delaware.

In the background is Obama’s “Organizing for America,” which builds on Barack Obama’s campaign colossus. He announced it today.

So in case you didn’t get the message, the election for 2012 has begun and the future President Obama is not taking anything for granted. He’s going to beat the Republicans before they even anoint the new RNC chair. Permanent campaign? Maybe, but O-Biden doesn’t intend to have only one term if they can help it. Mainly because with all the challenges in front of them it will take two terms to get the job done.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

…and so it begins


Obama waving on his way to pick up Biden.

Our long national nightmare is over.

Whether it’s Obama reaching out to conservative literati or throwing a dinner the day before he’s inaugurated for John McCain, there is new air in Washington, D.C. and along with it comes something else.

Criticism and questioning, strong debate and disagreements will remain, but there will come a time in a day or during the week when that is put aside so that we can laugh about basketball or joke about what the first puppies have done lately. No doubt Tip O’Neill is smiling.

I, for one, am hoping for a more social White House, more artists and events amidst the hard work, as well as a president that is part of the community, Washington and American, instead of the only member of The White House Bubble.

Read full story · Comments { 50 }

Style Break

Remembering back to Robin Givhan’s cleavage column, which launched a Friday series around here to commemorate the stupidity of worrying about Clinton’s cleavage, I found this little item (also mentioned here) that I thought raised an interesting topic. In fact, it has impeded my life on occasion, especially since I enjoy taking sassy shots, complete with plunging neckline, when the mood hits. From People:

De la Renta says she will be “wearing a very, very beautiful dress…pink and grey with this beautiful embroidery.” Oscar continues on to say that he “love[s] Hillary,” but they do fight about her revealing more skin. “You know, Hillary, in a sense, is sort of very prudish about the type of clothes she likes to wear and you know from the waist up she really looks great. She feels very uncomfortable about wearing revealing kind[s] of clothes, and so we are always fighting about the neckline. I do remember one time, we were at a party at the Metropolitan Museum and she was wearing, for the first time, something very, very open and then all of sudden she arrived with a big, huge shawl over her shoulder. And I kept pulling the shawl down, and [she] kept pulling it up because she felt uncomfortable about showing her shoulders.” In addition to her gown, Oscar also created a royal blue day look for Clinton. …

Whether it’s Clinton or Michelle Obama, serious women always are style challenged when it comes to, er… decolletage. I’ve always taken a bit of heat because I think a woman can be serious while revealing her own sensuality, even sexuality, which includes plunging necklines, even if you’re over 40… or over 60. It’s all in how you carry it off and if you’re comfortable flaunting it.

Consider this an ode to the delicious days of cleavage Fridays. All types to fit into the daydream.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Saying Good-bye to Beauties

The pond still flows, but our friends are gone.

Our fish have been re-gifted to Nevada Water Gardens where quite a few of them began their lives. When Jean and Larry told my husband they’d take our fish it took a huge burden off of us. Not unlike when we found our peacocks a new home. Delivering the fish, everyone was very excited to get our huge koi, but also our beautiful butterflies, as well as an exotic Chinese gold fish and all the other beauties. Mark is the pond genius, and if you’ve never experienced the serenity of running water at your place you really should give it a go. We’ve had 3,500 gallons of cascading water to a very small pond and we love the peace it provides no matter the size.

The details of getting ready to move to Washington, D.C. are in full swing at our place, something that takes a lot of time, especially considering how long my husband has lived here. Very early retirement for him is something I certainly never expected nor asked, but it’s a gift born of trust and faith in our life together, manifested from a promise he made when we met. The adventure has begun.

Lots of news today, so consider this your Friday free for all. No topic off limits or out of bounds. Also wanted to add… that everyone really should take the time to read the posts “In the News.” Comments encouraged. (Writers welcomed to trumpet their posts.)

Read full story · Comments { 45 }

Is Afghanistan Worth The Fight?

It’s something Obama and his team will have to decide.

The coming debate on Afghanistan and the policy review the Obama administration will do will happen amidst a fierce conversation among progressives. “Get Afghanistan Right” has been created for just that purpose, arguing against any further military involvement. Once Obama takes office it is sure to get even more intense. No one could suggest with a straight face that military alone will change Afghanistan. At the same time, the same applies to the U.S. having no military presence at all. Obama also has to convince other nations to commit troops in dangerous areas of Afghanistan, with renewed commitment.

Bush’s Iraq-centric focus leaves an inheritance around the world but especially in Afghanistan. A limited troop increase is being reported as “buying time” for Obama and his team to evaluate what should be done next. Amidst that evaluation is the core definition of what comprises America’s strategic interest post-Bush.

There are two main talking points used against increasing U.S. troop levels, though John Kerry did bring up the Vietnam syndrome during HRC’s confirmation hearing. One is obvious and it is what has been wrought in Iraq. Second is the constant refrain from people using the Soviet embarrassment in Afghanistan as prologue and projection. Neither of these reasons work, especially the first, considering Iraq is so totally different and it was completely botched from the start. Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal takes it on:

… I don’t disagree that there needs to be a serious discussion of the issues before a large number of troops are deployed into the region. And I am not really sold one way or the other on troop increases.

However, I do think that any discussion, must start with a candid assessment of American interests. And I do think that there is a major difference between the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Particularly in the FATA) and that of Iraq in 2003. In this case what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan does in fact present a direct and immediate threat to American security and interests. [...]

As for the Soviet projection on what the U.S. could face, most people arguing this line are simplifying the history and the complexity of what happened back during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of the most formidable aspects was Reagan’s C.I.A. Director William Casey. Carter may have signed the directive to move against the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, but the extra legal lengths Casey went to in order to thwart the Soviets is historic. It was a trap that worked beautifully. Robert Gates, who will stay on as Defense Secretary, knows this all too well.

Digging out Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars (pgs. 104-105), I now play stenographer:

At the same time, ISI’s Afghan bureau selected small teams among the mujahedin who would be willing to mount violent sabotage attacks inside Soviet Central Asia. KGB-backed agents had killed hundreds of civilians in terrorist bombings inside Pakistan, and ISI wanted revenge. Mohammed Yousaf, the ISI brigadier who was the Afghan operations chief during this period, recalled that it was Casey who first urged these cross-border assaults during a meeting at ISI headquarters late in 1984… [...]

Robert Gates, Casey’s executive assistant and later CIA director, has confirmed that Afghan rebels “began cross-border operations into the Soviet Union itself” during the spring of 1985. These operations included “raising cain on the Soviet side of the border.” The attacks took place, according to Gates, “with Casey’s encouragement.”

[...] And as Gates reflected later, referring more generally to his sense of mission, Casey had not come to the CIA “with the purpose of making it better… Bill Casey came to the CIA primarily to wage war against the Soviet Union. …

Enter Gorbachev, the self-proclaimed reformer, though at first everyone in the U.S. government doubted it from Reagan on down.

The Soviet Union’s economy was failing. Its technological achievements lagged badly behind the computerized West. … Some analysts captured some of these pressures in their classified reporting, but on the whole the CIA’s analysts understated the Soviet Union’s internal problems. [...] This included the basic insight that the Soviet Union was so decayed as to be near collapse. [...] The Reagan administration was bound by a belief in Soviet power and skepticism about Gorbachev’s reforms. (Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, pg. 159)

No one should underestimate the challenges in Afghanistan, but if Obama’s commitment against allowing failed states is real, we all need to understand what this means in terms of the Af-Pak region. Is leaving Afghanistan to warring tribalism, as Pakistan continues to spiral downward, in U.S. interests? Are we willing to relegate Afghan women and girls to a pre-9/11 existence, reading stories of acid attacks on school girls, saying how horrible it is, while ignoring the standard that human rights is women’s rights, something that can only manifest with world engagement?

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — In a country where many crimes against women are still swept under the rug, the case of a 14-year-old girl whose baby was allegedly aborted by her mother and brother using a razor blade has outraged doctors and human-rights workers. [...]

Afghanistan will be a long-term commitment and much more difficult than Iraq. Nobody is happy about it. We either pick up the pieces and do it now. Or be forced to do it later. It’s about adding security so that the other side of the equation, building infrastructure and institutions, revitalizing Afghan agriculture and a host of other necessities can be done.

Helping Afghans continue to build security is the foundation for it all.

President-elect Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones on the importance of Afghanistan:

In his own words: “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.” — The startling assessment of a study this year led by General Jones for the Atlantic Council of the United States, a nongovernmental organization. He also has said that the war in Iraq caused the United States to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan, and has warned that the consequences of failure are just as serious in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq. “Symbolically, it’s more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq. If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, you’re sending a very clear message to the terrorist organizations that the U.S., the U.N. and the 37 countries with troops on the ground can be defeated.

There is nothing but tough choices ahead.

Read full story · Comments { 61 }

Who Was President on 9/11?

cross-posted on Huffington Post

As the rehabilitation tour of George W. Bush finally, at long last, not soon enough for me, ends (we can only hope), tonight we will yet be treated to one more moment of pure alternative universe when our current president says a final farewell. The constant theme from Bush and Cheney, but also their apologists, as well as their bloviating sycophants on wingnut radio, is that Bush will be remembered for keeping America safe. When evaluating President Bush’s presidency, everything for Republicans begins on September 12, 2001.

[HTML1]

 

Ignored is the PDB: Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S. Ignored is that Bush was on vacation when he got that warning, but stayed on vacation and did nothing. Ignored was the fact that Richard Clarke’s position focusing on terrorism, which had been a cabinet level post during WJC’s presidency, was neutered so that Clarke couldn’t even get a substantive meeting on the threats we faced until it was way too late. Ignored is the fact that all summer there were hair on fire warnings about something big about to happen. Ignored is the fact that WJC and his national security team warned Bush about the threats and Al Qaeda, but because of Bush-Cheney’s Anything But Clinton philosophy, they ignored the threats already known and went it alone. People paid with their lives.

Republicans even blame WJC for 9/11, ignoring who was actually in charge the day of the carnage. That said, there is enough blame to go around, it’s just that Bush never accepts any at all. Funny how in 1993, the very first World Trade Center bombing, just months after WJC came into office, was never blamed on Bush 41. …or that the hits we took in Lebanon on Reagan’s watch were never calculated, when so many years later the Republican in office remained clueless about terrorism. Considering it was C.I.A. Director Casey under Reagan that helped fund bin Laden in Afghanistan, this is no small point.

Campbell Brown (video here) quoted Bush from Larry King’s interview this week, where the president said something truly stunning. When asked if we had ever come close to catching Osama bin Laden, the president didn’t have a clue:

King: Did we ever come close?Bush: I don’t know. I can’t answer that.

From “dead or alive” to who knows?

Never addressed by Republicans is how many more enemies the U.S. has today than we did before Bush and Cheney’s foreign policy laid waste to our strategic alliances. To Republicans, led by the noise machine on wingnut radio, helped along by Fox news, everything for George W. Bush begins on 9/12. It’s really the most glaring insult of Bush’s rehabilitation tour. Republicans want people to forget that not only was Bush caught unprepared on 9/11, but that once he regained his composure he not only let the culprit get away, but to this day he has no idea of what progress, if any, we’ve made in catching the man behind the largest post WWII attack on our country’s history.

Even if Bin Laden is simply a symbol at this late date, that the commander in chief of this country hasn’t a clue of our progress to bring him to justice says everything about George W. Bush as he leaves office.

Seven years later, Bin Laden remains the man who got away.

Read full story · Comments { 51 }

Clinton’s Farwell After Senator Diaper Casts Only ‘No’ Vote On HRC

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDnYDfhoNM4

It seems fitting that Senator Diaper, aka Vitter, would be the only one on the Senate Foreign Relations committee to oppose Clinton’s confirmation. Anyone who has a diaper fetish isn’t going to be too keen on a strong handed competent woman who doesn’t like her men incontinent.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTh6H8FzmAg

Let’s also remember the sad tale of the D.C. Madam, of whom Vitter was allegedly a client, who ended her life due to the publicity and scorn heaped on her, while Mr. Vitter lived to continue his work in the Senate so that he could give us the performance he gave recently that had Hillary leveling him with one of her classic if looks could kill gazes. No doubt his diaper had to be changed after that one.

I waited to post on the first of Hillary’s confirmation votes until she’d made her goodbye speech in the Senate, an excerpt of which is above. Her thoughts about 9/11 were moving. “I loved being your senator,” Clinton said to her fellow New Yorkers. No doubt. She also made a hilarious statement, saying that if she ever misses “Chuck,” speaking of Schumer, all she has to do is turn on the television, especially on local New York TV. It got a big laugh. “You have been teachers and mentors,” she said about her Senate colleagues. She may have come in to a body of skeptics, but she earned their respect.

“We have much to do over at Foggy Bottom… America’s best days are ahead of us.” – Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton

Standing ovation.

Rumor has it that Vitter was in the men’s room at the time.

To add… Reader c chicago suggests in the comment section over “In the News” that if you’re a little miffed at Senator Diaper’s no vote, you give him a call: 202-224-4623.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Eric Holder Grilled

According to Holder, “waterboarding is torture.” Calls for prosecutions will continue, though if Democrats aren’t going to go after Bush and Cheney I still don’t understand the ethics of putting others in the crosshairs.

Specter went at Holder hard on Marc Rich. The committee is on break, but you can watch it online at C-SPAN 3.

The L.A. Times reports Blagojevich will also be an avenue Republicans exploit.

[HTML1]

In other related news to this hearing, according to Eric Lichtbau, an intelligence court will rule that wiretapping is legal even without a court order.

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion. …

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Rand Beers to Homeland Security

I found this out yesterday, but I just wanted to say how fantastic it is to have someone like Rand Beers as counselor to Janet Napolitano, whose confirmation hearing is today. No one is more qualified or better suited for this job.

“Secretary of Homeland Security-designate Janet Napolitano has offered, and I have accepted, the position of Counselor to the Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security…. With many great challenges ahead of us, Governor Napolitano, myself and the entire Obama national security team are determined to make certain that the federal government, state and local officials have all the critical tools, information and capacity to keep America as safe as it can be.”

National Security Network, where he is president, and Democracy Arsenal, a terrific blog on national security, are both projects of Beers. Few have been as supportive and responsive to the online community as Rand Beers.

Rand and I chatted about Iraq for FDL back in 2007, which was quite informative and immensely enjoyable because Rand is such an amazing fountain of knowledge on anything dealing with national security.

Ms. Napolitano made a very smart choice.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

World Reaction to Hillary


via Xinhua/Zhang Yan

While the editorials from the New York Times and Washington Post focused on Bill Clinton’s global work, the world was more interested in what Hillary Clinton’s statements meant in contrast to Bush-Cheney policies.

The world welcomed the change, because the bigger picture has nothing to do with Bill. That Clinton’s respect from the Senate Foreign Relations committee infuriated wingnuts and the usual suspects like David Shuster, who couldn’t wait to give Christopher Hitches another chance to bloviate about the Clintons, but was relegated to a sideshow, was fitting. Because the signal sent from President-elect Obama through Clinton was received loud and clear around the world.

From Pakistan:

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton told her confirmation hearing on Tuesday that fighting terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be the highest priority of the Obama administration.

“It is imperative that we work with our friends in both Pakistan and Afghanistan” to defeat terrorists in that region, she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“The democratically elected government in Pakistan seems to be much more aware (than the previous government) of how this is their fight, not just ours,” she added.

Both President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Clinton believe that the United States should make a more focussed commitment to stabilising Afghanistan and to pushing Pakistan to eliminate the so-called terrorist havens in Fata. [...]

That would be the Federally Administered Tribal Area, with the reference about efforts to try to stabilize Afghanistan causing indigestion in quarters of the progressive community, which I’ll address at length another time.

RT has this headline: Hillary to seek dialog with Moscow.

China View focuses on the Middle East. But it ends with Iran, quoting Clinton on what will be the Obama administration’s “new, perhaps a different approach,” but ending with Clinton’s line on Iran that “no option is off the table,” a line that would ring for the leadership inside China.

Turkey got the message on the Middle East (via Juan Cole):

Secretary of state designate Hillary Clinton Tuesday promised a “smart” blend of U.S. military and diplomatic power projection under Barack Obama, and said America must never give up on Middle East peace.

Clinton promises smart power under Obama

In the latest twist to her trail-blazing political career, Clinton got a warm embrace from the Senate Foreign Relations committee in her confirmation hearing, and laid out the first building blocks of the new U.S. foreign policy.

As Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza rages, she ruled out talks with the Islamist militant group but expressed disquiet over civilian casualties on both sides. [...]

That last line is important, because it signals that the Obama administration will not be tone deaf when it comes to the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. It’s a beginning step away from Bush’s tunnel vision where Palestinians are concerned.

Back here… Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal has a smart article up that includes Syria, catching Kerry’s question on whether we will finally, at long last, have an ambassador to Syria under Obama, but more specifically what that would mean to U.S. policy in the region.

The Obama administration also views efforts to engage Syria as central to U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Sen. Clinton acknowledged that the U.S. has continued concerns about Damascus’s support of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. But she said Washington should test Syria’s willingness to break its strategic alliance with Iran and these extremist groups.

“I believe that engaging directly with Syria increases the possibility of making progress in changing Syrian behavior,” Sen. Clinton said in her written testimony, noting Washington would directly support Syrian-Israeli peace talks.

The L.A. Times has the headline, capturing what the world has been waiting to manifest under an Obama administration: Hillary Clinton promises new approach to diplomacy.

Do I have an amen?

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

The Thugocracy of Hamas in Gaza

Jeffrey Goldberg has written a sobering op-ed today. Out of the latest war begun by Israel on the alter of stopping the rockets from Hamas thugs in Gaza, a righteous goal founded on an impossible premise that it can be done via military aims alone, we are getting more writing outlining how hopeless it all is until Arab moderates lead and we all help Fatah in the West Bank.

In the Palestinian civil war, Fatah, which today controls much of the West Bank and is engaged in intermittent negotiations with Israel, had become Mr. Rayyan’s direst enemy, a party of apostates and quislings. “First we must deal with the Muslims who speak of a peace process and then we will deal with you,” he declared.

…“Hezbollah is doing very well against Israel, don’t you think?” I asked. His face darkened, suggesting that he understood the implication of my question. At the time, Hamas, too, was firing rockets into Israel, though irregularly and without much effect.

“We support our brothers in the resistance,” he said. But then he added, “I think each situation is different.”

How so?

“They have advantages that we in Gaza don’t have,” he said. “They have excellent weapons. Hezbollah moves freely in Lebanon. We are trapped in the Israeli cage. So I don’t like to hear the sentence, ‘Hezbollah is the leader of the resistance.’ It’s a very annoying sentence. They are heroes to us. But we are the ones fighting in Palestine.” [...]

Glenn Greenwald is having none of it.

I’m finding myself on the other side of many progressives these days, whether it’s my neutrality in finding both Israel and the Hamas militants in Gaza equally guilty, or on Afghanistan, where I’m one of the only ones supporting Obama’s strategy for adding limited forces into Afghanistan. I’m comfortable as progressive contrarian, which solidified when I backed Hillary for president.

How anyone can tout Friedman or his definition of terrorism after he made the case Israel won over Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 is beyond me, but Glenn makes the case. You can be the judge. Friedman is still defensively arguing it today, with this beaut causing me to do a double take and a double read:

Has Israel seen its last conflict with Hezbollah? I doubt it. But Hezbollah, which has done nothing for Hamas, will think three times next time. That is probably all Israel can achieve with a nonstate actor.

The irony is that Hezbollah likely isn’t worried right now about next time, because what they achieved last time elevated them in Lebanon, and with their Iranian benefactors, sufficiently.

The last pargraph of Goldberg is hard to argue, so read the last paragraph. It won’t move the newly metastasized blame Israel contingent, especially those making good points, but it is the beginning of the walk away, no matter where you stand on the issue.

Common ground, anyone?

Read full story · Comments { 30 }

Cooled on Kennedy


It’s almost official. After soaring in yesterday’s hearing, there is a party for HRC tonight. Tomorrow the vote. Then it will be time for her to resign her Senate seat, right about the time New Yorkers seem to have cooled on Kennedy.

New York State voters have cooled on Caroline Kennedy and more voters now prefer State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo 31 – 24 percent for Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney gets 6 percent, with 5 percent for U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, 2 percent for U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, 18 percent for someone else and 14 percent undecided.

Still, voters say 38 – 33 percent that Gov. David Paterson will appoint Ms. Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.

This is a bit personal for both sides, even without the marriage split between Cuomo and Kennedy’s cousin Kerry. The dish on that divorce filled New York columns.

It won’t be long now.

Read full story · Comments { 35 }