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

Vitter Tries to Take on Clinton, and Fails

By on 13 January 2009

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

“I don’t want to beat a dead horse,” said Vitter, then he went on to beat that dead horse. Seemingly more than willing to channel The Wall Street Journal. I kept thinking that Dick Morris must be under the table handing Mr. Vitter his line of attack. Vitter was relegated to the wingnut version representing the Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkiin wing of the Republican Party.

Clinton challenged on WJC’s work came late in the hearing, with HRC’s response to Vitter getting a rise out of Lugar.

Everyone is in agreement that WJC’s work, including CGI, needs transparency going forward, which President-elect Obama and Hillary Clinton acknowledged as well, working out an agreement over days and days. But with Vitter’s sour blue charts and Karl Rove tone, he ran head long into Senator Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who remained open and respectful to all, while Kerry reminded Vitter of the facts. Senator Vitter still didn’t get it, feeling the need to further channel Sean Hannity, also interrupting Clinton, then squealing that her answer to his question should not come out of his time. Kerry quickly slapped him. He then later had to point out to Mr. Vitter that answers had been offered, but those that weren’t would be forthcoming.

Republican whiners have one problem. They have no power. They also have to swallow that President-elect Obama and Clinton have an agreement that put all this in order. Huff and puff as they like, there’s no there there.

WJC’s foundation does great work, as does CGI. Any attempt to try to sully CGI’s global work is disgraceful on the Republicans’ part. It’s old politics considering that the Clintons have been eager to work with the Obama transition team to make sure an “appearance” of conflict was obliterated. Through the years the Clintons have been the most vetted couple in politics, disclosing income continually.

“There is no intention to amend,” said Clinton. That got Lugar’s attention and brought forth another response from him, going so far as to say the committee’s concerns about conflict could end up “prescient.” He did again say he would vote to confirm. Expect more on this issue in the coming hours.

No matter what we do there will be those who raise conflicts, Clinton eventually responded. Count on it.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Questions Arise for Tim Geithner

By on 13 January 2009

A tax “mistake,” topped by a nanny issue? Enough to cause an emergency meeting of the Senate Finance committee. I’m having a Zoe Baird flashback and it’s giving me a headache. But that’s what the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

Gibbs responded immediately:

“The President-elect chose Tim Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary because he’s the right person to help lead our economic recovery during these challenging times. He’s dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction. That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed. He made a common mistake on his taxes, and was unaware that his part-time housekeeper’s work authorization expired for the last three months of her employment. We hope that the Senate will confirm him with strong bipartisan support so that he can begin the important work of the country,” said incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Weeks have passed since Geithner was nominated. Why in the hell is this just coming out today?

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama, George, Bill, Dave, Chuck… but no Rush

By on 13 January 2009

Somehow this just doesn’t move me in the least. Given what Obama said and promised, why wouldn’t he meet with the conservative male heirarchy of wingnut pundit land?

The president-elect arrived at the Chevy Chase, Md., home of syndicated columnist George Will shortly after 6:30 p.m., according to a press pool report. Greeting him at the residence were other luminaries of the conservative commentariat, including the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

Of course Bill, Dave, Chuck and George would not include a woman in their all male smooze BUT WAIT… new reporting offers than Peggy Noonan was the token chick. Kathleen Parker should definitely have been on the list, especially considering she helped to bring out Sarah Palin’s negatives, much to the chagrin of some conservatives.

That Rush would ever be invited to this confab is a joke. He only talks to himself.

When someone is opposing you, disarm them. Charm them. Give them your ear. Let them get to know you so that the person they’re critiquing isn’t some far off detached subject. It’s much harder to slam someone when you’ve met them. Besides, Obama knows he’s got the liberal punditocracy no matter what he does.

Access is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

No Daylight

By on 13 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQAZxUO3Sxo&eurl

Full text of Clinton’s opening statement

“We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal… With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.” – Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton

The word was “we.” It remains to be seen if the skeptics will be mollified, but Clinton presented her case, fully prepared and deeply knowledgeable, with President-elect Obama’s plans present in her statements. There was no daylight. The smiling, jovial, partisan Hillary Clinton took a back seat to the serious foreign policy professional today. Her respect for the Senate’s role evident. Cooperation between all the players up front.

The State Department is back. Clear that President-elect Obama intends to give the State department new teeth through Clinton, taking some of the work from the Defense department, giving new respect for what State can do. Fistfuls of cash in the hands of the military on the ground, no matter how well meaning the “warrior,” cannot replace the role of a State Department professional on the ground, who knows the language and culture, with that same cash, said Clinton. Defense has their role. State has their role. The two are not the same. The Obama administration’s State department under Clinton will reinstate those defining missions, changing course from Bush-Cheney. It’s the most welcome sign to date.

“… One very important aspect of the decisions we make is that we engage in consultation with our friends in the region and beyond. We don’t want anything I say today or the president-elect says to take our friends and allies by surprise. .. But I think it’s fair to say that the president-elect as recently as this weekend said we’re going to be trying new approaches, because what we’ve tried has not worked.” – Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton

“We will move in concert” whenever possible, a policy president-elect Obama insists upon, with our allies and friends.

Unfortunately, in the middle of Senator Boxer’s statement on the treatment of women that included brutal pictures, Chris Matthews and MSNBC decided it was too awful to see (video). He broke in, interrupting the reality so that Hillary Clinton’s passion on the subject of women’s rights was missed. But Matthews made a point to emphasize Clinton’s passion and commitment, also saying her statements would ricochet around the world. What Hillary Clinton can do for women around the world is no small issue, impacting a country’s stability. What many women face around the world is not cultural, it is “criminal,” as Clinton stated today.

Will we put an ambassador back in Syria?, asked Senator Kerry. Specificity will have to wait, but understanding of what’s needed acknowledged.

Nuclear Iran:

“The president-elect has said repeatedly it’s unacceptable. It is going to be United States policy to pursue diplomacy with all its multitudinous tools to do everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. As I also said, no option is off the table. But the president-elect has been very clear that it is unacceptable and that is our premise and that is what we’re going to be basing our actions on.” – Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton

On Afghanistan: “It is the highest priority of the President-elect. … We have to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together. … It is imperative that we work with our friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan. …it is about persuading those two countries that their security.. is at risk. …”

The details remain and cannot be filled in until President-elect Obama takes office. But make no mistake about it, the person he has chosen to lead State is prepared for what they will face together. There has never been a doubt that Clinton would be confirmed. However, her performance today was likely beyond the expectations of even her colleagues, and should leave honest critics mute.

Read full story · Comments { 80 }

The Clinton Confirmation

By on 13 January 2009

Clinton’s confirmation is set for 9:30 a.m.

It’s also being described as the “culmination of a life’s work” for Senator John Kerry, as he takes the lead in the committee he sat before decades ago to make the speech of his life. Still, to say this isn’t where Kerry wanted to be is an understatement, but he’s had to deal with large disappointments. The chairmanship of the Foreign Relations committee, previously held by Biden, also isn’t a small roll: “It’s hard to sort of sit here as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, with my independence and freedom I have to get engaged on almost any issue on foreign policy, and be worried about disappointment…”

As for Clinton, she’s about to take on a role that will challenge her in a way she hasn’t experienced before, but that will also reveal something about her that her critics have never witnessed. Her innate ability to apply her own political pragmatism in a situation set up beautifully by the presidency of Barack Obama. Clinton will have a stage on the world amidst people wanting Obama to succeed across the globe, which provides Hillary the chance to not only advance America’s reputation, but also our national security in a way that Ms. Rice could not begin to accomplish. That’s because Obama has respect for the woman actually doing the job to which she’s been charged, not just using her as window dressing. Obama needs Clinton to succeed, setting the stage for what only a president can do, while Clinton knows what a president needs from his secretary of state having watched the dynamic first hand. Being Obama’s face and voice in the world, especially since the Clintons are beloved in most places, is a double edged plus for the new president. He knows it.

… Clinton, in her opening statement, will stress two themes, according to transition officials: a renewal of American leadership and a revitalization of diplomacy to promote U.S. security interests and advance U.S. values. A transition official said Clinton will emphasize the use of “smart power,” press for greater resources for the State Department and promise to work with Congress in a bipartisan manner on foreign policy.

The former first lady has long described herself as a pragmatic internationalist, someone who adapts to situations as they present themselves and does not adhere to strict formulas. She will assume her new job at a time of great economic peril and when the United States’ reputation around the globe is at a low ebb. [...]

President-elect Obama has made it clear that he won’t deal in dogmatic fashion, but is looking for ways to move dialogue forward wherever he can. With Obama’s open minded approach on diplomacy and foreign policy engagement, Clinton can also be creative. That’s when opportunities turn into breakthroughs that President Obama can maximize to our benefit.

However, what Bush-Cheney has left for Obama and his national security team is the most daunting situation we’ve faced in decades. The changing of the presidential guard is also the most dangerous of times. Considering U.S. diplomacy is at the lowest it’s been since WJC was in office, Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton has her work cut out for her. I bet she can’t wait.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

Condoleezza Rice Bedeviled by Bush Again

By on 12 January 2009

Banning Arab parties in the upcoming election? Stunning. …and incredibly stupid. The good news is that it actually makes Olmert’s move on Bush against Condoleezza Rice almost recede from view. Almost. But it sure reminds you of the serial failures Rice has suffered under a president that never seems willing to let her do her job, whatever that may be at the time.

Though I’m no fan of Condi, mainly because she’s proven woefully incompetent in her positions, particularly as national security advisor, she’s trying to get a ceasefire agreement pushed through at the UN Security Council. But on a phone call from Olmert, George W. Bush made Rice abstain from voting on the measure, the only one on the U.N. Security Council not voting in favor of the ceasefire. The Israeli leader gloated in typical machismo satisfaction, revealing why so many detest Israeli leaders during military actions. Their rhetoric is insulting to the United States, making the U.S. presidency look like nothing more than a mere patsy for Israeli action.

“She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour,” Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

[...] “I said ‘get me President Bush on the phone’. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now’. He got off the podium and spoke to me.

“I told him the United States could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour.”

This is exactly the type of foreign policy from which Obama needs to stay an ocean away. The interlocking of Israeli – American policy regarding the former’s escalating military actions against Palestinians has caused our country a lot of grief. Obama needs to separate Israeli – American policy in the Middle East, though there is no evidence that is what will happen. But independence and friendship are not mutually exclusive, and Obama through Clinton needs to send that message upon arrival.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Did Obama Get the Message on Warren?

By on 12 January 2009

The “frozen chosen” have not been frozen out. And the member Obama has brought in from the cold is gay.

But excuse me if I laughed out loud at this offering:

“The president-elect has respect for the Rt. Rev. Robinson, who offered his advice and counsel over the past couple of years,” an inaugural official said. “It also has the benefit of further reinforcing our commitment to an open and inclusive inaugural.”

Um… no, but nice try on the spin.

Clearly, President-elect Obama underestimated the firestorm that having bigoted, mysoginistic Rick Warren up front and center at his inaugural would inspire. The choice of Robinson, which is a good one, is an attempt to cover the catastrophe.

But no, says an Obama source, according to Americablog:

An Obama source said: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.”

Many ways to answer this, but this response is stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

As an Episcopal, I applaud the choice of Robinson, however, I’m more interested in this outreach. Somewhere Katharine Jefferts Schori is smiling.

Rev. Sharon Watkins will deliver the sermon at the traditional National Prayer Service on January 21 — a day after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced Sunday. Watkins — the general minister and president of the 700,000-member Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) — will be the first woman to deliver the sermon at the traditional inaugural event, which takes place at the National Cathedral in northwest Washington, D.C. – CNN

With Obama offering Warren the top slot, spotlighting a preacher who has compared abortion to the Holocaust, also believing women should genuflect to their husbands, Warren’s presence has never been all about his homophobia for me. (Though it’s also important to remember that Warren was against the appointment of Robinson.) I’ve been battling the Only Men Are Qualified to Pontificate About Religion nonsense that pervades our culture for years. (Look at any talking head panel on religion, and you’ll rarely find a woman.) Spiritual leadership isn’t just for men, though you never know it by the organized religions that dominate our culture.

Obama handled the spiritual offerings of his inauguration ceremonies abominably. Really, why the slow roll out on the names? Did Obama and his team actually believe progressives wouldn’t care? If so, it illustrates that Obama hasn’t learned a thing since he first lectured Democrats on religion, something that simply regurgitated a right-wing talking point that insults the progressive faithful. Something that conservative Dems resort to when desperate.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Politico.com Resurrects Old Battle Lines Just in Time for Confirmation

By on 12 January 2009


Worst reporting so far this year. It didn’t take long either. Politico.com jumped into the pit, using Glenn Thrush and Amie Parnes to resurrect the 2008 storyline of primary grudges between Obama and Clinton, throwing WJC into the mix for good measure. The Obama – Clinton Soap Opera is a live and well in the minds of these two reporters, but most certainly in the headline writers at Politico.com. It begins at “but”:

Barring a bombshell revelation, all sides expect Clinton to be speedily confirmed as secretary of state. But her rendezvous with the Foreign Relations Committee at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday still offers its share of potential land mines.

Not even Republicans are talking this way. They’re holding their fire for Eric Holder, which is obvious to any astute political analyst that’s interested in anything but manufacturing yet another creative fiction piece on a Clinton drama that doesn’t exist.

And who does Thrush and Parnes rely on for that drama? Senator can’t keep his privates in his pants Vitter:

“Over the recess, Sen. Vitter has had his staff investigate some of the potential conflicts of interest between the secretary of state and her husband’s enterprises,” says Vitter spokesman Joel DiGrado. “He’s going to ask her to provide a more substantial explanation.”

Of course, you knew the New York Times had to be the inspiration for this drivel: The New York Times stoked the opposition on Sunday… It gave the Politico writers a chance to opine on:

“Disclosure of Mr. Clinton’s charitable fundraising and relevant private fees should be done monthly, or at least quarterly, not just once a year,” the paper demanded.

Obama transition spokeswoman Brooke Anderson quickly swatted aside that suggestion, telling Politico in an e-mail: “The agreement with the Clinton Foundation goes well beyond the requirements of the law to help avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

But WJC isn’t the target for Thrush and Parnes. It’s stoking the old Hillary Isn’t A Team Player Line. Ignoring the millions she raised for Obama. The countless miles she clocked campaigning for him. Her “Hillary Sent Me” campaign. All of these things topped by the ever present storyline that bored reporters love to pound: WJC will bring his wife down.

The Bill Clinton controversy is likely to attract the most attention, but Clinton’s team is actually more focused on erasing lingering doubts about whether she would be an Obama team player, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

Lingering doubts from whom? Over exercised reporter types who feed off the Obama – Clinton drama. Can Chris Matthews be far behind? They’re all more intent on perpetuating the Obama v. Hillary drama than Republicans.

HRC deserves better.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Jack Bauer Returns

By on 11 January 2009

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

What seems like ages ago, Rush Limbaugh launched into a ownership tirade of the TV series “24,” but most specifically Jack Bauer, saying he was obviously a Republican. I wasn’t surprised, but as a fan of the show I was infuriated. How could a television show and character belong to any party? After all, it’s TV. But most importantly, Rush seemed to be regurgitating that wingnut favorite that any strong, lethal warrior is automatically a Republican. Why quibble, right? After all, who wants to claim someone who tortures his prisoners. It’s more complicated, proved by the two decades of conversations going back to the 1980s when the C.I.A., in the midst of a war inside Afghanistan, started to re-evaluate Gerald R. Ford’s action banning assassination, which began the long, curved trek to rendition, secret prisons and Bush-Cheney’s torture policy post 9/11. Anyway, the response from me to Rush’s hilarious attachment to Jack Bauer as a Republican was “Jack Bauer is a Democrat.” It infuriated non political types who were fans of the show, because they didn’t want politics brought into it, but especially wingnuts, as emails poured into me.

This Christmas I received the DVD “24″ movie. It was a lot of fun to watch and very much off the usual storyline of the TV “24.” We also spent some marathon hours watching the DVD collection of the show to get primed for the new season, which was fun because my hubby hadn’t seen the early episodes. As for my excuse, I have none. This is the action stuff I love watching.

Tonight, Bauer is back in a new season, with Tony Almeida returning, this time supposedly as an adversary. There’s much in the show that inspires conversation about the TV “hero,” even as some, especially progressives, think he’s an awful character to which the word “hero” should never be ascribed. I’ll let you argue that one out.

There’s not been much good on the small flat screen lately. That’s not a good thing, especially as economics forces people inside. I’m rooting for Jack Bauer and “24″ to change that, at least one hour a week. I’m glad Jack is back.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Israel Losing PR Battle Under Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ Flag

By on 10 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geBpwu-jRjw&eurl

The Israel Air Force on Saturday dropped leaflets into the Gaza Strip warning residents that it plans to escalate its two-week-old offensive. The army says it has dropped the fliers throughout Gaza. It says the notices are meant as a “general warning.” The notice says Israel is about to begin a “new phase in the war on terror.” It says it will “escalate” an operation that already has killed more than 800 Palestinians. – [...] – Haaretz

Seize land to control the tunnels into Israel? Or kick Hamas out? What’s the end goal? Easy. Hamas draws Israel into escalating a bloodbath in Gaza.

In fact, Hamas revels in the Palestinian suffering its terrorism has triggered. Thousands of its fighters have retreated into Gaza’s most densely populated areas, where they continue to fire dozens of rockets a day at Israeli civilians. They want nothing more than to draw Israel into an even bigger and bloodier fight — during which, Hamas calculates, Israeli forces will suffer heavy casualties, while the even bigger Palestinian losses will reap a propaganda windfall for Hamas across the Middle East and Europe.

Israel’s leaders are on the verge of giving Hamas its wish. Its top leaders also rejected the U.N. cease-fire resolution passed Thursday night; now they appear to be debating whether to throw thousands of reserve soldiers into a street-by-street battle. [...]

We need an international effort on Egypt’s border with Israel, but Mubarak, increasingly under pressure, doesn’t like that idea. Enter the EU:

In an attempt to break an impasse that has stalled cease-fire talks aimed at ending the fighting in the Gaza Strip, European diplomats are mulling a proposal which would restore control of the Gaza Strip border crossings to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, the Times of London newspaper reported in Saturday editions. [...]

Meanwhile, Israelis consider escalation. Escalation? Again, to what end? A political disaster for Israelis, as President George W. Bush sits on his hands.

You be the judge on the latest controversy, which neocons are saying is a fake atrocity video from Gaza.

The political pressure on Israel is mounting while we await President Obama. But where’s the pressure in the U.S. for Israel to understand what their military action is doing around the world? No one should be sanguine that Obama will act any differently than other American presidents if there is no pressure here for him to revert to “honest broker.”

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal has a jarring headline for anyone pro Israel: Israel Is Committing War Crimes: Hamas’s violations are no justification for Israel’s actions. The definition of “war crimes” should not make Bush or Cheney rest easy or travel very far. But our friend Israel is headed for a bigger PR defeat than Lebanon ’06, which was also a military disaster for Olmert. Attempting to balance that neither side is perfect, the writer comes to this judgment of Israel’s crimes: Israel’s American-made F-16s and Apache helicopters have destroyed mosques, the education and justice ministries, a university, prisons, courts and police stations. These institutions were part of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. … Deliberate attacks on civilians that lack strict military necessity are war crimes. Israel’s current violations of international law extend a long pattern of abuse of the rights of Gaza Palestinians.

No one seems to be willing to explain how Israel is going to stop Hamas rocket attacks, targeting the militant thugs inside Gaza, without hitting civilians and the infrastructure, when Hamas lies in the midst of both.

Israel’s contemplation of escalation is a spring board to insanity, because it rewards Hamas’ way of terrorist war play with more dead Palestinians.

After all these years the Israelis still don’t get that their cause depends on keeping hearts and minds invested on their side, which as the 21st century dawns plays out violently on a very old grudge match, now flying under the banner of Bush’s “war on terror,” that is wearing everyone’s patience to a nub.

Read full story · Comments { 74 }

Progressive Bankruptcy on Afghanistan

By on 09 January 2009

cross-posted at Huffington Post

It begins in Iran, where a cleric was caught with his pants down. Daily Beast has the story, which got me thinking about the plight of women in that corner of the world, but specifically in Afghanistan, especially since some leading progressives, Steve Clemons and Rachel Maddow in this instance, seem willing to relegate them to the Taliban and tunnels, with their flippant judgment that going into Afghanistan is simply not worth the fight. Thankfully, President-elect Obama doesn’t agree. But first things first:

The cleric was apparently a member of the government-run Friday Prayers Committee in Hamadan province. Semi-official news sites tried to downplay the impact of the video, which leaked out of an Intelligence Ministry investigation. But their reports did acknowledge that the man involved was a married cleric, and that the video depicts the consummation of an unlawful affair. [...]

We all know what would happen if this video was of a woman committing adultery, now don’t we.

It got me thinking about something that was said on Rachel Maddow’s show this week during an interview with Steve Clemons. The conversation was about Afghanistan and what would happen if we walked away, with Clemons quoting Dana Priest from an online chat. Saying that we’d simply have to smuggle the women out when it got bad.

“… (Dana Priest) is increasingly of the view that we’re going to probably have to come to terms with the Taliban and just find a way to tunnel out women, because it will be an awful reality for them, otherwise this will be a never ending war …” – Steve Clemons

Coming to terms with the Taliban is a reality, agreed. But count me out on treating Afghan women as collateral damage that we will try to smuggle out via tunnels. I mean, really.

Progressives are getting quite flippant about the Afghanistan quagmire and how we shouldn’t escalate at all in that country, seemingly content to smuggle women out instead of trying to work in selected areas/cities to help Afghans restore security. Of course, Afghanistan cannot be seen in a vacuum, with the Af-Pak challenge joined, which is why Afghanistan remains important. Anyway, I have no answer on this one, but find the type of dialogue I heard between Maddow and Clemons anything but enlightened, even considering he was quoting Dana Priest. I’m not in favor of escalating in Afghanistan like Iraq, mainly because Afghans have never had a central government, so it won’t work. I also have the utmost respect for Steve Clemons, who is a consummate expert on foreign policy, and someone I know and continues to teach me every day. I’m also certainly not one of the “elitist” or “traditional” viewpoints he talks about in the interview either. But the notion that we allow another human rights disaster to unfold for women in Afghanistan, until we can smuggle them out, a suggestion being regurgitated by respected progressives, is unconscionable to me.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as first lady, human rights are women’s rights. Countries that disavow women’s rights also have fewer democratic values and freedoms. Maybe progressives against action in Afghanistan should consider looking at a broader picture in Afghanistan, one that includes women’s rights, but also the rights of young girls to go to school, and whether that is a long term strategic interest to the U.S., not some luxury for which we can’t afford to fight. Are we really willing to allow Afghanistan to go back to the days before 9/11, shrugging off what women and girls will suffer as a result? This is the progressive line on Afghanistan? No troops in Afghanistan; deal with the Taliban, and we’ll just smuggle the women out when things get bad? Unacceptable foreign policy thinking in the 21st century. Women’s rights are human rights.

President-elect Obama is right to be turning his attention and military focus to Afghanistan, which is really a broader subject to include Af-Pak, with Pakistan the number one priority in the region. The policy won’t be easy to implement, especially with progressives losing their moral courage, but leaving the women and girls of Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and tunnels should not be U.S. policy under President Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Did Burris Step In It?

By on 09 January 2009

“I’m confident I will be properly exonerated.” – Illinois Gov. Blagojevich

The plot thickens. A potential problem has popped up regarding Burris, though it’s not clear how big a challenge it actually is at this point. But it adds a question about Burris where none previously appeared.

For the first time, Burris indicated that he asked Blagojevich’s former chief of staff and college classmate, Lon Monk, to relay his interest in the Senate seat to the governor last July or September.

“If you’re close to the governor, you know, let him know I’m certainly interested in the seat,” Burris said he told Monk.

That testimony appears to differ from an affidavit Burris submitted to the impeachment panel this week in which he stated he spoke to no “representatives” of the governor about the Senate post prior to Dec. 26.

Federal prosecutors, who identified Monk as “Lobbyist 1″ in their criminal complaint against Blagojevich, indicated they tapped Monk’s phone in November as Blagojevich moved to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat. [...]

That Burris’ testimony differs from a sworn affidavit he signed seemed not to faze Blago’s Senate designee. However, it’s not a minor point, even if the U.S. Senate chooses to brush it aside.

It remains to be seen whether this is the crack Reid is looking for to save face for the line in the sand he drew and then clumsily crossed. Stay tuned, because when Reid and Durbin “carefully review” Burris’ testimony, as promised, they’ll no doubt find the additional information contradictory to what was previously known.

Burris’ attorney had a ready explanation.

Burris’ lawyer, Timothy Wright, said it was improper to consider Monk a “representative” of the governor — the language used in Burris’ affidavit — since Monk no longer was on the state payroll when he and Burris spoke last year.

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

Panetta and Blair Announced; Steve Kappes Stays

By on 09 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1eN7yXWlQ&eurl

Today at the announcement (with a brief statement on Iran included in the video above):

“… under my administration, the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. That we will uphold our highest values and ideals. And that is a clear charge I have given to Admiral Blair and Leon Panetta. I think it’s important for us to do that not only because that’s who we are, but because ultimately it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists. …” – President-elect Obama

Got that?

It should put any questions to rest about Kappes prior role, because that was not in the Obama administration, which sends an entirely different signal, especially with Brennan in the White House. Good people inside the Agency aren’t thrown overboard because of Bush policies.

Aides to Mr. Obama say they have no intention of directing Mr. Panetta to oust C.I.A. officials who played a role in the agency’s secret interrogation and detention program. Instead, they say, the new administration will focus on reversing the rules that authorized the C.I.A. to carry out aggressive interrogations.

Indeed, in deciding to retain Stephen R. Kappes as the agency’s second-ranking official, Mr. Obama will keep in place an official who had direct oversight of the agency’s network of secret prisons when he held in succession the top two jobs in the C.I.A.’s clandestine service from 2002 to 2004. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Senate Democrats Bristle at Obama’s ‘Trickle-Down’ Stimulus

By on 09 January 2009

President-elect Obama first ran straight into Senator Feinstein. Now it’s other Democrats regarding his stimulus package. Obama just might need his friend Spider-Man if he’s going to try to push his stimulus by Senate Democrats. Right now, they aren’t buying what he’s trying to sell.

Senator Kent Conrad: “We don’t have unlimited money,” he said. “We’ve got to target.”

Sen. Wyden, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, on the $3,000 tax cut incentive for jobs: “There’s just not a lot of history of that working very well.”

Senator John Kerry piled on: “I’m not that excited about that,” Sen. John Kerry told CNN. “Having a tax credit for hiring is not going to change that dynamic — creating a direct job will. So I’d rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion and other kinds of things, much more directly and much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job.”

Relying on tax cuts, as Obama is doing right now in order to entice Republicans on board, sounds familiar. It’s very George W. Bushian and part of how we got into this mess in the first place.

“There is only one thing we have got to do in the stimulus, and that is how can we create jobs,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, as he left the meeting. “I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle-down, if we just put it in at the top, it’s going to trickle down. A number of people in there said, ‘Look, we have got to have programs that actually create jobs and put people to work.’ ”

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said lawmakers and the incoming administration had differences over how to focus the huge federal spending in a recovery bill. “Investment, investment, investment has got to be the central focus: energy, roads, bridges, waterways, housing,” he said. “Job creation is Job One.”

[...] But Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic political strategist, said the Obama plan’s price tag is “an awfully big number that follows a financial bailout that’s strikingly unpopular with the public. Both of these things create a challenge to overcome, some nervousness on the Hill and among the public.”

Some Democrats said they were not sure that Congress and the Obama administration would ultimately see eye to eye. Mr. Harkin pointed to Mr. Obama’s speech earlier in the day to promote the economic recovery package and said the rhetoric did not match the dollars in the plan. …

Trickle-down economics harkens back to Obama waxing philosophical about Reagan during the primaries, which didn’t go over very well then either. It also won’t create the jobs necessary to begin getting us out of this mess. You don’t have to be an economist to get it. All you have to do is look at history.

That doesn’t mean Obama won’t have the votes. But Senate Democrats know that if Obama’s stimulus isn’t crafted correctly (Republican support for tax cuts or not), no matter who left the mess, the blame won’t land on Bush.

Read full story · Comments { 57 }

Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, Sisters in Victimology

By on 08 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95wkCMeUkk&eurl
via Politico

Oh, it wasn’t her unpreparedness!

It wasn’t Sarah’s glassy eyed look when Charles Gibson asked her about the Bush doctrine.

It wasn’t her inability to name one newspaper she read.

It wasn’t because she talked about Putin rearing his head and… what was it? Coming over Alaska’s air space?

But hell must have frozen, because Sarah Palin actually gets something correct. Caroline Kennedy is getting an easy pass from the media, or at least was until her you know moments burst on to the scene. Now Kennedy is trailing Cuomo by a mile, according to PPP.

Still, Sarah’s like Ann Coulter who continually whines her way on to the best seller list… and on to NBC. I did a long piece a while back on the brilliance of Coulter’s ability to make big money peddling manure. Remains to be seen if Palin can make victimhood her financial salvation, but she’s sure giving it a go.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

The Carter Syndrome and Joe the Plumber

By on 08 January 2009

When you look at the photo of the five presidents, then read former President Carter’s op-ed “An Unnecessary War” today, it becomes immediately clear why the body language has Carter standing out there on the edge, alone. The leader of rhetoric that all sins are Israel’s when it comes to the Palestinians is the leading edge why.

Regular readers know that I’m no Carter fan (he inspired me to become a Reagan Democrat, though I was saved by 1983). However, I am able to give credit where it’s due on his post-presidency. But I cannot for the life of me fathom Carter’s insistence that Israel’s response in Gaza be seen in a vacuum, excluding the violence from the militant wing of Hamas who runs the world in that tiny sliver of the Middle East. I am at least heartened that the onslaught of criticism from Carter’s last book now at least has him offering examples of Hamas terrorism as he does today. It doesn’t last long. But Carter’s enduring legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian chaos is that he’s opened a wide alley for people to voice opposition to the standard AIPAC line, which has poisoned U.S. Middle East policy for years. For that Carter deserves a medal. The spawn of Carter, however, is deserving a syndrome title.

Enter Rashid Khalidi’s view of the Gaza war, someone who is a member of the Carter syndrome crowd:

THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.

Segue to the U.N. which has suspended humanitarian aid in Gaza because of Israel’s strikes on U.N. facilities. United Nations Relief and Works Agency spokesman Chris Gunness also accuses Israel of “deliberately targeting” aid workers. (Founding member of the Charter syndrome crowd.)

I remain determinedly neutral, trying to see all sides as clearly as possible, considering I’ve never set foot in the region, something I hope will change if someone ever decides informed independent journalism is as important to support financially as celebrity wingnut stenographers like Joe the Plumber. It should not go unnoticed that regardless of the danger, which is Israel’s excuse for not letting journalists in, Joe gets access above all others because of Pajamas Media, something that further inspires the Carter syndrome crowd’s caterwauling. (Disclosure: I reported for Pajamas Media during the election season.)

Meanwhile among Israeli leaders, Haaretz offers this headline: Barak, Livni, Olmert at loggerheads over exit strategy of Gaza operation. No one ever seems to learn that getting into a war is always easier than getting out, especially when you haven’t thought it out at the planning. This is what gives the Carter syndrome crowd their platform. Israel always seems to simply blow crap up, invade, then pull back, rinse repeat every few years, with “peace” a word relegated to propaganda.

Now there are also reports that rockets have been fired from Lebanon into northern Israel.

Where to start?

The United Nations Security Council:

Mideast envoys and UNSC delegates have been looking for ways of ending the crisis, notably around the Egyptian-French plan, which calls for better border controls between Gaza and Egypt to crack down on the smuggling of weapons to Hamas militants. The Egyptian-French proposal aims to achieve a “lasting halt” to both rocket fire into Israel and arms-trafficking for Hamas and a pullout of IDF troops, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said Thursday. It would seek the reopening of border crossings between Israel and Egypt, a reconstruction effort in Gaza, prisoner exchanges and a return to overall peace talks, he said.

However, that doesn’t deal with the Carter syndrome contingent, which refuses to acknowledge the violent military wing of Hamas that has power in Gaza, over which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has no say or sway.

Amidst it all comes Egypts ceasefire proposal, which calls for a cessation to fighting that will be followed by border security talks, but also an end to the Gaza blockade that has been greeted positively on all sides, with Condoleezza Rice expressing U.S. support as well. Egypt is putting pressure on Hamas leadership in Syria as well, with Turkey announcing their willingness to be part of a monitoring team inside Gaza, along with the French.

None of this wipes out what Carter and others continually emphasize in a vacuum, which is a brutal Israel against “innocent” Palestinians in Gaza that ignores the equally brutal, terrorist regime of militant Hamas that is hurting the real innocents, which are the civilians caught in the crossfire of the Gaza thugocracy. So one wonders whether Israel’s peace talks with Syria will include the subject of the militant faction of Hamas comfortably given sanctuary by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Way out on the fringe reality is The Hague’s unfolding investigation on Hariri’s assassination, which could blow all the meditations on ceasefire shy high.

While balancing opposing ideas in your head at once, which the Middle East requires, one still has to wonder if Israel’s only goal was to light a fuse under Arab leaders in the region to become more active in standing up to Hamas in Gaza, or if they really believed the tortured Palestinians under the Gaza thugocracy would actually rise up. Nah, it had to be the former; either that or they had no ultimate goal at all, just a wait and see what happens approach. Either way, Israel’s extreme military reaction to Hamas’ extreme acting out certainly inspired reactions beyond the usual suspects. The carnage is, as they say, collateral damage to The Cause, which is an eventual Palestinian state. The only thing that will save the Israelis.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Obama’s BlackBerry Battle

By on 08 January 2009

It says something about the man who will be president that he is fighting hard to stay connected to the outside world. Battling the bubble. It’s critical to remain plugged in to reality.

“They’re going to pry it out of my hands,” the president-elect said.[...] But in the interview Wednesday, Obama suggested keeping his BlackBerry is one way he could stay connected to the real world.

“I’ve got to look for every opportunity to do that – ways that aren’t scripted, ways that aren’t controlled, ways where, you know, people aren’t just complimenting you or standing up when you enter into a room, ways of staying grounded,” he said.

Independence and independent advice that cannot be filtered in any way. Privacy for a president? Uncensored information, what a concept.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

John Brennan as Obama’s Counterterrorism Guru

By on 08 January 2009

According to the New York Times, John Brennan is back and it looks like he may get Richard Clarke’s old job. It also appears as if Obama is going to reorganize the way we approach counterterrorism.

The plan being discussed would eliminate the independent homeland security adviser’s office and assign those duties to the National Security Council to streamline sometimes overlapping functions. A deputy national security adviser would be charged with overseeing the effort to guard against terrorism and to respond to natural disasters.

Democrats close to the transition said Mr. Obama’s choice for that job was John O. Brennan, a longtime C.I.A. veteran who was the front-runner to head the spy agency until withdrawing in November amid criticism of his views on interrogation and detention policies. His appointment would not require Senate confirmation. [...]

That gust of wind you just felt on the back of your neck is the collective C.I.A. breathing an easy exhale.

Brennan took a lot of heat from Glenn Greenwald and many others when he was first being considered for C.I.A. chief, with my main objection to him his strong backing of rendition. But he knows his stuff and inside the White House he’ll be able to give Obama what he needs. He also won’t have to worry about a confirmation hearing either, which would likely get ugly.

I doubt this will soothe Bill O’Reilly, who is leading a one man fear campaign directed at Barack Obama, repeating ad nauseam that Obama’s plans for the C.I.A. will cause another attack. That getting rid of torture will make the U.S. vulnerable. O’Reilly has Obama’s presidency in shambles before he’s even sworn in.

But the thing I like best about what the Times is reporting is that Obama may eliminate the homeland security adviser’s office, assigning them to the NSC instead. This is exactly what’s needed. I’ve been bitching about the homeland security island inside the White House since it was created. Besides, any time I hear the word “streamline” when it comes to security it makes me think people just might be talking to each other.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Obama and the Economy

By on 08 January 2009

Prepare for warnings. There will also be a lot about jobs. An excerpt from the speech:

… That’s why we’ll invest in priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century. That’s why the overwhelming majority of the jobs created will be in the private sector, while our plan will save the public sector jobs of teachers, cops, firefighters and others who provide vital services.

[...] Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full arsenal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors, and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust. …

Read full story · Comments { 41 }

Neocons Against Juan Cole

By on 07 January 2009

Michael J. Totten is organizing a “Stop Juan Cole” campaign. All because the gargantuan egos of the Middle East borg hive mind can’t take Cole’s independence. Cole was ahead until the campaign began.

I don’t always agree with Cole’s assessments and analysis, but I respect his take regardless, because he’s informed. He’s one of my must reads every day, because he’s a brilliant mind, independent thinker and a voice sorely needed amidst the rabble who rarely have an original thought on the Middle East.

Support Juan Cole.

UPDATE: Heard from Michael J. Totten, so I thought I’d offer his response. It’s not Cole’s independence as I stated; for Michael it’s Cole’s “imbecility.” He cites this post from 2006 as evidence, which launches on quite a quote from Cole. You judge the rest.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }