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 | March, 2009

Clinton: Two-State Solution ‘Inescapable’

By on 03 March 2009

It’s just nobody knows how to get there.

“The inevitability of working toward a two-state solution is inescapable,” Clinton said at a news conference after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. (source: Bloomberg News)

Netanyahu:

“We found a common language for achieving the common goals,” Netanyahu said after meeting with Clinton at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. He said the two agreed to meet after a new government is formed and “think together creatively to get out of this maze.”

Clinton’s commitment to achieve a “comprehensive peace” was emphasized by language of pursuing that goal “on all fronts.” Active language.

Now let’s go back to Clinton’s remarks from yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh. I wholeheartedly agree with Tamara Wittes, of the Saban Center at Brookings, remarks that are supplied by the ever helpful Marc Lynch, even if he (and others) disagree with her (and me). Ms. Wittes scolds Mr. Lynch, then explains her points on Clinton further:

I have to say I think you badly misinterpreted Clinton’s statement at the Gaza reconstruction conference and unnecessarily reinforced the pessimism you say is already taking hold in the region. And you missed entirely a major variable conditioning her statements and emerging US policy: Congressional attitudes.

There is a big difference, and there has to be, between what the United States is willing to do with its money, and what it might do diplomatically. Clinton’s statement carefully reflected this dualism, but you did not notice it. read on

Meanwhile, guess who slipped into town?

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Obama Denies Times Report on Missile Deal with Russia

By on 03 March 2009

During President Obama’s impromptu, sort of press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he came right out to say that The New York Times article on his letter to Russia “didn’t accurately characterize” what was sent to President Medvedev.

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday. [...]

Not quite, according to the President:

“What I said in the letter is what I have said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed toward, not Russia, but Iran,” he said.

“And what I said … was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system.”

For her part, Secretary Clinton walked in rhetorical lock step with President Obama:

“What we have said specifically in regard to missile defence in Europe is that it has always been intended to deter any missiles that might come from Iran,” Clinton said. “It remains our position. We have explained that to the Russians before.” …

Clinton declined to comment on the letter Obama sent to Russia.

Regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Clinton was as transparent and boldly honest in her response today as anyone on her level can be, a comment that reveals the actual capabilities anyone has of stopping Iran. The United States will “do all that we can” to stop Iran. In the end it will take real regional pressure, as well as restraint from the Israelis, though doubt remains as to whether that part of the equation will manifest, especially given the weight the Iranian issue now has in Israel.

One thing Clinton said yesterday after the Sharm el-Sheik conference I’d also like to mention, which also goes under the “transparent and boldly honest” heading, revealing Clinton’s commitment to communicate not only the President’s policies, but where they stand within her own commitment. Regarding working toward the equilibrium required to move forward in the Middle East, Clinton revealed the passion and purpose she brings to her position:

I feel passionately about this. This is something that is in my heart, not just in my portfolio. – Secretary Clinton

It’s a remarkable team we’ve got on the diplomatic front and we’re going to need every bit of wattage they’ve got.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

On Middle East ‘Equilibrium’

By on 03 March 2009

–updated–

The timing of yesterday’s event moderated by Steve Clemons was perfect, coinciding with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first visit to the Middle East as Secretary of State. The topic: What’s next for peace in the Middle East? Guests included Farah Stockman of The Boston Globe, Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation, M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, and Abderrahim Foukara of Al-Jazeera. It was held at the City Club of Washington.

First, some quick hits on Clinton’s trip, as she begins the work President Obama hopes will step away from the failed non-engagement of the Bush-Cheney years.

Clinton speaking after Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt conference, where almost $1 billion in U.S. aid for Gaza was announced. As an aside, Martin Peretz strikes again, saying no aid should get through, exhibit A why a little tough love to Israel is required regarding Gaza.

Coverage via the Guardian:

“We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards that will ensure our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands,” she said. “It is time to break the cycle of rejection and resistance, to cut the strings pulled by those who exploit the suffering of innocent people.”

Clinton made no reference to the closure of the Gaza crossings, or to Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are a prime concern for the Palestinians.

There’s also much being made about Clinton’s comments regarding Iran and their nuclear ambitions, as she downplays Iranian reaction to serious diplomacy, undoubtedly meant to lower expectations, while putting pressure on Iran. From Egypt:

“We’re under no illusions,” the official quoted Clinton as telling al Nahyan. “Our eyes are wide open on Iran.”

To add, Clemons has a piece up on Israel, Iran and the U.S. that is a must read. It also proves my point about Netanyahu.

Honest broker moments were revealed though they fell short of dealing with anything controversial such as the choke points and settlements.

Clinton having a moment with Syria’s foreign minister:

It was a brief but significant gesture: in the hubbub of the Gaza donor’s conference in Egypt, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, shook hands and exchanged a few words yesterday with Walid Mouallem, her Syrian counterpart. …

As for what’s next on Middle East peace as the Obama administration begins the tough slog post Bush, several things stood out from the forum. First was Steve Clemons use of the word “equilibrium” over trying to achieve peace. I’ve been wondering how we take advantage of the shift and get to peace under President Obama, especially since I don’t believe peace is a real option. Lurching cease-fires interrupted by violence will never bring peace.

Secondly, the consensus of the panelists was that Iran is a bigger issue for Israelis than the Palestinians. I’ve heard it before, but it still sounds like an excuse, something that is sure to roil politics here in the U.S. and maybe that’s the point?

Much talk was about the question of whether a two state solution is possible anymore, even as some imagine one state is what may manifest. That Palestinians actually want that; juxtaposed against it would really be better for Israelis. I don’t see how anything works in the long term without two states, no matter how much I study and read on the subject. The U.S. and leaders in the region must put pressure on the parties to move forward with some plan for a sustained equilibrium. That can only happen if our gov. puts a value on U.S. interests first, beyond what will only benefit Israel, but cause us problems in the region with Arab nations. Nations with which Obama must make inroads on new engagement.

Optimism seemed to be the prevailing sentiment of the panelists.

Listening to experts you can never discount what is said, but I’m not feeling the same. M.J. Rosenberg’s optimism is in part due to President Obama himself. Israel’s current state of politics in that country are not encouraging, especially with Netanyahu up front, someone who has never appreciated the horrific cost of settlements, which was a constant theme from Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara. Then again, maybe only Bibi can do it. Doubts remain.

I also keep wondering how we get from political philosophy and intent to manifesting something concrete. Seriously, how long can we continue to talk about “peace,” without drawing up a plan that provides “equilibrium” to a region that never seems to want to step forward. We need to, as Clemons says, change the game.

Below are notes I took during the forum. Any misunderstanding of what’s written is on me, not the person to which the idea or quote is attributed. You can only take notes so fast. Any comments I have appear in italics after quote or basic idea of what was said by the panelist or the moderator.

Clemons on Clinton: “Impressive realist stripes” in Asia. (That’s what has enraged the Jewish community recently. They never saw Clinton’s internationalist tendencies, which are realist and pragmatic to their core.)

“I don’t believe in peace. I believe in equilibrium, equilibria.” – Clemons

“Iran was not the elephant in the room that it is now.” – Farah Stockman

“More and more Jewish voices” speaking out for something beyond the status qou. – Abderrahim Foukara. Also says it’s the Iran issue that’s paramount. “The whole thing harkens back to the issue of democracy.” It’s about settlements. “I doubt if Barack Obama will be able to make them do that one thing.” The West talks about Israel being a great democracy, but in the shadow of what the Palestinians are enduring how great a democracy can it be? Not a popular sentiment in the U.S. to offer, a gamble to utter it. (Mr. Foukara’s point was a plea of sorts, made continually throughout the forum.)

MJ Rosenberg – “In general I’m optimistic.” Mitchell’s call last week that included Jewish peace groups is one reason, he said. “We weren’t even invited to a Chanukah celebration” in the Bush years. “The status quo lobby,” as he called it, meaning AIPAC. Some in town “are very worried about George Mitchell, very worried.” Chas freeman, referred by some as that “vile creature,” made it worse. (I linked to MJ’s article on the Chas Freeman battle recently. This appointment is heartening to many peace movement Jews, quite a few in attendance yesterday.)

Amjad Atallah – We either pursue Arab – Israeli peace because Israel wants it, so we adopted that position. Or we have a larger interest that is regional. Mentioned Ann Lewis saying we support whatever gov. the Israelis elect, which is where we are today.

Clemons – Saudi Arabia very uncomfortable with Hamas, “discomfort,” is the appropriate word. (Saudi Arabia helped sponsor this event.)

MJ re Hamas: “I don’t favor engagement with Hamas.” Deal with Hamas only to the extent that it stops the violence. “I don’t see anything wrong with Egypt’s position.” MJ said what Clinton said today was like the Bush admin.

As an aside, here’s what Fox News offered: Lawmakers Worry Whether U.S. Can Keep Gaza Aid Away From Hamas.

Clemons – “The too much, too late strategy” re Clinton.

Farah Stockman – Re Clinton, “wishful thinking”. Even if you don’t say Hamas in your speech they’re still in control of Gaza. (Now you see why I offered a few quick hit links on Clinton’s trip so far. Diplomacy isn’t journalism.)

Is the Hamas issue going to be a civil war inside the Obama admin?, asked Clemons. Yes, said Farah Stockman. “I happened to know that Hamas members have met with Sein Fein” – Farah Stockman. You have to get your armed guys to sign on. (The reality of having George Mitchell in the mix is not a coincidence.)

Abderrahim Foukara – Egypt thinks Hamas is an extension of the Muslim brotherhood. But who would have thought Egypt would be a partner of any sort with Israel. (Acknowledging reality doesn’t mean no progress exists.)

Farah Stockman – “The populations are not the same as their governments.”

Was the election in Palestine a mistake? – Clemons

Abderrahim Foukara – Yes, because Bush put it in terms that democracy was all that was at stake. If we’re not careful parties will “subcontract” their battles to the U.S. “Like Ahmed Chalabi did with us on Iraq.” (American interests must be our prime focus.)

Clemons – “Silo” state issues away from the larger regional issues. (Another way to say it is that people conveniently compartmentalize issues so you don’t have to think of the whole.)

Iran is “paranoid” about their security for many reasons – Clemons

Farah Stockman – Bush made a two-state solution popular. (This infuriated me, because it didn’t matter considering Bush-Cheney had no policy except to aid the Israelis. See Lebanon, which didn’t do the Israelis or the U.S. any good in the region.)

Clemons – Road blocks (brought to Israel by Ehud Barak) are a huge issue. Choke points and aid into Gaza. (I’ve never understood why this isn’t a huge issue with progressives, especially. The choke points and road blocks are a despicable tactic by the Israelis.)

MJ: “Colossaly stupid” to keep food away. “The Israelis are doing everything they can to make these people hate them.”

Abderrahim Foukara – Settlements continued, regardless of Bush’s two state solution rhetoric. (A comment to Ms. Stockman’s point about Bush and two state solution.)

Amjad Atallah – “Punitive” in the hopes that it will make “the Arabs” change. The Israelis seem to believe they can brutalize Arabs into changing. (Again, who can argue that the Israel’s actions are often not only punitive but counterproductive? All that’s happening is radicalization.)

Taking risks in first term will keep Obama from having a second term; so can Obama actually have a dialogue with Hamas? (How can we ignore Hamas’ stature? They run Gaza, whether it’s viable or not seems beside the point.)

Clemons: Give us Netanyahu, please; “What makes sense is game changing moves.” (We cannot afford anything less.)

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

More Proof Rush Is The Voice of the Republican Party

By on 02 March 2009

So, having cleared snow off my driveway and car, off I went to the forum on Middle East peace (full report on that at another time). Listening to Rush on the way, I wondered if he’d address the Michael Steele slam, which happened on D.L. Hughley’s show. He didn’t disappoint, via Politico:

“You know who needs a little leadership? Michael Steele and those at the RNC,” Limbaugh said, part of an unusual counter-attack against the elected head of the GOP.

“I hope the RNC chairman will realize he’s not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats don’t nominate our candidates,” Limbaugh said, his voice rising. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.”

After that, I wondered how long it would take Michael Steele to apologize. Also delighting in the very public civil war that is making matters worse for Republicans. I silently bet myself it would be before the end of the day. As if on cue…

By the time I was driving home from the forum, Steele had paid homage to El Rushbo.

On a certain commentators wingnut show, to use Mark Levine’s own words, the “breaking news” from him was that Michael Steele “had been in touch” with Limbaugh. The gist of it was that Steele evidently went over his words and decided he didn’t really mean what he said; that the words he used weren’t actually what he meant and that no insult was intended. Evidently Mr. Steele realized that without Rush Limbaugh there is no Republican Party and thus he’d be out of a job.

Politico has Michael’s mea culpa.

Read full story · Comments { 36 }

Foreign Affairs: What’s Next for the Peace Process?

By on 02 March 2009
Photobucket

I’ll be attending a forum on the Middle East peace process this afternoon moderated by Steve Clemons.

You can follow on Twitter.

Now let’s just hope I don’t get stuck in the snow.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Double Talk of Rep. Tauscher

By on 02 March 2009
Photobucket

Well, this is very interesting. Jane Hamsher writes about Tascher’s roll in trying to severely alter legislation that would allow judges to work mortgages so people can stay in their homes. Then she gets a call from Tausher’s press secretary saying that she “was not working on this issue, nor was Tauscher taking the lead”:

Segue to Politico:

“It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex,” said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill.

Sounds to me like Rep. Tauscher is caught between the truth and a talking point.

FDL has a petition up demanding that Speaker Pelosi stand up to bank lobbyists.

Seems to me that helping homeowners avert foreclosure would be in the best interest of every Democrat. But maybe I’m missing something. I’m sure Ms. Tauscher can explain it.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Can Fox’s Chris Wallace Survive Without ‘War on Terror’ Talking Point?

By on 02 March 2009
Photobucket

He couldn’t get a grip. Over and over in the interview between Chris Wallace and Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staf, he just couldn’t let go. Where was that old standby “war on terror” talking point? President Obama isn’t using it. His aides aren’t using it. Wallace could deduce only one thing: If people don’t say “war on terror” then the extremists win. It was an exercise in juvenile journalism, but Wallace was determined.

Mike Wallace’s little boy sounded like a kid who’d just lost his favorite dump truck:

WALLACE: Having said that, a lot of people have noticed that both the president and top advisers very seldom talk about the war on terror. Why is that?

From your conversations with him, does he see our fight against Islamic radicals differently than President Bush did?

MULLEN: It’s very clear in my engagement with him that he is very focused on the terrorist extremist threat, and my guidance is to continue to pursue that in every possible way.

WALLACE: Does — do you have any explanation as to why he doesn’t talk about the war on terror?

MULLEN: No, I don’t. I mean, I don’t. I just told you what he’s told me to do is focus very specifically on this threat, led by Al Qaeda, but certainly it’s a top priority to focus on the terrorism and terrorists and the extremists that are out there who would — who would do us harm.

WALLACE: Last question. As the nation’s top military man, do you believe you are still leading a war against terrorism?

MULLEN: There is — there are an awful lot of elements of terrorists and terrorism which threaten us, and we continue to very clearly pursue them, and we will until they’re no longer a threat.

George W. Bush talked about “the war on terror” all the time. Look where that got us.

In the interview Mullen described the priority of focusing on the “terrorist extremist threat.” That Obama has been clear that we will pursue them until they are no longer a threat.

That wasn’t good enough for Wallace, who was obviously trying to weave a national security thread that presented President Obama and his administration as soft on terrorism.

But Mullen’s strong statement used words that actually mean something, including utilizing all the tools we have available, not simply the military ones. For Wallace, that did not compute. Isn’t war and military means the only way to win the “war on terror”?

Adm. Mullen was having none of it, as he answered Wallace’s questions, gradually you saw a smile creep over his face the more Wallace kept pushing. That’s likely because he’s hardly the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to think the “war on terror” talking point is actually misleading, unhelpful and counterproductive. In other words, it doesn’t work.

“General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had ‘objected to the use of the term war on terrorism before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.’ He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that ‘terror is the method they use.’” (Source: International Herald Tribune – via Think Progress)

Then again, there have been others like Donald Rumsfeld, who said it in an interview with Townhall:

Rumsfeld: “I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. … Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.” (source: Townhall)

Including George W. Bush himself, who gave up on it way back in 2004:

BUSH: “We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.” (source: Washington Post)

But count Chris Wallace out. He’s evidently got another objective entirely, and without the “war on terror” talking point, which is all it ever was, Republicans will have to go back to the drawing board. Because when it comes to actually fighting the terrorist extremist threat, which we all know is very real, they don’t have anything in their playbook but worn out slogans.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Reaction Rush, with Hannity the Big Loser

By on 01 March 2009

–updated below–

edited version cross-posted at Huffington Post

I moved to the D.C. area just in time to cover CPAC. Saturday didn’t disappoint, in that watching the circus go by sort of way. A lot of people had the same impression.

Let’s start off with Rahm Emanuel, who reminded the Sunday audience that Rush is the Republican Party. Just ask the ones in Congress who have to pay respect or lose their power.

But it was Republican Mike Murphy on “Meet the Press” who put the deepest dagger into the dittohead crowd. Suffice it to say Mr. Murphy shouldn’t be looking for his CPAC invite any time soon:

MR. MURPHY: All these guys. It’s the nature of it. And they’re going to, they’re going to go out and–and it’s all right, it’s a constructive discussion. But in the–at the end of the day here’s the one statistic we all got to remember: the country’s changing. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote. We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would’ve gotten 47 percent of the vote. The math is changing. Anglo vote’s 74 percent now, not 89. And if we don’t modernize conservatism, we’re going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up. We’re going to be in permanent minority status.

From the looks of CPAC yesterday, conservatives seem happy to head in that direction.

I got to CPAC in time for Ann Coulter (full video here) who delivered a performance of one liners with little in between. That’s not my review, but what I heard around me: “No substance, but she’s comical.” But she delivers it effortlessly. Talking about the names Lincoln was called back in his day, Ann brought it up to date: “If only Al Sharpton was around (Lincoln) would have known he was a victim of racism.” When talking about President Johnson, Coulter stopped in mid-sentence, remembering the youth of the crowd, telling the “whippersnappers” they’d have to look him up, but it was a doozy. Stating that most in the crowd don’t even remember Bill Clinton. Then it was back to Obama: They keep comparing him to Reagan. Evidently they don’t have a Democratic president to compare.

Coulter was followed by David Horowitz and company ranting about Hollywood, including Robert Davi, who was introduced as an actor whose career was in jeopardy because he’s a right-wing conservative. No one told the CPAC crowd that Davi’s career ended a long time ago. But who knows, maybe he can do for himself what turning full wingnut did for Dennis Miller.

The hilarity began early, especially when David Bosse paid insulting tribute to Michael Moore, then credited Moore with giving him a career. That’s when the “recovering European” duo of Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer went into a diatribe against Al Gore trying to hawk the film they’d completed, which amounted to showing clips of pure fiction where global warming is concerned. I thought their segment would never end, especially once they started using English school children to sell their celluloid.

But it was when Niger Innes took the stage that the big ring circus lights came on. Not only was he prepared with lots of juicy Dem hating red meat, but he paved the way for the main attraction, Rush Limbaugh.

If anyone was wondering who is the Republican beacon of the Republicans, watching the CPAC crowd react put all doubts to rest.

For the first ten minutes Rush was on fire. He posted the script, but it hardly gives the atmospherics, which tilted towards the bizarre almost immediately. Whatever polish Ann Coulter provided, Rush delivered none of it. Maybe she can give him some pointers if he does this again, which he seemed to hint at at one point in the speech. But it sure helps when the crowd adores you so that whatever faults you have are ignored.

Like almost immediately something manifested that looked horribly wrong. Rush was sweating profusely and fidgeting like he was about to come out of his skin. The room was very cold, with people around me shivering, putting on their coats, while Rush proclaimed how hot it was. It’s doubtful the lights on Rush made the difference. It had to be nerves. Well, why not? He sits in his EIB studio bubble every day. Now he’s in front of everyone, including being televised on cable, as he mentioned continually until not even his audience was laughing at the joke anymore. He was actually face to face with real, live people. But whatever he delivered it wasn’t a speech. More like a steam of conscious babble, just like he does on radio, though there were no commercials to mercifully break the blather. Honestly, I expected much more.

But one moment was utterly stunning. It was when Rush and the entire CPAC audience took the time and effort to malign John Kerry’s service to this country, even laughing at the mention of Vietnam. Rush’s disrespect for the military dripped off the very mention of Kerry’s name. It was disgraceful. For a crew who professes to respect the military, at every turn Republicans reveal their disdain for our troops, especially if they’re Democrats. It’s the same with Republican military policy, which has strung our forces out and depleted our reserves.

But I’m really at a loss of what to make of Rush’s performance on the whole. It was a rambling, sometimes incoherent, self-indulgent mess. There was something pathetically insecure about the lack of structure to the speech, but also Rush’s herky jerky, sweat wiping, water drinking, fist bumping, awkward pauses, note looking, never ending regurgitation of what Rush thought everyone had to hear. Because he was addressing the nation, you know, which he repeated so many times he even got sick of it.

Still, make no mistake about it. Being on the outs fires people up and the CPAC crowd, most of them college students, were definitely fired up.

But who’s going to lead them? Rush, who won the media straw poll? Mitt Romney, who won the candidate poll?

The only loser was Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck beat him out for media favorite, placing just behind Rush, with Sean coming in third. Losing to Glenn Beck? Ouch. O’Reilly was only one point behind Sean. The Fox water cooler chatter is sure to be buzzing tomorrow.

UPDATE: The Constitution Accountability Center has a terrific post up today that’s a must read. It’s particularly fitting since Rush was awarded the “defender of the Constitution award” by CPAC.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Secretary Clinton Arrives in Egypt …and other Security Matters

By on 01 March 2009

– updated –

Clinton will also meet with Netanyahu.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in the Middle East on Sunday, delving into Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking for the first time at an international donors conference for Gaza. …

Expect every pause, breath and nuance to be over analyzed this week.

Adm. Mullen says Iran has enough material for a bomb. But can they weaponize it?

To add, Secretary Gates disagrees.

Hoagland and Ambassador Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League. Mr. Hoagland also asks we give up Af-Pak for Med-Ind, but only “momentarily,” thank heavens.

“Regional security is not the business of Iran alone,” Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said in Washington last week. “We need a regional nuclear-free zone, to deal with the known Israeli nuclear-weapons problem and the potential Iranian one.” Otherwise, “others in the region will pursue the same course.”

Jim Lobe has an interesting exchange between Elliott Abrams on a teleconference, regarding weapons smuggling and Hamas.

Will Syria get the Golan Heights back? Joshua Landis says no and explains why.

Kessler of the Post is stating the obvious for Secretary Clinton this coming week. But make sure you catch the last few paragraphs. Elliott Abrams has given up on a two state solution, opting for institutions that are to get everyone there, I guess. While Nathan J. Brown, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is looking for the road to an armistice between Israel and Hamas. Both sides agree to stop fighting, with nothing enforced by outside parties (aka U.N.), as they work to some sort of agreement in Egypt. It’s short of a peace treaty, which seems to be too pacifistic for everyone involved.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Common Ground and ‘Conscience’ Rule

By on 01 March 2009

Hello, and welcome to the 21st century where most of us live. “Most” being the operative word here. A time where in the age of Obama much is being made out of “bipartisanship” and common ground. But if the stimulus vote, and CPAC are any indication, with 95% of the attendees disapproving of Obama’s job on the economy, 85% “strongly disapporving,” I’d say the show of common ground means Obama is expected to do whatever Republicans want, while they stay moored in the swamp of 20th century morass that created the tension in the first place. Who says the culture war is over?

Obama to roll back the Bush-Cheney “conscience rule”:

[...] The debate centers on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The rule was sought by conservative groups that argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways for trying to exercise their “right of conscience.” …

The word in bold above is the rub, accommodate.

At work, wherever it is, there is a degree of relinquishing your own personal viewpoints for those of your employer. In the health field, since when are patients to kowtow to the personal beliefs of a doctor, nurse or pharmacists? Since the Republican Party decided to impose their religious viewpoints in the public square.

Frankly, I’ll put my faith up against any conservative, who evidently thinks his or her religious convictions are stronger than mine, or even the atheist whose guide might simply be the golden rule. Such spiritual egotism wherever it lies is anathema to the very notion of enlightenment, but also service to the greater good.

The “conscience rule” is a prejudicial pronouncement meant to strip the rights of women through a Taliban like rule — harsh but true — that the Republicans believe make them morally superior, which was extended into the health care arena in order to strip privacy and personal freedoms away from people seeking medial aid. It has no place in our democratic republic.

After fleeing England, I can’t imagine any of our founders condoning such medieval and anti-constitutional rules in law.

Besides, whose “conscience” will be our guide?

Read full story · Comments { 6 }