Taylor Marsh - News, Political Analysis, Foreign Policy, and Independent Political Opinion on Progressive Politics
Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.
Archive | April, 2009
President Obama has his first chance to shape the Supreme Court.
… Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.
… Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.
Mr. President, the court needs another woman.
As if on cue, today I get an answer to my piece yesterday, with the revelations in David Ignatius scoop sure to send chills down the neoconservatives over in Netanyahu land.
Jones is an activist on the Palestinian issue, which he lists as a top priority for the new administration. He wants the United States to offer a guiding hand in peace negotiations — submitting its own ideas to help break any logjams between the Israelis and Palestinians. “The United States is at its best when it’s directly involved,” Jones says. He cites U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Balkans. “We didn’t tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly.”
This stance may antagonize the new Israeli government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as may the prospect of U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran…
What comes across with Jones is a solid, experienced manager with a Marine’s blunt approach to problems. Asked if he supported Obama’s decision to release the torture memos, for example, Jones answered simply: “I did because I think it’s the right thing to do. In my military experience, I came to believe that bad news doesn’t improve with age. Better to put out bad news as you know it.”
Though Jones was talking about the OLC torture memos, regarding an Obama plan for Israel – Palestinians, “bad news” could be how Netanyahu receives this development. Obama’s not going to be squeezed by Netanyahu on Iran, and if Ignatius is correct, his team plans to make that clear before a Netanyahu visit.
It will be interesting to hear the Saudi reaction, especially after Monday’s US/Saudi conference where Turki Al-Faisal said this:
9:41:38 AM: Al-Faisal: We don’t need more plans from Obama. “We need implementation.”
Of course, ZBig had other thoughts:
9:35:43 AM: Zbig: two parties can’t solve MidEast peace; US needs to frame, w/ SA, who can help. Window is closing.
So what to look for in the Obama plan Ignatius is teasing? For starters, it can’t include anything on Iran. It must include Hamas, which means Egypt’s role will lessen, with Abbas, who desperately needs an image makeover after the Israelis destroyed his cred, strengthened. (Fitting that all the Israels got in return, especially after Gaza, was a stronger Hamas.) Saudi Arabia must also be a major player.
But this news from David “Body of Lies” Ignatius is big. Equilibrium big.
Well, there is blood in their veins, and according to The Hill, it’s boiling.
After a stupendously stupid promise to Sen. Specter, which has him moving ahead of die hard Democrats on committee seating, some are not being quiet about Reid’s sell out.
One senior Democratic lawmaker told The Hill that the Democratic Conference will vote against giving the longtime Pennsylvania Republican seniority over lawmakers like Harkin, Mikulski and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) when they hold their organizational meeting after the 2010 election.
Under his deal with Reid, Specter would jump ahead of all but a few Democrats when it comes time to dole out committee chairmanships and assignments.
“That’s his deal and not the caucus’s,” the senior lawmaker said of Reid’s agreement with Specter.
The rumor mill is rumbling with all sorts of scenarios, with this the obvious: Specter could bump Harkin after the election from his chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee or return to be chairman of Judiciary if the current chairman, Leahy, takes over the gavel at Appropriations.
Harry Reid doesn’t care about whether Specter is a Democrat in name only, that he voted against the budget just yesterday, any more than he cares that Joe Lieberman backed John McCain in the election. Reid’s job is different. What Reid cares about is “Democratic” bodies in the caucus that can be sold whatever it takes to get them in. To him, a “Democratic” is a Democrat. Principle and political purpose has nothing to do with it.
Oh, and just so we’re clear. I could care less about political purity. But if a Democrat isn’t going to support signature issues of our party that’s a completely different story, especially someone coming from blue Pennsylvania. You expect a little winger juice running through the veins of a Dem coming from the deep south, but even Casey, who is against choice, understands what EFCA means to Pennsylvania workers.
Besides, one of the real reasons Specter jumped ship, besides that he couldn’t beat the tea bag candidate Pat Toomey in the primary, is to stick it to the Club for Growth and the GOP for not standing by their man. This is a revenge move on Specter’s part. That Reid’s allowing him his vengeance and his cake too shouldn’t sit well with the caucus. It’s good to see some reaction, though I’d like to see full scale rebellion against Reid.
8:05:08 PM: BO: H1N1 virus alert: 1.5b to fight it. Takes budget pass lap.
8:10:38 PM: AP on closing border. BO: “Akin to closing the barn door…” Horses out, farm answer to dumb ?
8:13:27 PM: BO now playing dad. Wash your hands, cover your mouth. Gives Bush a nod on drugs. Not what u think.
8:21:30 PM: Tapper, did W torture? BO: Wbrding is torture. Rambling answer, WChurhill. “Legal rationales” mistake
8:23:15 PM: 2nd ? On torture. BO: does it make us safer? No info so far to make me think it does.
8:26:09 PM: Duck! Here goes Chuck (Todd): “Pak appears to be @ war w Taliban inside their own country.” D’oh!
8:28:14 PM: Todd then asks if we can secure Pak’s nukes. How’d he get his job? Seriously.
8:30:58 PM: BO: Pakistan obsessed w India as “mortal threat is misguided.” It comes frm inside.
8:36:53 PM: ChipReed on Specter + dead GOP walkin’. BO luvs Arlen. BO best w/o tprompter.
8:42:58 PM: EHenry on Freedom of Choice Act: BO thnks abortion is about more than women’s freedoms. Circular babbling.
8:45:38 PM: Zelny wants 100 day narrative. Insert laughter here. Eye roll optional.
8:49:28 PM: BO on enchanted part of Zelny’s ask, uses military, then backs out. Good thing, bad fit.
8:53:41 PM: I want a cocktail; a luxury when you Twitter presser near where libations are @ reach.
8:58:45 PM: MSherer asks real ? Should prez be able to “derail entire lawsuits” on st secrets. BO flounders.
9:03:57 PM: What a press corp. Not one ? on MidEast, Netanyahu, or Iran. Sherer only solid challenge.
It’s not “Swine flu.” It’s “H1N1 virus.” Got that? Who comes up with these names? Where’s your “Mad Men” who you need them?
That seemed to be Tom Vilsack’s main message on Andrea Mitchell’s show today, as he pushed hard on the Administration’s efforts to save the hog industry. “Swine flu” is a killer in more ways than one.
But the California Nurses Association didn’t get the memo. They do, however, have a plan. The CNA/NNOC action plan includes:
Better ideas than we heard from new HHS head Kathleen Sebelius, whose press conference, besides being awful on all delivery points, basically said to “wash your hands, wash your hands,” and cover your mouth when you cough. I won’t say it was her duck tape moment, but it wasn’t exactly reassuring either.
This day is going to be interminably long.
It’s going to be redundant on so many levels.
It’s also going to be gratifying for Democrats, while only adding to Republican depression. The one real issue in question being Obama’s resolve and his willingness to confront. One review says the window is the auto crisis. I think it’s another, one that doesn’t lead to something so sure.
Among what Obama has done is an Af-Pak strategy; strong Administration push on an early Middle East presence; engaging with leaders Bush wouldn’t (Chavez, etc.); while promising more with Ahmadinejad, which is where we’ll pause for just a moment.
The Iranian president has an election coming up on June 12th, so he’s campaigning. So you need a slogan, right? He’s evidently found one:
Obama’s signature campaign slogan, Yes We Can, has been replicated by the Iranian president in a promotional video issued for Iran’s presidential poll on 12 June, when Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election. The video features a cover picture of Ahmadinejad wearing his trademark white jacket and pointing to the Farsi phrase Ma Mitavanim (We Can) on a blackboard. The film is aimed at students and capitalises on his former status as a university lecturer.
It leaves you speechless.
Obama has also gotten his stimulus passed, expanded SCHIP, reversed the Gag Rule, stem cells, budget done, ethics, Lily Ledbetter, announced yesterday that officials will once again have to consult agencies on rulings that might impact endangered species, among other things, and planted a White House garden to boot.
But if you look back on other presidents, the first 100 days doesn’t tell you how it will all end. So while the review is obligatory, it’s going to tell us nothing, unless you use a different criteria than the usual laundry list, which everyone is trying to do. Find a new way to judge the first 100 days. For instance, danger signs.
WJC got to work on the deficit, aid to Russia, and more, but who could know that in 1994 a simple move to reactivate the special counsel statute would change the first paragraph of his presidential biography forever? You decide if there was a hint it would in the first 100 days.
In George W. Bush’s presidency, something happened at the beginning of his administration that would actually reveal a lot, as far as I’m concerned. Bush demoted the terrorism czar position from cabinet level to staff position, ignoring Bill Clinton’s warnings about al Qaeda. Now this wasn’t an item on Bush’s 100 day list, but looking back it’s one of the most consequential. However, nothing in the first 100 days prepared us for the type of president Bush would be after 9/11, except if you weigh Richard Clarke not being able to get anyone’s attention on the threat until it was too late.
So after weighing Barack Obama’s accomplishments, one of which is turning the right track numbers on their heads from where they were with George W. Bush. Does anything stand out that has the potential to rock his presidency, even as today we evaluate Mr. Obama with superlatives, minus the “state secret” privilege claims, which is a window, but not the nut of what could end up dogging Pres. Obama, much like his predecessors had their own moment when something shifted.
In life, it’s often your strengths that can be your blindside, because that’s where the ego resides, especially for politicians. Not that doing what’s right isn’t laudable, but Obama’s core message, his theme, has always been bringing people together, not confronting them. Once again I go back to that interview with George Stephanopoulos: “I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. …that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week” – May 2005)
The release of the OLC memos has changed this dynamic. It’s unleashed a fury on the right, leaving Obama in a seemingly confrontational position, which is not his natural comfort zone, as has been witnessed by his “no one will be prosecuted” stance that shifted to Justice, while letting it be known that he doesn’t want an accountability or truth commission on torture. He’s besieged on the right, but also on the left, for diametrically opposed reasons. He’s gotten himself caught between his promise for transparency and his penchant for bringing people together in consensus.
Looking back, Bush releasing the terror czar, even after warnings about Al Qaeda, is a hint to his asleep at the wheel reality we faced after “Bin Laden determined to attack inside US.” But it didn’t tell us we’d walk down the torture lane.
So, after all the publicity and stories about Obama’s first 100 days, most of them laudable, and after looking at other presidents, I’ve come to the conclusion that what we should look at is the signal that something might lead us down a path that would change the presidency of Barack Obama. That one moment is the release of the OLC memos, which has twisted the Obama administration into knots. It has exposed Obama’s discomfort with confrontation, something that at his core Mr. Obama is not exactly good at navigating.
But it is this confrontational nature that Pres. Obama will need going forward as he addresses the most important foreign policy area, the Middle East. It’s his stretch moment, to which if he cannot rise he could see a myriad of other issues unable to solve. Because if he doesn’t stand firmly and decidedly in front of PM Netanyahu on the two-state solution, getting something concrete implemented, the Saudis and other important Arab allies, as well as the EU, are less likely to listen to him as readily on Central Asia. Then the next sound you’ll hear is kaboom, with Obama’s presidency changed forever, because bringing people together on the issues he faces today takes skillful confrontation, the bookend of successful leadership.
So the first 100 days tells us something, but only if you look at it through the lens of what the 100 days exposes might be President Obama’s Achille’s heel and the early signs of how well he navigates this personal challenge to his presidency. We all know he can bring people together, but can he confront on issues and push forward implementing what’s needed? His behavior after the OLC memos were released is the window. You decide what you see.
____________________
“Delivering Change” photos compliments of the White House, available on flikr.
We’ll be doing maintenance tonight beginning at 9PM, finishing up server issues, data sync, etc. We’ll be back up as soon as we can, but it will take a while. Thanks for your patience!
“The extraordinary rendition program is well known throughout the world,” said Steven Watt, a staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. “The only place it hasn’t been discussed is where it most cries out for examination – in a U.S. court of law. Allowing this case to go forward is an important step toward reaffirming our commitment to domestic and international human rights law and restoring an America we can be proud of. Victims of extraordinary rendition deserve their day in court.” – ACLU
Just goes to show you that when you embrace Bush-Cheney arguments on rendition and torture it doesn’t bode well. Using language like “perversely encourage”, the president can’t simply hide things that might be embarrassing, the court ruled.
“According to the government’s theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law,” Judge Michael Hawkins said in the 3-0 ruling.
Allowing the government to shield its conduct from court review simply because classified information is involved “would … perversely encourage the president to classify politically embarrassing information simply to place it beyond the reach of judicial process,” Hawkins said.
The court did not address the plaintiffs’ claims that they were kidnapped and tortured, but said judges have an important role to play in reviewing allegations of secret government conduct that violates individual liberties….
Sen. Russ Feingold, in grading Pres. Obama’s first 100 days, gave him good grades. Then lowered the boom when it came to Obama and secrecy. Feingold said this in a conference call, which was picked up by The Hill:
However, Feingold was harsh in his judgment of Obama’s “repeated assertion” of state secrets — a legal defense the administration has invoked three times in court to resist the release of information. That practice earned the lowest grade in Feingold’s report, a “D.”
“So far I haven’t seen the kind of disclosure that is absolutely essential,” he said. “Some habits have carried over.” … “It would have been untenable for the president to not release these memos,” he said. “You simply can’t sweep certain things under the rug. The idea that we’re just going to move on without any kind of accountability is just unacceptable.”
The more pressure the better, especially when you see arguments like this on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, as Ross Douthat of The Atlantic makes his debut, taking over after Bill Kristol bombed out.
“The (Republican) party has shifted pretty far to the right.” – Arlen Specter”
Specter says his stimulus vote was the tipping point to his decision to change parties, but listening to his smackdown on the Club for Growth it’s clear that the efforts to “purify the party” is not just political business to Specter, it’s very personal.
At the presser he adamantly proclaimed he wouldn’t let his future be decided by the Republican primary electorate. Shorter Specter: the right-wing won’t get my political hide. His passion on health issues is another matter, which includes stem cell. Specter is a cancer survivor. There is a lot of talk that this is all about not being able to beat Toomey. No doubt this is a big part of it, but Specter’s tenaciousness on pushing GOP moderation is real if you look at his career. To simply say this is about whether he can get elected is not only cynical, but ignores what Specter has been through and how his life battles have obviously impacted his decision as well.
Specter hinted that to see where he’ll be going forward, look to where he was in 1980.
One of the most interesting analysis so far on the Specter switching parties story comes from George Stephanopoulos, which Specter cited today in his presser:
Part of the reason why a potential Republican primary was becoming so tough for Specter is that the hard-fought 2008 Democratic primary in the state between Obama and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinned the Pennsylvania GOP of many of its moderate voters who switched their party registration to Democratic so they could help influence the Obama vs. Clinton race.
On the other side, if Mitch McConnell believes a checks and balance to Obama-Democratic power is a winner, the Republicans are in even bigger trouble than Specter’s switch reveals.
Oh, and that screech! you heard when this happened was Sean Hannity.
But who dropped what in Ambinder’s lunch today? Santorum? Governor, maybe.
–updated–
Happy first 100 Days, Mr. President.
This is just breaking on CNN and MSNBC. First, Cillizza:
“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”
He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”
It’s the far right that has pushed Specter to the Democratic Party, but let’s also not ignore the broadening of our tent. This includes Blue Dog Dems, which infuriate us all, but allow for a wider political world that includes politicians that represent their districts, even if they don’t mirror what many liberals want to see.
Wingnut radio will be tap dancing as fast as they can. Rush just moments ago, talking about the “drive-by media” framing of Specter’s party switch:
“How can the Rep. Party claim to be a national party if they can’t keep a moderate like Arlen Specter? What’s wrong with that question, Snerdly? … People who are leaving the party aren’t really Republicans… not really conservatives.
Shorter Rush: Specter is really a Dem. Then he quickly segued to the UAW Chrysler news.
DEMOCRATIC Senator Arlen Specter’s full statement is below:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
If this ends up working it could revolutionize unions and (save?) the U.S. auto industry. What compromise and solution look like when desperation is seen as opportunity:
The United Auto Workers union will own 55% of a restructured Chrysler LLC and its retiree health care trust will get a seat on the board if union members vote to approve contract concessions this week.
Chrysler stock could even be traded publicly again, as there are mechanisms for the UAW to sell shares to fund the health care trust.
Factory-level union leaders voted unanimously Monday night to recommend approval of concessions that union President Ron Gettelfinger said would help keep the automaker out of bankruptcy. ..
The union made serious concessions, according to this report, which has laid off workers getting only 50% of their gross pay, among other deal sweeteners instead of bankruptcy:
The union also agreed to consolidate nonskilled labor job classifications into a team concept at all factories. Performance and Christmas bonuses will be suspended this year and next to help pay health care costs.
Ed Schultz has been all over Gettelfinger, so we’ll see if swine flu coverage takes a back seat to this blockbuster story, which has the UAW saving Chrysler, but also a lot of middle class jobs through compromises that are anything but easy.
I’ve said for a long time that globalization will not only force unions to get creative for survival, but that it could open opportunities to remake unions if leadership understands that the 20th century rules are gone and compromises that hurt at first will be the moves that make unions once again indispensable, not only here, but globally. Their viability depends on it, but so do workers across the globe hoping to raise their standards of living in a world more passionate about profit.
“I am certain it is possible and certainly necessary to act with all our might to achieve peace even before I turn 70, which will be in three years,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in his first extensive interview since joining the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. – Via Haaretz
We simply cannot fall into the trap that in order to move the Middle East “peace” process along we have to include Iran in the mix. Defense Minister Ehud Barack seems to get it. Iran is a separate issue and the Obama administration must not fall for this framework. Because so much of this is up to us.
If I’ve learned anything over the many months of listening to Middle East experts, especially the last weeks since I’ve moved to D.C., it’s that nobody is going to manifest equilibrium in the region unless the U.S. provides the push and the umbrella. That was made clear at the New America Foundation conference yesterday, which was also sponsored by the Committee for International Trade (Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce & Industry). We also can’t expect Israelis and Palestinians to do this on their own because they won’t or can’t. But no talks should include any “deal” on Iran.
However, one thing is clear and that’s the Obama administration’s refusal to stand down, but instead continue to push Netanyahu on Israel’s responsibilities on their end regarding Palestinians, is not exactly sticking. Via Haaretz:
“We are not talking about a military attack. Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world’s problem. I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question,” Lieberman told the paper.
“The best way to stop Iran’s nuclear program is through severe sanctions, very severe sanctions,” he said. “The resolutions of the UN Security Council are insufficient. Iran must be presented with harsher and more effective sanctions. It worked against Libya. We must isolate Iran; only this way will results be possible.”
Mr. Lieberman easily shoves Israel’s responsibility in our direction, putting the entire Iran issue in our lap, which is nothing less than a a rhetorical policy that will lead us all nowhere. Maybe that’s the point.
I’ve never believed Israel will bomb Iran, though nothing would surprise me, for obvious reasons. But it just doesn’t make sense considering the stakes and the climate in the region, which is running short of patience.
That was the theme again yesterday, coming after King Abdullah of Jordan saying the same thing on “Meet the Press.”
Our Arab friends have a lot of leverage they can exert across the region, including the Saudis, who can make a huge difference in Pakistan. We need them as much as they need us, but right now they are all calling for U.S. leadership on the Israeli – Palestinian issue. They’re looking for concrete words from Obama and his administration on the Israeli-Palestinian logjam. Obama meets with Netanyahu in mid-May. The message he needs to send to Lieberman is clear to me: We’re not talking about Iran, this is about Israel’s responsibility, as well as the Palestinians, but it begins with you, sir. I know, fat chance.
But it’s clear to me that the Saudis are more than willing to take the lead here on the Arab side, as long as they’ve got a U.S. partner leading the way to nudge Israel where they simply must go. And make no mistake about it, Hamas is in this deal, folks, which most of us realize, though the bottom line is figuring out how to sell it. How Obama will deal with Congress on that issue remains unknown and troubling, let alone the right-wing backlash that will hit like a rogue wave on a crowded beach.
As for the experts on all of this, Ms. Hauser of the New America Foundation is very skeptical of whether Netanyahu is serious at all about establishing equilibrium, as she stated emphatically yesterday. She also says even as “totally dysfunctional” as the Palestinians are the demographics favor them. Surely Netanyahu knows this, as well as the price for not doing something. She also believes that the EU and the Arabs play as big a role as the U.S. in all this. She’s the expert, no doubt, but that’s not what the Arabs are saying, though it’s clear from Abdullah’s API that they’re willing to do their part. Hauser also wants Obama to lay down the bottom line to Netanyahu when they meet, no equivocation, but stating plainly what’s expected, which is a two-state solution, period.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, who was also at the Saudi conference yesterday, thinks Obama should start out by listening to Netanyahu, though he realizes it’s more complex, yet his deference to the Israeli leader reveals an opening for Obama that I believe will eventually lead into a wall we’ve seen before.
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who I met very briefly yesterday, is as smart as anyone we’ve got on these issues, in my opinion. He begins with the imperative that the Saudis are critically important here, with a new and stronger partnership with them an imperative. This line got the only interrupted applause from the gathering, which was large and passionate on the issue. He’s with Hauser on what Obama needs to say to Netanyahu.
No one is clear what Pres. Obama will say or do, or if he’ll choose simply to listen instead of lead. He’s got until June to figure out which it will be. There’s an opening he likely won’t get again, to take an unambiguous stand on this issue that puts the U.S. not on the side of only the Israelis, or the Palestinians, but representing America’s interests as a leader in moving everyone in the region on to more level ground. If he doesn’t take this chance Obama will likely find himself in the middle of another round of Middle East violence before his first term is out.
–updated–
People wearing masks while walking down the street? That is the scene in Mexico and is frightening to see.
Tell that to Republicans (and some obtuse Democrats) who believe government has no role in our lives, not even on issues where only they can do the job.
Meanwhile, Obama can’t get his Health and Human Services (HHS) choice, Kathleen Sebelius, on the job because Republicans are playing politics with our health system.
John Nichols nails it today:
…When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year’s emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.
… But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans — led by Maine Senator Susan Collins — aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.
Now, as the World Health Organization says a deadly swine flu outbreak that apparently began in Mexico but has spread to the United States has the potential to develop into a pandemic, Obey’s attempt to secure the money seems eerily prescient. …
It’s impossible to respect government’s role in society when you don’t understand what it can do for average citizens. We’ve seen what lack of regulations can do to our banking system. But the same lack of seriousness applies to public health. Republicans haven’t got a clue.
While I was at the US-Saudi Arabia conference, its seems some very determined representatives got themselves arrested protesting Sudanese President Omar Bashir’s decision to expel aid agencies from Darfur. Getty’s got the photos.
Representatives Donna Edwards (MD), Keith Ellison (MN), John Lewis (GA), Jim McGovern (MA), and Lynn Woolsey (CA) protested Bashir’s actions, getting arrested for their passion on the issue.
John Lewis has been on the front lines protesting more than once, as most of you know. He’s put out a statement.
I interviewed Edwards a couple of times a while back when she was fighting to get into Congress. What a powerhouse.
McGovern and Woolsey joining in, putting their defiance where their anger is today.
The RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights has a letter you can sign to thank these four leaders who so deserve it for standing up.
I’ll be at a symposium all day long, which will stream live on Steve Clemons’ blog.
Here’s a partial lineup:
Under Secretary of State WILLIAM BURNS Former Saudi Ambassador to US Prince TURKI AL-FAISAL International Peace Institute Chair RITA HAUSER Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief EDWARD LUCE Saudi Minister of Finance IBRAHIM AL-ASSAF Former National Security Advisor ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Former National Security Advisor BRENT SCOWCROFT State Department Policy Planning Director ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER UK Ambassador to the US NIGEL SHEINWALD Former CIA, State, and National Security Council Senior Official FLYNT LEVERETT French Ambassador to the US PIERRE VIMONT Saudi Minister of Commerce ABDULLAH ALIREZA BusinessWeek Washington Bureau Chief JANE SASSEEN Saudi Monetary Agency Governor MUHAMMAD AL-JASSER Senate Foreign Relations Committee International Economics Chief HEIDI CREBO-REDIKER Former US Senator and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia WYCHE FOWLER Jadwa Investments Chief Economist BRAD BOURLAND Saudi Royal Court Advisor ABDULRAHMAN AL-SAEED Department of Defense Principal Deputy Asst for International Security Affairs JOSEPH McMILLAN
You can follow my report on Twitter, though I may do some live blogging as well, depending on the layout at the event.
Roger Cohen delivers another beauty.
The criticism of the center-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come from an unlikely source: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s transitioned with aplomb from the calculation of her interests that she made as a senator from New York to a cool assessment of U.S. interests. These do not always coincide with Israel’s. …
[...] Obama’s doing it in a way that means the Israeli-American friction evident in Clinton’s remarks will be a theme of his first year in office. As Lee Hamilton, the president of the Woodrow Wilson Center, told me: “Initiatives are underway that show the United States is going to have some major differences with Israel.”
He also said Netanyahu is “a little more flexible than maybe he’s given credit for.”
I’ve heard this from more than one person, that Netanyahu is more pragmatic than given credit.
Given what’s coming out of Clinton, due to what she saw in the West Bank, which reportedly inspired her recent message to Israel, we could push Netanyahu further in that direction. Let’s hope so, because our Middle East policy of recent years has only helped prolong the suffering of the Palestinians, plus done nothing for Israel’s future.
M.J. Rosenberg’s assessment is short and sweet.
