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 | April, 2009

AFGHANISTAN: Conyers Calls Obama ‘Embarrassingly Naive’

Photobucket

This may turn out to be a tale of “bipartisanship and the Blue Dogs,” neither of which excites me. But when it comes to Afghanistan, well, get it done ugly if you have to, but get it done.

Via WSJ:

Mr. Obama is expected to seek congressional approval of $75.5 billion for the wars, perhaps as soon as Thursday. The issue is already raising tensions on Capitol Hill, especially among liberals who are sympathetic to the president’s broader agenda but voice concerns about his timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his plans to beef up forces in Afghanistan.

“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey. She’s been in lock step with Obama, so this would be a first.

“I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said.

With Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) calling Obama’s almost $80 billion ask “embarrassingly naive,” continuing that Obama “occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.”

Others are asking for an exit strategy, which is ridiculous, because that’s not part of what Obama’s thinking about right now. Something Gates made clear in a call I was on recently.

This is where the bipartisan-Blue Dog angle comes in. Republicans will likely support the President’s new war budget, as will some Blue Dogs in conservative districts. It could be an unlikely coming together that will leave progressives, but also Obama’s faithful anti war supporters, wondering what gives. It could come down to something as simple as not understanding who Barack Obama was in the first place. He was against the Iraq war, but now he’s president, and he never promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq, and even said he’s not against all wars. That’s especially true when America’s strategic interests are in play, which they are in Afghanistan. Things also look a lot different once you’re responsible for it all.

I’ve also yet to hear anyone tell me what the Af-Pak region would look like if we pulled out completely. If that happened now it would be on Obama’s watch. You getting the picture now?

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘Peace Deal’ in Swat Region Called Off

First I’d have to ask if you can call anything a “peace deal” if it sacrifices women on its altar. You know my answer to that one.

Secondly, if you break your promises of “peace” through kidnappings, police murders and general civic mayhem, why should anyone care if you call of the “peace deal”? Then there’s the whole problem with breaking the “truce”. Via GeoTV:

A Frontier Corps commander and his four guards have gone missing in Kambar area of restive Swat valley on Sunday.

Sources quoted Malakand Commissioner saying that he was in contact with Sufi Muhammad in this connection.

Five persons, including District Commander Ahsam-uddin, had gone missing, sources said.

Besides, how are Islamic courts in the Swat Region of Pakistan going to help Obama route out extremism? That’s a serious question.

Squeezing Zardari, who’s got a weak hold on things as it is, these fundamentalist clerics promise peace, brutalize the populace who don’t fall in line, and end up keeping their weapons and violent extremism intact, while helping their allies in other regions.

Case in point is the Swat Taliban kidnappings that happened in February 2009 (h/t Long War Journal).

Desperation to stop violence shouldn’t seduce weak leaders (see Karzai and Zardari) into making deals with extremists who aren’t going to change, but hope that “peace deals” to push Islamic law will enable them to cement spots across the country where they can operate and work diligently with other factions in squeezing the ends against the middle.

Let’s also not forget that Pakistan has WMD.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Republicans Stiff Workers Hit by Hard Times

It began in Virginia yesterday, with President Obama’s DNC chairman, Tim Kaine, taking the first hit.

Virginia’s Republican-run House of Delegates rejected a proposed expansion of unemployment benefits Wednesday, along with $125 million in federal stimulus cash to pay for it.

On a mostly party-line 46-53 vote, the House turned down amendments by Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine that were necessary to make Virginia eligible for the federal aid.

… Wednesday’s vote makes Virginia among the first states to definitively repudiate the unemployment insurance expansion.

The vote was also a stinging rebuke to Kaine, Obama’s hand-picked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and becomes a major issue in Virginia’s elections this year for governor and all 100 House of Delegates seats.

… Kaine’s amendments would have expanded jobless benefits for the first time to part-time workers and doubled the period during which people who have lost their jobs can receive benefits if they are in retraining programs.

The beef is the “unemployment insurance expansion,” which Republicans, but also some Dems, believe is a new tax increase on employers. However, Virginia’s Kathy Byron (R-Campbell County) may come to regret this comment: “It is not stimulus. Paying workers not to work does not promote economic growth.” There’s that old GOP bootstraps argument, never mind if the unemployed have no bootstraps.

“There’s an awful lot of people who are hurting in Virginia, and the message to them seemed to be: ‘We don’t care. Fend for yourself.’” – Gov. Tim Kaine

Other states are sure to follow, though South Carolina’s Governor Sanford has relented, with unemployment money rolling in. That’s because he was basically shamed into doing it. Seeing your run for president go down the drain before it gets started evidently wasn’t where Mr. Sanford wanted to position himself.

I don’t know about you, but I’m already seeing TV ads targeting Republicans running across my brain. They’re making themselves a big target for workers and Democrats.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liberals Call Out Progressive Groups

Greg Sargent’s article on what’s going on amidst the blogs, driven by the biggest sites, is important as everyone online claws our way for a piece of the pie, however small.

The behind-the-scenes tensions go to the heart of the role these bloggers have created for themselves in Democratic politics — they’re basically advocates and operatives with big platforms — and their future role, too. They argue that their efforts and fundraising helped drive the Democratic ascendancy. Yet even the Dem party committees are reluctant to advertise with them, raising the question of whether the party will ever be willing to seriously invest long-term in this new media infrastructure.

Let me just say that this has been going on for a long time.

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obama’s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.

Americans United for Change seems to have gotten the message. No doubt, they don’t like being called out.

John Aravosis, John Amato, as well as Markos Moulitsas also talked to Sargent for the article.

In the same vein, Jane Hamsher wrote an post yesterday about message coordination coming from the White House.

There’s a big problem right now with the traditional liberal interest groups sitting on the sidelines around major issues because they don’t want to buck the White House for fear of getting cut out of the dialogue, or having their funding slashed. Someone picks up a phone, calls a big donor, and the next thing you know…the money is gone. It’s already happened. Because that’s the way Rahm plays.

This dynamic is still very much in play.

The other issue is that blogging, which began as a free medium, is very difficult to change to a paid revenue stream. As more newspapers come online money is going to get tougher.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Neocons Use Former KKK Grand Wizard to Attack Bob Gates

Good catch by Spencer Ackerman.

But the argument two neocons, Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, utilize in the Wall Street Journal to attack Secretary Gates is not fitting the discussion on defense spending. An example of their, um… case:

However, warfare is not a human activity that directly awards virtue. Nor is it a perfectly calculable endeavor that permits a delicate “balancing” of risk. More often it rewards those who arrive on the battlefield “the fustest with the mostest,” as Civil War Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest once put it. …

That they prop up a notorious KKK grand wizard to do it is eye popping.

What follows is even worse, as they point to the 1990′s draw down in defense spending, which happened to also star that wild eyed liberal Dick Cheney. We’ve talked about that one many times before.

Here’s the point Donnelly and Schmitt are pushing: The secretary’s new budget will leave us weaker to pay for the president’s domestic programs. That’s the sub-heading to their article. The specifics ignore what Gates is trying to do.

Ri-iight. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is cutting certain defense programs because he wants to pay for Barack Obama’s domestic programs.

I mean, really, the neocons aren’t even trying anymore.

However, some in Congress are already on the warpath, especially given that their states will be hit, something Gates and Obama were no doubt expecting. The predictable “weaken our national security” abounds.

So what’s the bottom line? The defense budget is bigger than last year’s. Winslow Wheeler, someone who’s guest posted here and I recently heard speak, is on fire about it:

From a budget perspective, it does not appear that the basic Department of Defense budget has changed; this set of decisions may be budget-neutral, or it may even hold in its future expanded net spending requirements.

Nor does Gates’s announcement reorder defense spending away from occupations in foreign lands (the advocates call it “counterinsurgency”) or change the fact that the United States will continue to spend most of its defense budget on forms of conventional warfare most reminiscent of the mid-20th century. To fight the indistinct, unspecified conflicts that the United States may face in the foreseeable future, neither the strategy nor the hardware has changed.

My friends over at Democracy Arsenal have it right, as far as I’m concerned:

But before we start patting ourselves on the back let’s remember that half of the budget is still dedicated to fighting enemies that have entered the proverbial “ashbin of history.” We’re still very far from having a defense budget that accurately reflects the security challenges the United States will be facing in the future.

One of the best things about Gates’ budget, as far as I’m concerned? He funds counterinsurgency, folding it into the budget, instead of using the “ad-hoc” funding that isn’t part of a long-term strategy. That leads us back to Spencer Ackerman, and his series on COIN.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iran Overtures as American Roxana Saberi Charged with Espionage

Joining in on nuclear discussions with Iran is now a reality. This has been coming since Richard Holbrooke had the recent exchange. Since tomorrow is Iran’s “National Nuclear Day”, the irony on this one is thick.

The Obama administration said Wednesday that the United States for the first time would participate regularly with other global powers in negotiations with the Iranian government about its nuclear program. …

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is responding in kind, showing willingness to engage. That’s rich, especially since he doesn’t make the decisions in Iran, but has to wait until Ayatollah Ali Khamenei weighs in. The Ayatollah wants to see if Obama is “honest,” while admitting the Iranians don’t know him yet, so there’s a wait and see.

Photobucket

But the plot has thickened, as they say.

All of this comes at the moment when the Iranians have charged Roxana Saberi with espionage. Since Iran doesn’t recognize dual citizenship, she’s being treated as an Iranian spying on her own government.

On Monday, her parents were allowed to visit her in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, where she was sharing a cell with three others. They said she seemed to be in relatively good health.

Iran does not recognise dual citizenship and legally she is regarded as Iranian. “Saberi has an Iranian citizenship, passport and an Iranian national identity card,” Mr Haddad said. “She has entered Iran as an Iranian citizen and if she has another citizenship, we are unaware of it and it has no effect on how we will proceed with her case.”

One can only wonder what “relatively good health” means.

Clinton recently said that issues such as Saberi’s arrest would have to be cleared out because they post “problems between us.” Since Ms. Saberi has now been officially charged with espionage, I would expect the Obama administration to treat this situation as even more of a problem that it was before, especially since there are other Americans whose whereabouts in Iran are still unknown.

Oh, and the picture is Roxana Saberi with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. It might be time for her family to give him a call.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Like Bush on Warrantless Wiretaps

Photobucket

Like this wasn’t predictable?

I could say “I told you so,” but that wouldn’t be classy. After all, it’s not like Mr. Obama didn’t warn you. I say “you,” because I expected this, so I’m not as outraged as everyone else.

Glenn Greenwald last summer:

The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it.

President Obama channeled George W. Bush in Jewel v. NSA, a warrantless wiretapping case with his DOJ’s latest arguments.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF’s litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration’s made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue “would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.” As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

[...] Sad as that is, it’s the Department Of Justice’s second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

How are you liking the “change” on this one so far?

Glenn Greenwald yesterday:

(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the “soverign (sic) immunity” argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of “willful disclosure.” This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ — all in service of blocking EFF’s lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying.

Any supporter of President Obama, of which I am clearly one, especially on foreign policy, must be finding some of Mr. Obama’s moves lately disconcerting, and likely can’t help but be furious by the Administration’s actions.

Hey, but at least I’m not surprised. Candidate Barack Obama telegraphed where he would stand on this one a long time ago.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Comments Move to ‘In the News’

Photobucket

This has been in the works for a very long time and today’s the day we launch it. No doubt, this will take some getting used to, but it’s change that I think will add new depth and possibilities for debate and discussion.

“In the News” is now the place for comments and even diaries, short or long.

Commenting on my posts will no longer be available within the main column.

But you’ll have plenty of space to rant away, even start a rhetorical rumble over “In the News.” It’s your section.

One of the things I’m really hoping will happen is dissenters will show up. I’ve been getting a lot of email on the subject of some people feeling frozen out, so maybe with “In the News” moved to a more prominent role on this site that will change.

I also hope some diaries appear.

I also hope that if you like a post you’ll use “Digg” more often.

This site has undergone a lot of changes in the last six months, especially recently, with more to come. The switch to focusing on foreign policy more and more over these months has brought new readers in, just as it has chased away many others. There is no doubt we’ve seen a real switch in our traffic. However, the important posts and subjects I’m just beginning to cover since moving to D.C. will continue to remain the focus, no matter the shifts in readership, though I believe we’ll see expansion as the changes solidify and more readers interested in foreign policy analysis find that is my main beat. Regardless, it’s following my bliss, my passions, something to which I’ve always been completely committed.

Seriously, how many other blogs do you see cover a foreign policy conference call with two prominent Arab-Israelis talking about the new Netanyahu-Lieberman government? That’s not a subject for everyone, but it’s one of the many foreign policy topics I believe is important, which is the basis on which I judge what subjects to cover.

I value every single reader. I also value all of the commenters, whom I hope will jump over “In the News” and continue what they would have done here, even change the subject.

I’d also like to take a moment to thank those of you who support this important enterprise of mine, with some of you jumping in to donate, even some doing the subscription I suggested last year. Others of you made a verbal pledge to donate, but haven’t made good on it, which I hope you’ll consider doing in the near future. To those of you who hit my advertisers, thank you! Clicking on the ads helps, too. However, it only takes $5 a month to make a difference to a small business owner like myself, though more is very much appreciated. So to SusanC, Craig, EMarie, Susan, Jane Austin, Tony, Paige, Denise, Sylvia, Jan, Boohall, Shelia, Shana, Gwen, Eddie, and so many others, thank you. It’s expensive and difficult to be a soul proprietor, especially when you wade into foreign policy waters so often, though you can bet I’ll always offer the political analysis as well. Oh, and podcasts are on the way, promise.

One last note. One of the things you haven’t seen often here is harsh criticism of President Obama. Part of that is due to the reality that in covering foreign policy the change from Bush-Cheney to Obama-Biden (and Clinton) has brought a gust of crisp, fresh air into the world. As many blogs focus on the economy, their criticism of Obama has been met with a sharp slap of indignation from the Obama faithful that threatens to shut down dissent through flame wars. I’ve gotten a lot of emails on this subject recently. We all have a duty to openly debate and criticize our President when it’s warranted. Dissenters are just as passionately supportive of our President as anyone, but also feel a duty to expect more out of him, especially considering what was promised. People covering the economic crisis full time know all about change not exactly being delivered.

Anyway, thanks for showing up here when you do, commenting, but also to share news you see, which I hope will become a bigger part of this little spot in new media over in your section of TM.com.

Meanwhile, I’ll be working like mad, as always. If you want to talk, just drop me a line. Maybe I’ll start sharing some of what you send, you know, besides the hate mail I still receive. I read everything sent to me, even if I don’t always have time to write back.

Thanks for your support. I appreciate it more than I can say.

comments are closed

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jackasses, and Fleeing Rats

From Norm Coleman’s sinking ship.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Norm Coleman [Ramesh Ponnuru]

I think it’s time for him to give up this fight.

04/07 03:05 PMShare

The jackass is obvious. He’s the guy in the video who flew to Afghanistan so he could attack Robert Gates and by extension President Obama, using his “support the defense contractors” platform to do it. Abu Muqawama is taking bets (sending a little love to the invaluable COIN contingent).

Read full story · Comments are closed

Conversation with Daniel Levy, Amjad Atallah and Guests

At a New America Foundation event a couple of Fridays ago, Daniel Levy warned this was coming, even when no media outlet was covering it. Well, it landed with a bang today on CNN international:

For five hours, investigators asked Lieberman about suspicions of money laundering, fraud and breach of trust in a corruption investigation that dates back several years, police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said.

Lieberman was also questioned by the Israeli National Fraud Investigation Unit for several hours on Thursday and Friday.

The interrogation was “under warning,” which means that anything he discloses in the interviews may be used as evidence if he is charged.

The allegations include receiving a bribe via his daughter Michal’s consulting firm. [...]

This leads me to the media call today on the Middle East, compliments of Steve Clemons and the New America Foundation, which included Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah, of course, with guests Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka and Aida Touma-Sleiman, both addressing the Netanyahu-Lieberman government. As usual with these interpretations, they are my analyses, so any misinterpretation that develops should be put on me, not the person to whom I am equating the analysis; noting that opinion from me is not present, except where openly stated, in the interpretations of what was said, which is offered below.

Mr. Zahalka described Arab-Israelis as being “minority oppressed,” while stating: “We are trying our best to improve our situation. … full equality and full citizenship for Palestinians…” Making the point that this can only happen if Israel is not a “Jewish or Zionist state.”

Ms. Aida Touma-Sleiman joined in, saying all the world recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. The question is whether there will be a Palestinian state, with the chances diminishing, as she sees it. Ms. Aida Touma-Sleiman, a former Nobel Peace Prize nominee and Arab-Israeli feminist, sees the “Zionist left” as losing its power; as the Israeli gov. is “moving more and more to the right…” As she sees it, and I analyze what she said on the call, there are three main dangers for Arab-Israelis today: 1) extremism higher as reflected in elections, as well as the behavior of the ministers in right-wing; 2) Lieberman is a reincarnation of what’s come before; legitimacy of this type of racist language is being seen in talk shows & media: 3) “worried” that this kind of racism is going from institutions to ordinary people and private sector, impacting workers, with attacks rising against Palestinians. “In my opinion, this is very dangerous,” she continued. It gets down to, Touma-Sleiman says, “Israel has to deal with the internal challenge of their minorities and democracy, and the level of democracy…”

On Lieberman, Mr. Zahalka: “I don’t think that Mr. Lieberman will have a significant affect on decision making…” But he also stated that the Israeli government is trying to impose a “deligitimization” of the Arab-Israelis.

One question pertained to what the questioner believed was Hillary Clinton being very pro-Israel during the primary season. Zahalka was blunt, stating that Mrs. Hillary Clinton… should look to American interest, not Israeli lobby..

As an aside, that could be said about any American politician today, even those who are more even handed behind closed doors, but never speak openly for fear of the American Likud lobby in this country. Chas Freeman’s swiftboating is a case in point, with few in the Obama administration showing any moral courage at all, except for Adm. Blair.

Ms. Touma-Sleiman on the Jewish lobby, which she sees as having been influential on the Admin., without a clear position coming from Pres. Obama. She gave him credit that he “sent signals from Turkey…” He also needs to be aware when someone is dividing his Administration from the inside.

Photobucket

My question was on Arab-Israeli challenges for women under a Netanyahu-Lieberman government. Mr. Zahalka quickly mentioned that they made history this last election with Haneen Zoubi being the first Arab female ever elected to the Knesset. This quote from her is priceless (photo via):

“I don’t want to become the Knesset address for Arab women’s issues. I need to raise the interest of the men in my party on women’s issues, not allow their interest to wane because they can dump the issue on me.” – Knesset Member, Hannen Zoubi

Zahalka then continued, saying that women’s equality is struggling; main problems for Arab-Israeli women is participation of work for them, which “is very, very low. … Without work you can’t have independence.”

Ms. Touma-Sleiman, answering my question, says the biggest challenges are: 1) women living in militaristic state; 2) part of Palestinian minority discriminated against; 3) “our own society.” Extremism and racism make it “more difficult” to pay attention to other cycles of discrimination. Threats in the public discourse make it more difficult to communicate “feminist discourse” and get the attention to women. … .. Low level of employment; other problems… “I could speak to this for three or four hours… (laughter)…” on the issue of women.

Seguing to my continued efforts to keep Ms. Livni’s voice alive in all of this, I offer this recent statement from her on Lieberman, via CNN international, which is particularly timing given where this post began:

Lieberman’s predecessor, Tzipi Livni, told Israel Radio that Lieberman had “erased in 20 minutes, years of efforts to advance the peace process” when he declared that Israel was not bound by commitments it made at the summit in Annapolis.

Mitchell will be going to the region soon, to which Zahalka responded: “We should choose to live together.”

It’s also being reported that President Obama will travel to Israel in June.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Global Outrage Over Karzai Rape Law Brings Change

Photobucket

President Karzai underestimated the global attention that legalizing rape in Afghanistan would cause. Karzai’s rape law has now been put on hold. Being a signatore of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means something. Especially when you have the American President calling you out openly, as Barack Obama did by calling Karzai’s rape law “abhorrent.” On behalf of all women, thank you, Mr. President.

However, this battle for women’s rights in countries where fundamentalist extremists rule will remain a one baby step at a time reality. We’ll take any win we can get.

Placating extremism has its price in a world that thrives on information and globalized reporting. Things that slid by in the 20th century won’t be so easy to hide today. That includes the subjugation of women’s civil rights no matter the reason, but especially if it’s for political purposes and done by a leader whose slipping because of corruption and incompetence.

A controversial law condoning marital rape and reintroducing Taleban-era rules for Afghan women has been shelved after an outcry in the West.

The Afghan Foreign Ministry said that the law had not been enacted, while Justice Ministry officials said that its contents might be reconsidered. The legislation was put on hold pending a review.

“The Justice Ministry is reviewing the law to make sure it is in line with the Afghan Government’s commitment to human rights and women rights conventions,” Sultan Ahmad Baheen, a spokesman for the ministry in Kabul, said. [..]

As the article above states, Article 22 of the Afghan Constitution also explicitly reiterates the equality of men and women before the law.

The sad truth, as stated by one female Afghan MP, is that many women today in Afghanistan are ignorant and don’t know their rights, even as young girls fight to get to school. They don’t know that they can be religious without being made to act against their will.

Previous generations of women may be lost, but it also explains the state of Afghanistan today. Because you can’t have a stable country without women participating. People, especially progressives saying we should abandon Afghanistan, should think about this before they fight to stand against President Obama’s new Af-Pak policy.

What we’re fighting for has nothing to do with the Bush-Cheney doctrine of preemption, occupation and forced democracy. You cannot talk democracy in a nation whose president thought he could get away with codifying rape against women.

President Obama’s intentions lean heavily on civilian aid to help Afghans build up the civil society so that terrorists can’t rip the foundation of daily life away from the Afghan people. Not demanding ending of poppy growing, but finding other ways to work with the Afghans that doesn’t threaten their only livelihood, though alternatives must be proposed, though not forced.

Just perhaps, as Scott Wilson suggests, we should be looking at lessons from Columbia.

… The conflicts in Colombia and Afghanistan share far more similarities with one another than either does with Iraq, which I covered in 2003 and 2004. The Taliban have caves and Colombian guerrillas their triple-canopy jungle and mountain hideouts — terrain far more useful to insurgencies than Iraq’s desert. Afghanistan’s opium poppies fund the Taliban, just as coca fuels Colombia’s guerrillas. As Pakistan does for the Taliban, Venezuela and Ecuador provide sanctuary to Colombia’s insurgents.

Perhaps the most important parallel, though, is the lack of a strong central government. Colombia’s government has rarely held sway beyond Bogota’s nearly two-mile high plateau, and the frail Karzai administration in Kabul has a similarly short reach. As a result, Colombia has relied on brutal paramilitary forces to support a weak army, alienating much of the population in the process. In Afghanistan, that role is played by U.S. forces, which, although by no means as savage as the Colombian irregulars, have cost Afghanistan’s government support among a people famously hostile to foreign invaders. … (read on)

But above all else we should be supporting President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy. It’s worth a shot.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad

–updated–

“It is time for us to transition to the Iraqis. “They need to take responsibility for their country.”President Obama in Iraq (source: Jennifer Loven AP)

Obama met with General Odierno, amidst a sandstorm that will have him also meeting at Camp Victory. President Obama will also award ten Medals of Valor, according to NBC news.

President Obama made a surprise visit to Iraq Tuesday afternoon, landing on Air Force One in Baghdad at 4:42 p.m. local time after concluding an eight-day overseas tour through Europe.

The unannounced visit to a war zone was a closely guarded secret that was kept from many of the president’s staff and the press corps, which had been following him across the globe for the past week.

It is Obama’s first visit to Iraq since becoming president and comes after he fundamentally altered the mission there, launching a 19-month drawdown of most combat troops by the summer of 2010. [...]

Read full story · Comments are closed

Judd Legum for Maryland

Photobucket

A strong progressive is running for office in Maryland. Former research director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, helping prepare her for over 20 debates, and founder of “Think Progress”, has decided to get the district where he grew up back on the progressive side of things. His name is Judd Legum.

Howie Klein had a chat with Judd over at C&L yesterday.

Peter Daou has more on just why someone like Judd is running and why he could win.

Sure Judd’s a lawyer, graduating cum laude from Georgetown, who was born and raised in the district he’s seeking to represent. But what’s his agenda?

– Clean Government. He’s not accepting money from Maryland lobbyists or corporate PACs. He will crack down on lavish parties for legislators financed by special interests. In a recent 90 day session, lobbyists spent $1 million wining and dining members of the General Assembly.

– Clean Bay. The 25-year, multi-billion dollar effort to restore the Bay has been a failure. If we don’t act quickly, the Bay will soon pass the point of no return. This means standing up to powerful special interests such as agribusiness, which remains the number one source of pollution in the Bay. This is more than an environmental issue, it’s an economic issue. Much of Maryland’s economy is dependent upon the health of the Bay.

– Clean Energy. Maryland faces an energy crisis. Absent policy changes the state will face rolling blackouts starting in 2011. Marylanders have also seen their energy bills skyrocket. We need to move aggressively on three fronts: 1) energy efficiency programs, which can reduce the need for new generation and reduce costs for consumers, 2) investment in transmission which will allow more power to flow into the state at reduced costs. 3) new sources of clean energy including wind, solar and biofuels.

Who is Judd’s Republican Opponent? Ron George

George sponsored Maryland’s version of Proposition 8. George is a co-sponsor of “Maryland’s Marriage Protection Act,” a state constitutional amendment that’s widely viewed as Maryland’s version of Proposition 8. The bill would not only write discrimination against gays and lesbians into the Maryland constitution, it would “affect the ability of the State and local governments to extend benefits to partners of the same sex,” such as hospital visitation rights.

George sponsored constitutional amendment to ban abortion no matter what the circumstances. George is the co-sponsor of a constitution amendment that “would define anything from a fertilized egg through a full-term fetus as a person… a strategy for effectively outlawing abortion” no matter what the circumstance.

Campaigned on a pledge to clean environment, received 33% score from state’s top enviro group. Ron George received a score of 33% from the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. Other Republicans from Anne Arundel County scored as high as 80%. Watch his campaign ad which features a pledge to provide the next generation a “truly clean environment” here: http://digg.com/u12yw

Maryland voters would be fortunate to have someone like Judd working for them, instead of Ron George.

If you possibly can, please visit Judd’s Act Blue page, bookmark it for later too, and keep up on his progress.

You may ask how will Judd win this one? Well, he’s going to need progressives in Maryland to help. Get involved if you can. He’s just getting started.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Glenn Beck on the Defensive

This was predictable. As the right feels the heat for the cop killing that just went down, especially since there is evidence that their hate speech helped fuel it. Though the responsibility is still on the guy that morphed into a murdering cop killer.

Oh, and just to note, I was one of the people named and quoted by Mr. Sheppard over at NewsBusters in his round up yesterday. I’m in very good company.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Gates on Defense Cuts

Congressional members will weigh in on cuts, because of the jobs side of what Gates is proposing, to name one issue. As everyone knows there’s a lot of politics in defense spending.

Winslow Wheeler weighs in, as do others over at the National Journal:

…Of course, if even a few of the Gates “cuts” are serious, a pork-crazed Congress will go nuts. The big challenge will then become making any serious decisions stick. To do so, President Obama will have to back Gates to the hilt, and both will need to be extraordinarily tough, refuse any stupid compromises (many will be proposed), and fight to the end, including – very definitely – a veto of any defense bill that turns the cuts into hash.

To win that huge fight, Gates and Obama will have make it clear to the public that the “pro-defense” position is to eliminate these high cost, low performing weapons, and inefficient defense spending (jobs-wise) is a drag on the economy. If they fail to win those points for their side, they will lose to the porkers in Congress, and the Obama administration will be a sad replay of the Clinton administration on defense issues where business as usual will predominate and our defenses will continue to shrink and age and become even less ready to fight at increasing cost.

Secretary Gates briefs the press on what he sees the military defense budget needing:

The decisions have three principal objectives:
• First, to reaffirm our commitment to take care of the all-volunteer force, which, in my view represents America’s greatest strategic asset;
• Second, we must rebalance this department’s programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.
• Third, in order to do this, we must reform how and what we buy, meaning a fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement, acquisition, and contracting.

[...] Our contemporary wartime needs must receive steady long-term funding and a bureaucratic constituency similar to conventional modernization programs. I intend to use the FY10 budget to begin this process.
1. First, we will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for the warfighter in the base budget by some $2 billion. This will include:
• Fielding and sustaining 50 Predator-class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits by FY11 and maximizing their production. This capability, which has been in such high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be permanently funded in the base budget. It will represent a 62 percent increase in capability over the current level and 127 percent from over a year ago.
• Increasing manned ISR capabilities such as the turbo-prop aircraft deployed so successfully as part of “Task Force Odin” in Iraq.
• Initiating research and development on a number of ISR enhancements and experimental platforms optimized for today’s battlefield.

2. We will also spend $500 million more in the base budget than last year to increase our capacity to
field and sustain more helicopters – a capability that is in urgent demand in Afghanistan. Today, the primary limitation on helicopter capacity is not airframes but shortages of maintenance crews and pilots. So our focus will be on recruiting and training more Army helicopter crews.

3. To boost global partnership capacity efforts, we will increase funding by $500 million. These initiatives include training and equipping foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations.

4. To grow our special operations capabilities, we will increase personnel by more than 2,800 or five percent and will buy more special forces-optimized lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft.
We will increase the buy of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) – a key capability for presence, stability, and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions – from two to three ships in FY 2010. Our goal is to eventually acquire 55 of these ships.

5. To improve our inter-theater lift capacity, we will increase the charter of Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) ships from two to four until our own production program begins deliveries in 2011.

6. We will stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48 while maintaining the planned increase in end strength of 547,000. This will ensure that we have better-manned units ready to deploy, and help put an end to the routine use of stop loss. This step will also lower the risk of hollowing the force. [...] continued reading

Asking isn’t getting. So no matter the cuts Secretary Gates wants we’ll still see some of the programs he advises to be axed continue on. Unless, off course, Obama surprises and digs in on Gates’ recommendations, pushing Congress harder than any other president has done to date. I don’t see that happening.

Another related aspect pertains to a story running today, which draws out the importance of the Lebanon-Israeli war in ’06 in the discussion we’re having about U.S. military priorities and spending today.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ask a Stupid Question…

Get a stupid answer. Rasmussen and Politico doing a tag team on North Korea. Rasmussen asks the question (h/t Democracy Arsenal), with Politico setting up Newt Gingrich pretty well in their “Voters back force in N. Korea” headline on the polling.

In what seemed to be a swipe at the Obama administration’s response, he warned, “One morning, just like 9/11, there’s going to be a disaster,” adding, “I have yet to see the United Nations do anything effective with either Iran or North Korea.”

Okay, so let’s play it out. We take out North Korea’s missile on the launch pad. Now tell the international story.

North Korea’s Taepodong-2 missile went around 1,984 miles miles then made a splash landing, though the government is saying otherwise. That’s around twice the range of the first launch in ’98.

No matter how you look at it, North Korea is a long way from hitting Alaska or anywhere else in the U.S. So what Mr. Gingrich is suggesting is to do exactly what Pyongyang wants and that is to give them the wrong kind of attention they so desperately seek, with Gingrich’s solution helping them a lot more than the U.S. Typical foreign policy strategy of conservatives of Gingrich’s ilk.

Steve Clemons has a potentially powerful, if provocative, suggestion on how to respond to North Korea’s “pin-pricks.”

At the same time, we simply need more alternatives and allies — and the best I can think of is to work with Japan, South Korea, and China in not calling for withdrawing engagement and toughening sanctions but rather crafting how to strategically enhance engagement with particular forces inside North Korea that we want to cultivate.

It’s time for a Nixonian approach that would enrich some of North Korea’s potential robber barons against the interests of others inside the regime. We need to try to unleash opportunities for some and not others. [...]

Utilizing North Korea’s neighbors, Japan, South Korea, and even China is a much smarter play. We don’t have to do everything ourselves. In fact, we shouldn’t.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hannity Hate Speech Sure to Grow as Obama Reaches Out to Muslims

Barack Hussein Obama in Turkey today does what no other American president could do by virtue of his background and who he is. But the sheer act alone of reaching out to this Muslim nation is certain to drive the Hannity hate speech crowd to further ends of division and derision.

Even as a new poll shows Americans ready to turn the page from the past, the Hannity haters have driven a wedge between even moderate Muslims and American reality, sewing doubt about a faith using ignorance and fear to get the job done.

Most Americans think President Obama’s pledge to “seek a new way forward” with the Muslim world is an important goal, even as nearly half hold negative views about Islam and a sizable number say that even mainstream adherents to the religion encourage violence against non-Muslims, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

There is still a broad lack of familiarity with the world’s second-largest religion — 55 percent of those polled said they are without a basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam, and most said they do not know anyone who is Muslim. While awareness has increased in recent years, underlying views have not improved.

About half, 48 percent, said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, the highest in polls since late 2001. Nearly three in 10, or 29 percent, said they see mainstream Islam as advocating violence against non-Muslims; although more, 58 percent, said it is a peaceful religion.

Muslims make up about 1 percent of all U.S. adults. [...]

President Obama’s full remarks are below, which address torture, but also Turkey’s 1915 stain, going as well into the issue of Middle East peace. Even in the face of our own country not being quite sure about those of Muslim faith around the world, led by the fearmongering Hannity haters, Obama’s words and presidency provide a path. It will take a lot more than this speech to get the bridge done.

Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

Photobucket

This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States. I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the privilege of visiting the tomb of the great founder of your Republic. I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong and secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

This future was not easily assured. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control. And you founded a Republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

There is a simple truth to this story: Turkey’s democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Like any democracy, Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

My country’s democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first President was George Washington. Like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father – a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington’s name.

It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world, who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found.

One of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words, and I quote: “So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.” Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures.

It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey’s freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself to the NATO alliance. Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul. Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research.

The ties among our people have deepened as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. As a basketball fan, I’ve even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good game.

The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue. That is to be expected – no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last sixty years. And because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger, and the world is more secure.

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Strains on our energy supply and a changing climate. The proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict.

These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.

This much is certain: no one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I have carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward.

Already, America and Turkey are working with the G-20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. This past week, we came together to ensure that the world’s largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressure of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again.

As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people, particularly when it comes to energy. To expand markets and create jobs, we can increase trade and investment between our countries. To develop new sources of energy and combat climate change, we should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas.

This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free.

Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports Turkey’s bid to become a member of the European Union. We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions. And Turkey is bound to Europe by more than bridges over the Bosphorous. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith – it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation once more.

Turkey has its own responsibilities. You have made important progress toward membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for Europe, but because it is right for Turkey.

In the last several years, you have abolished state-security courts and expanded the right to counsel. You have reformed the penal code, and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static – they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

Photobucket

I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and prohibited – without exception or equivocation – any use of torture.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We have already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. That is why the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

It speaks to Turkey’s leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucusus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long.

Advancing peace also includes the dispute that persists in the eastern Mediterranean. Here, there is cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work toward a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation.

These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals.

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of good will around the world. That is a goal that that the parties agreed to in the Roadmap and at Annapolis. And that is a goal that I will actively pursue as President.

We know that the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take the steps that are necessary to build confidence. Both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress toward a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. Now, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you have done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen institutions. And we must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. As I made clear yesterday in Prague, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for ever-more powerful tools of destruction.

I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic that the United States seeks engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations, with the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. Now, Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

Both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe-haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. The United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all of Iraq’s neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security.

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and to destroy their country. And that includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation. As President, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK. These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq’s Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity for Turkey’s Kurds.

Finally, we share the common goal of denying al Qaeda a safe-haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al Qaeda terrorists plot further attacks. That is why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. And that is why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side of their security, their opportunity, and the promise of a better life.

Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now, we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you have offered to help us train and support Afghan Security Forces, and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.

But I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim work cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better – including my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country – I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. We want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes, and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship.

There is an old Turkish proverb: “You cannot put out fire with flames.”

America knows this. Turkey knows this. There are some who must be met with force. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

I know there are those who like to debate Turkey’s future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples mingle. And they wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

Here is what they don’t understand: Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide – it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

I am honored to stand here with you – to look forward to the future that we must reach for together – and to reaffirm America’s commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Republican Crisis of Religion

Palm Sunday segues into Easter week. So just on time Jon Meacham has an article about the “End of Christian America.”

… While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state… [...]

Kathleen Parker has a column today on the Christian right. She asks: Is the Christian right finished with politics?

Add Meacham’s piece to Parker’s and you have the makings of a political serious shift most of us haven’t seen since Jerry Falwell helped sweep Reagan in to power.

What will Republicans do without the Christian right? Christen Sarah Palin? Or with the popularity of Glenn Beck, who at CPAC exceeded Sean Hannity, will they go toward Mitt Romney? Maybe they’ll choose Newt Gingrich, whose situational ethics makes the subject of religion hypocritical. Hey, but that never stopped them before. Reagan never went to church, and the whole while Bush was in Washington he never joined one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

It Isn’t Just About Israel and Iran

North Korea’s launch is the backdrop, but in the conversation on nuclear proliferation this isn’t just about Netanyahu’s bluster, and Ahmadinejad’s ambitions in the face of little proof of manifestations as yet. It’s also about Russian loose nukes, as well as the underground market that Pakistan let run unchecked so long, the tensions yo-yoing with India, as other nations like Saudi Arabia race to arm.

North Korea defied the United States, China and a series of United Nations resolutions by launching a rocket on Sunday that the country said was designed to propel a satellite into space, but that much of the world viewed as an effort to prove it is edging toward the capability to shoot a nuclear warhead on a longer-range missile.

[...] Manufacturing a nuclear warhead that is small enough, light enough and heat-resistant enough to be mounted atop a missile is far more complex than building a basic nuclear device — and intelligence officials and outside experts believe North Korea is still years from that accomplishment. Typically, it takes many years of experimentation for a nation to learn how to shrink an ungainly test device into a slim warhead.

Nonetheless, the series of tests in recent years — in 2006 and 1998 — is prompting fears of North Korean proliferation among Japanese, Chinese and Western leaders. North Korea’s missiles have ranked among its few profitable exports — Iran, Syria and Pakistan have all been among its major customers. If this long-range test ends up a success, it would presumably make the design far more attractive on the international black market. …

President Obama’s statement on the Taepo-dong 2 missile launch by the North Koreans:

North Korea’s development and proliferation of ballistic missile technology pose a threat to the northeast Asian region and to international peace and security. The launch today of a Taepo-dong 2 missile was a clear violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which expressly prohibits North Korea from conducting ballistic missile-related activities of any kind. With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations.

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council. I urge North Korea to abide fully by the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and to refrain from further provocative actions.

Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a high priority for my administration. The United States is fully committed to maintaining security and stability in northeast Asia and we will continue working for the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the Six-Party Talks. The Six-Party Talks provide the forum for achieving denuclearization, reducing tensions, and for resolving other issues of concern between North Korea, its four neighbors, and the United States. North Korea has a pathway to acceptance in the international community, but it will not find that acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and abides by its international obligations and commitments.

But as Robert Gates, whose defense budget is due tomorrow and will likely shake the earth, said recently in an interview on Fox, Six-Party Talks haven’t worked, and we’re not prepared to shoot any missile there down. It’s about inflicting damage that would mainly hit the North Korean people who are already in deep trouble: “Frankly, from my perspective, the opportunity for success is probably more in economic sanctions in both places than it is in diplomacy,” Gates said. “What gets them to the table is economic sanctions.”

We need Medvedev to do anything about nuclear proliferation, and we all await Undersecretary of State William Burns and what he has to say about Iran next week, because they’re next on any conversations on the topic, even though they’re years away, despite what Mr. Netanyahu believes.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Shooter Murders Policemen

Photobucket

Distraught over losing his job, 23 year-old man Richard Poplawski told a friend he was “going to die today,” then after police were called to his home checking out some sort of “domestic disturbance,” which still hasn’t been fully explained, he opened fire murdering two cops, then, proceeded to have a gunbattle that had SWAT and other Pittsburgh teams on the scene firing over 100 rounds.

A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and “lying in wait” opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said.

[...] Poplawski had feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.

Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, “Eddie, I am going to die today. … Tell your family I love them and I love you.” [...]

This follows a similar pattern in other homicides when the shooter involved often telegraphs violence to come, whether to himself or others.

But the report that, according to his friend, Poplawski was afraid of some fictional Obama gun ban was on its way, reveals a loose grasp on reality by the shooter. The only thing to which Obama is committed with regards to guns is enforcing the laws, which is as it should be.

However, one element in today’s world that also plays a part, particularly since the shooter mentioned an Obama gun ban that is a fear threat of the right used by people like the N.R.A., is that people like Poplawski are the perfect target for the right-wing fearmongering hate speech circling the media airwaves since conservatives lost their hold on everything.

But no one is responsible for the cold blooded murders of the three policeman but Richard Poplawski.

That the shooter warned something was coming, however, even supposedly saying he was “going to die tonight,” is a not a minor part of this story. Everyone needs to take words of this nature seriously when they hear them. In these troubled, fragile times, when the bottom has fallen out of lives, we can’t afford to shrug these dire statements off.

Prayers go out to the families of the slain Pittsburgh officers and the larger police family there, all of whom are grieving.

Read full story · Comments are closed