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 | May, 2009

‘Christian’ Terrorist Murders Dr. Tiller at Church

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence. – President Barack Obama

Photobucket

Witness the pro selective life policies of the extremists on the right, who, in the name of all that’s unholy, listen to hate speech and act on it with a vengeance.

No doubt he was wearing a bullet proof vest, as some doctors who guard the health and rights of women are forced to do because of religious terrorists, and on his way to worship this fine spring Sunday morning, Dr. George Tiller was murdered, possibly by a head shot.

That would match the typical threat: “Don’t bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we’re going for a head shot.” Though how he was slain hardly matters.

The same belief that guided Tiller’s murderer driving much of the far right on issues of freedom and choice for anyone not kowtowing to their way of life.

It weaves through our society in hate speech funneled through right-wing radio, but also on shows like the “O’Reilly Factor,” as is illustrated by the video here (h/t Andrew Sullivan), as O’Reilly targets Dr. Tiller not caring how it’s done.

It’s a type of political terrorism that exists on the right, which destroys lives of women and even their doctors through their pro selective life theory of life.

Women who went to Dr. Tiller for help desperately needed him, and few went without knowing the gravity of their situation or what they were going to do.

When you have a doctor walking into church service murdered because of the medical procedures he performs, it illustrates the desperation of the “Christian” terrorists involved in trying to change minds by aborting the freedom of those they condemn through killing them, because they believe their pro selective life theories are somehow righteous.

We send a silent meditation to Dr. Tiller, but also his grandchildren, his children, and his wife, as well as his extended family at his clinic.

And next time Rush or Sean or Glenn Beck start railing their pro selective life rhetoric, I hope everyone reminds them that some people really do take what they say to heart.

Read full story · Comments are closed

World News Blast, and Podcast

New podcast is up. Features include: Hot Topics (Susan Boyle, McAuliffe); Hunting Sotmayor; Petreaus on Gitmo – Torture; Israel, Obama, Saudis, Egypt.

In other news today, Newt keeps pushing, now calling Judge Sotomayor “un-American” in an email blast. Michael Scherer at Time has the whole email. Not even reading it is believing.

You read that right — Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

Moving on to Pakistan. Your must read comes from Ahmed Rashid, who is always in that category.

The Pakistani army is reportedly in “complete control” of Mingora, the Swat Valley’s main commercial area.

LWJ covers a fight with Afghan Army and Coalition Forces fighting the Taliban.

In the in case you missed it file, what would we ever do without a super embassy in Pakistan?

Segue to the Saudi royal family, where the Justice department is supporting the claim that they cannot be sued via a 9/11 lawsuit.

In a barbaric act of despicable force, the Saudis behead and crucified a convicted man who reportedly molested a man’s son, then murdered him.

To cleanse the Sunday palate of that disgusting item, Pres. Obama took the First Lady to a Broadway show, a place that’s been very hard hit by the recession. Mrs. Obama’s dress was drop dead gorgeous. As a serious supporter of all things Broadway, I applaud the date night choice.

A post on the Kilcullen Doctrine (h/t Small Wars Journal).

And it seems Netanyahu is pining over the Bush-Cheney days, wishing for their return. Israel is “disappointed” that Obama is not playing fairy godfather to their fondest wishes.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Week Ending 5.30.09 – Hot Topics (Susan Boyle, McAuliffe); Hunting Sotmayor; Petreaus on Gitmo – Torture; Israel, Obama, Saudis, Egypt.


Photobucket 

Read full story · Comments are closed

Health Care Hit Job to Air on NBC

This ad is filled with distortions. It’s set to air immediately following “Meet the Press” this Sunday.

One item in it is easily debunked from HHS:

The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research.

SEIU has written a letter to NBC over their decision to air a 30-minute infomercial filled with fearmongering through falsehoods about universal health care. They remind NBC that as a licensee, they have a responsibility to the public beyond just making money.

There are many of you very involved and interested in the health care debate. Seems like a call to action to me.

TM NOTE: SEIU is currently running an ad here on this issue, which is completely independent of this editorial. However, it’s no secret that I’m not only a former union member, but have in the past been hired as a reporter for them and support their work. I hope you click on the ad in the right hand margin when it appears to learn how you can help.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Salon: Taguba Denies UK Paper Report

–updated–

Mark Benjamin reports:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba denied reports that he has seen the prisoner-abuse photos that President Obama is fighting to keep secret, in an exclusive interview with Salon Friday night.

When the Telegraph first reported their story I didn’t post on it.

Now it turns out that when the Telegraph quoted Taguba, as he reportedly told Benjamin late last night, he was referring to photos he’s seen. Taguba hasn’t seen the latest photos in the lawsuit that Obama is suppressing.

It’s why I used caveats on the story yesterday, even if something had clearly shifted. Something wasn’t adding up, as Koppelman and Horton’s back and forth reveals.

It’s quite possible that the torture photo stories have been confused and combined during reporting, which Taguba’s denial to Salon seems to make even more likely.

One thread is constant. Taguba stands by Obama reversing his decision, that the photos should not be released.

The situation has been compounded, partially because of Obama’s reversal, made worse when journalists are hunting a torture tale where transparency is being withheld.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hunting Sotomayor

Republicans are now in a full on hunt to kill Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

G. Gordon Liddy referring to Judge Sotomayor’s cycle: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Rush Limbaugh comparing her to David Duke.

Rove led it off saying she wasn’t really that smart.

Sotomayor has been called the affirmative action pick, because she’s supposed to be some dumb broad. NRO using 9/11 to attack Sotomayor over the Ricci case.

Obama’s pick has been dragged through every epithet possible, with the crazy menstruating woman with her hand on the gavel Liddy’s contribution.

I want to know how anyone can listen to this vitriol and still want to be a Republican.

Where’s their outrage?

Where are the women in their party?

Not the phony, tepid stuff, but a full on step up to the plate, call a press conference, We must halt the smearing of a woman who’s only crime has been to exceed where so many others have not. A get back to the issues rallying cry. But instead, Sotomayor is being hunted by the right because she’s a woman, but especially because she’s Hispanic.

The Republicans seem to believe and are illustrating how little respect a well educated, powerful and strong Hispanic woman deserves.

The Republican Party’s deep hatred of Hispanics has spewed over because of Sonya Sotomayor’s nomination. That she’s a woman allows the misogynistic streak that also lives large in the GOP to vent fully.

I’m not even certain that a white female nominee for the Supreme Court would get this kind of treatment from the GOP.

Their deep abiding disrespect of Hispanics, especially females, knows no bounds.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Catching Up with Clinton

Secretary Clinton calls it “21st Century Statecraft.”

CitizenTube has more:

Fresh on the heels of our launch of the U.S. Government Channel on YouTube last week, Secretary Clinton just posted a video to the State Department’s YouTube channel on the topic of “21st Century Statecraft.” Aimed at Americans, the video lives on State’s long-running public affairs YouTube channel. The video not only outlines the department’s efforts to use online tools to engage in public diplomacy, but it also serves as a call to action for citizens to “share experiences” and become citizen ambassadors on their own.

Under Hillary Clinton, it’s not yesterday’s State Department anymore.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pentagon and Administration Denial of Explicit Photos Become the Issue

I knew it wouldn’t take long before another aspect of the Telegraph’s reporting would open up to make the yet unreleased torture photos a bigger story than it was. Scott Horton’s got confirmation.

The Daily Beast has confirmed that the photographs of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which President Obama, in a reversal, decided not to release, depict sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition, and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.

When the story broke in the London Daily Telegraph there wasn’t much to add to it, especially if you’re in the news vacuum, compliments of Pres. Obama, who reversed himself and decided to bury the photos. But considering it’s Mr. Taguba who’s quoted in the article, upon reading it you get the feeling of its truths.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

“The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

But this didn’t have to unfold as it now is.

The Obama administration, through Robert Gibbs, joined the Pentagon attacks against the Telegraph, making an awful mistake, unless you think Taguba and Horton’s sources are all lying.

If Gibbs hasn’t seen the photos, but went out and gave the statement he did, this means he’s been horribly ill served by his boss, used, in fact, making a critical error in dealing with the press that is tantamount to lying, either that or being duped. Neither one is pretty. The Pentagon spokesmen, Bryan G. Whitman, stepped in it too, wading so far in that there’s no ratcheting back. But Mr. Whitman, a Rummy Pentagon veteran, is used to getting caught in these types of situations, as Horton described in his post.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Telegraph had shown “an inability to get the facts right.”

“That news organization has completely mischaracterized the images,” he told reporters. “None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs went further.

“I think if you do an even moderate Google search you’re not going to find many of these newspapers and truth within, say, 25 words of each other,” he said.

“Let’s just say if I wanted to read a write-up today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first stack of clips I picked up,” Gibbs said.

Mr. Gibbs better be certain of his facts, because otherwise his credibility will lie in shreds on the White House briefing floor.

Scott Horton, whose reporting is always impeccable, provides a convincing first tear:

The Daily Beast has obtained specific corroboration of the British account, which appeared in the London Daily Telegraph, from several reliable sources, including a highly credible senior military officer with firsthand knowledge, who provided even more detail about the graphic photographs that have been withheld from the public by the Obama administration.

A senior military officer familiar with the photos told me that they would likely provoke a storm of outrage if released. The well-informed source confirmed, just as reported in the Telegraph, that many of the photographs are sexually explicit, including those mentioned above. The photographs differ from those already officially released. Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed. In another, a prisoner is suspended naked upside down from the top bunk of a bed in a stress position. …

It was easy to understand Obama not wanting to offer more of the same Abu Ghraid photos (especially as he’s about to hit the Muslim world), which would have been even more acceptable if that had been Obama’s initial decision on this issue. But the reversal simply revealed sloppy lawyering from Greg Craig’s quarters.

Now that situation has been compounded.

Through their active denials, again, unless a lot of people are lying, Pres. Obama has decided to take this debacle on himself, sharing it with George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and the whole Cheney gang. When the Pentagon came out with their blistering denial that the description of the photos offered in the Telegraph were accurate, at the same time Robert Gibbs stepped up too, this sorry spectacle became nothing less than an official, very badly orchestrated Administration cover up. That the initial torture and photos now being withheld by Obama, though leaking across the web, didn’t even happen on his watch makes the handling of this even more explicable.

Pres. Obama and his administration have obviously not learned the most basic lesson from modern history. It’s always the lie that leads to the unraveling.

The only way out is through.

Read full story · Comments are closed

WSJ: Republican Attackers of Sotomayor are ‘Idiots’

Well, it took them all week, but a lonely few in the Republican Party, including the WSJ and Senator Cornyn, have decided they’ve got more to lose than gain if they keep up the attack on Judge Sotomayor, especially since the attackers decided to go personal instead of through the issues, which is always fair game.

Some, and they are idiots, look at Judge Sotomayor and say: attack, attack, kill. A conservative activist told the New York Times, “We need to brand her.” Another told me a fight is needed to excite the base.

Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent? How about gain the attention of people who aren’t already on your side?

Serious opposition to Judge Sotomayor is not only fair, it’s necessary: It’s your job to oppose if you oppose. But it should be serious, not merely partisan.

As for Sen. Cornyn, who can’t afford to offend Hispanics in Texas, he was even more blunt.

“I think it’s terrible,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR’s “All Things Considered” Thursday. “This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

… The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office.

“Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong,” he said.

Sometimes politics simply gets down to being practical, where self interest meets self destructive.

Last night Dick Morris talking to Sean Hannity, he said Republicans can’t win this one and should move on. When Hannity pressed him Morris changed the subject, then pointedly asked Hannity, Did you notice I changed the subject? Hey, you can bring a wingnut to water, but that’s as far as he’ll ever go.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Everything But the ‘B’ Word

Photobucket

Oh, can we just get it over with already?

Call Judge Sotomayor a bitch shrill so we can just move on.

As if on cue, here comes the New York Times with a heading that is meant to do everything but that: Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issue of Temperament.

Raises this issue with whom? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich? The former, a man who has been married three times, calls women “feminazis” and “info-babes,” reporter babes, and been caught with so many illegal prescriptions he ended up with mug shot; the latter someone who dumped his wife while she was fighting cancer to marry his aide, a scandal that caused him to run squealing from the House in disgrace.

Never mind what Tom Tancredo shrieked. Seriously, never mind.

The gist of the complaints in the article coming down to… drum roll… She’s tough. Oh, no, not another ball buster, er… tough woman. The men will melt. You know, because lawyers are such shrinking violets.

But after that heading from the Times, the article goes on to actually disprove it.

Those skills, some observers say, could make her an able politician on the Supreme Court and allow her to serve as an intellectual counterweight to Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who is known for his acerbic questioning.

“In some ways she could match, well, the other New Yorker on the court, Justice Scalia,” said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University. “He expects people to give back as good as he gives, and I expect that when Justice Sotomayor is on the court, his wish will be fulfilled.”

Both colleagues and lawyers who have argued before her agree that her style is assertive.

Assertive, yee gads, run for your life. Wonder if anyone ever called Scalia a prick, ahem, I mean, jerk?

No wonder Rush and Newt are so freaked out. Their maleness shrinks at the thought of it.

However, the part I love best about the Times article is this bombshell section:

Other lawyers, though, are not so enamored. In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges, she has gone from generally rave reviews to more tepid endorsements. Among the comments from lawyers was that she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner” and attacks lawyers “for making an argument she doesn’t like.”

“Terror on the bench,” said some unnamed source, which the Times felt compelled to share.

“Behaves in an out-of-control manner,” said someone, though we haven’t a clue whom.

“For making an argument she doesn’t like,” anonymous “lawyers” felt “attacked.” Aw, poor babies.

No wonder Sen. Roberts from Kansas has decided to vote against her.

Buried in the article, however, is an essential anecdote that actually should have been the lede:

Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who taught Ms. Sotomayor there and now sits with her on the Second Circuit, said complaints that she had been unduly caustic had no basis. For a time, Judge Calabresi said, he kept track of the questions posed by Judge Sotomayor and other members of the 12-member court. “Her behavior was identical,” he said.

“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”

Give that man a prize.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama to Stop in Saudi Arabia Before Egypt

Photobucket

Playing out this week, before Pres. Obama travels to the Muslim world, is Mahmoud Abbas coming to the White House. Eric Alterman talks about the weakness of Abbas, which is an understatement. But considering Israel has done all they can to weaken him it’s no wonder. Bush was no help either. Pres. Obama would do well to strengthen Mr. Abbas’ credibility, which is part of what’s going on today. It’s actually in Israel’s interest too, something they should have thought about a long time ago.

As for Pres. Obama’s trip next week, it now looks quite different.

Obama will stop first in Saudi Arabia, not Egypt, with Cairo the next stop where he will give his speech, the actual location supposed to be a secret, with Cairo University looking like the place. But as for Saudi being Obama’s first stop, this is a big development.

Marc Lynch:

The Arab media is buzzing today over the announcement that President Obama will travel to Riyadh before arriving in Cairo for his big address to the Islamic world. Why the late addition to his itinerary?

… The Egyptians had been making much hay off of Obama’s choice of Cairo for the speech, arguing that this vindicated Egypt’s (deeply unpopular) foreign policy and signaled Egypt’s return to the forefront of Arab leadership. This seeming support for Egypt’s (deeply unpopular) foreign policy was one of the reasons for my reservations about the choice of locale in the first place, although as with everything it depends on whether Obama endorses or challenges that approach in his speech. With the Saudis now the American President’s first port of call, the Egyptian claim to renewed leadership is weaker.

After that inter-Arab rivalry business, Arabs are trying to puzzle out the greater political significance of the trip. …

Could it be that Pres. Obama listened to Zbigniew Brzezinski and others like him? People who have been talking a lot about the importance of having Saudi Arabia as a major player in any Middle East process.

Mr. Brzezinski said in the Saudi conference I attended that an alliance with Saudi Arabia is critical to Middle East equilibrium. From the live Twitter reporting at that event:

9:33:10 AM: Zbig: We need a real US/SA alliance for peace. –applause in the room–

9:35:43 AM: Zbig: two parties can’t solve MidEast peace; US needs to frame, w/ SA, who can help. Window is closing.

From what I can discern from the experts, people who have traveled in the region and know it extensively (yes, I’m jealous of that status), Saudi Arabia’s role in moving the Israeli-Palestinian issue forward cannot be underestimated.

Looks like Obama’s not only getting it intellectually, but is willing to put his clout forward in political capital, spent through picking his spots very strategically.

Read full story · Comments are closed

From Dumb Broad to Emotional

Republicans are running amok on how to attack Sotomayor most effectively. Nothing is sticking.

They started by trying out the Harriet Miers theory that Judge Sotomayor was basically some dumb broad who is where she is because of race, even twisting that into she’s a racist herself.

Karl Rove tried one tactic when Obama announced Sotomayor, that she “wasn’t that smart,” plus she also wasn’t that attractive, and now he’s trying another. Though how looks play into being on the Supreme Court I’ll never know. Now it’s her ability to empathize with people, which Rove believes revolves around –wait for it– “emotion.”

… “Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America’s commitment to “the rule of law” but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them. …

Classic Karl.

As for bringing up Miguel Estrada, I doubt if one in ten Americans even remember who he is. Not exactly the lightning rod topic that will inspire outrage. Oh, right, Estrada was filibustered by Democrats when he was up for the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pres. Obama obviously knows how this works, so he got out in front on his nominee. It’s paid off.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of voters nationwide believe Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. That figure includes 59% who believe her confirmation is Very Likely.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just five percent (5%) say her confirmation by the Senate is unlikely.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israel Rebuffs Obama, Clinton on Settlements

Secretary Clinton once again reiterated Pres. Obama’s policy on Israeli settlements yesterday, mincing no words.

The Obama administration reiterated emphatically on Wednesday that it viewed a complete freeze of construction in settlements on the West Bank as a critical step toward a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

Speaking of President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Talking to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, she said: “That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.” …

Clinton’s remarks brought praise from the IPF.

While Haaretz reports Israel has no intention of stopping the growth of settlements any time soon. Clinton’s “surprisingly blunt demand” is certainly different from the deference of George W. Bush.

Israel will press ahead with housing construction in its West Bank settlements despite a surprisingly blunt demand from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that all such building stop, an Israeli official said Thursday.

When asked to respond to Clinton’s call for a total settlement freeze, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said that normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue. Pressed on whether the phrase normal life meant some construction will take place in existing settlements, Regev said it did.

[..] Regev’s remarks echoed those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has said Israel will continue to allow natural growth in the settlements – a vague term that refers to construction in existing settlements to accommodate growing families. … The remarks by Regev on Thursday also indicated that after Clinton explicitly defined natural growth as unacceptable, Israel now appears to be using the term normal life for the same phenomenon.

The double talk coming from the Israelis on settlements is mind numbing.

As for Pres. Obama and his Administration, it’s clear. No exceptions on “natural growth” of settlements.

That CNN is asking why Obama is taking on settlements “in this way” gives you an idea of the tough lift Obama faces with U.S. media to get them to not only get the importance of his Administration wanting “to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions,” but the critical place this policy plays in creating a new dynamic in the entire region.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sotomayor Viewed Favorably by Public

Photobucket

Newt Gingrich will have to try harder, yell louder, Twitter his racist screeds more regularly: “White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

Round one on the roll out goes to Pres. Obama.

Americans’ first reactions to the news of President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court are decidedly more positive than negative, with 47% rating the nomination as “excellent” or “good,” 20% rating it “only fair,” and 13% rating it “poor.” – Gallup

But rumbling underneath is the question about Judge Sotomayor’s position on abortion. During her interviews, Pres. Obama evidently didn’t ask, at least not directly.

“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.”

… But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”

Yesterday I linked to two instances where Sotomayor has proven to be open to siding with conservatives, one, the Gag Rule. She also ruled that police handled abortion protesters too harshly.

We deserve to know if Sotomayor considers Roe v. Wade settled case law. Because if Obama appoints someone who would waver on women’s civil rights there will be hell to pay.

Right now there is too much noise on extraneous issues that deflect from the importance of issues. This serves no one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liveblogging CSIS Journo Panel: Afghanistan – Pakistan

Reporting from CSIS
Listen/watch taped event
–updated–

Photobucket

5:40:58 PM: Bob Schieffer, moderator; Edward Luce, Nancy Youssef, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, David Sanger.

5:45:00 PM: Schiefer: Bush saw it as 2 policies; Obama sees it as one.

5:47:40 PM: Sanger: Obama policy says nothing about “democratization,” it’s about getting al Qaeda, which is in Pak.

5:49:42 PM: Chandra.: Nothing much has changed so far under BO. When will broader new strat link up?

5:52:51 PM: Youssef: From Pentagon perspective, Iraq to Afghan hasn’t transferred. Equip needs differ.

5:56:34 PM: Luce: When Carter gave Zia millions, the Pak said “it was peanuts.” (Laughter) Kerry-Lugar “ambitious.”

6:00:06 PM: Sanger: People nervous about “materials.” Insider threat, “2,000″ who have knowledge, which could be recruited.

6:01:41 PM: Luce: “Vulnerability (of weapons in Pak) has been exaggerated” by some in the media.

6:04:12 PM: Chandra.: Afghans can’t get police to help w/o bribe, so they turn to the Taliban. Police corrupt.

6:06:35 PM: Youssef: Some US troops going into SAfghan, the heart of poppy prod. Poppy minimal work; wheat not. Tal threat

6:10:26 PM: BO policy that diff from 43? Sanger, no; Chandra, funding coming thru, Karzai relations arm’s distance.

6:13:26 PM: Youssef: biggest diff is BO calling Afghan “the good war”: Luce, India’s elections; Kashmir

6:19:46 PM: Chandra: Delinking policy from Karzai; “local, decentralized strategy.” Youssef: more bottom up; Iraq more linear.

6:26:43 PM: Chandra: Agriculture has “vaulted to the top” of Holbrooke’s list in Af-Pak. Poppy plant an “agricultural system.”

6:28:08 PM: Youssef: Wheat would arrive then sit by the road. When asked, soldiers didn’t know what to do with it.

6:29:28 PM: Youssef: ISAF seen as “I saw Americans fighting.”

6:32:40 PM: Chandra.- McKiernan: “Drummed out of the military,” others have not been. (1st fired since McCarther.)

6:34:41 PM: Chandra: Can Pak do COIN? Local Afghan security?

FINAL ENTRY (Added, Twitter didn’t load it) – Youssef: balancing Afhan and Iraq. Will Iraq go bad slowly? Navigating this. End of Event.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sessions: ‘I don’t sense a filibuster in the works’

Evidently, political suicide is not palatable to Republicans.

Senator Sessions also states Sotomayor deserves an “up or down” vote.

On the other side we have more racist rants.

Not being a legal scholar, I can still read an opinion and deduce the core of it. Digested versions of Sotomayor’s opinions are here, here, here, here and here, with more at Christy Hardin Smith. Judge Sotomayor leans left. However, she’s ruled in favor of abortion rights protesters, but also questioned the Gag Rule. See Scotusblog:

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves. Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

BeliefNet has a provocative post up on Sotomayor, asking if she’s “an abortion centrist,” whatever that means.

One wonders what liberals will think when Judge Sotomayor becomes a Supreme Court Justice, but turns out to be an independent mind leveling opinions that don’t track with the average litmus test every time, which has certainly been the case so far.

However, a litmus test on ideology was not Pres. Obama’s bar for his nominee to clear. That’s what may hit home more than anything once Sotomayor is on the Court. Because barring some yet unearthed investigative bombshell, that’s where she’s headed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

North Korea’s Nukes

North Korea threatened a military response to South Korean participation in a U.S.-led program to seize weapons of mass destruction, and said it will no longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. – Bloomberg

Secretary Clinton weighed in this past hour: “North Korea has made a choice. It has chosen to violate specific language, UN Security Council Resolution 1718… It has abrogated its obligations it entered into through the six-party talks and it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner to its neighbors. There are consequences to such actions.” She continued, saying the U.S. and a “unified community,” including China and Russia, are working on what steps will be taken going forward. Then Clinton underscored our commitments to “the defense of South Korea and Japan,” which is “part of our alliance obligation which we take very seriously.” The intent being to “rein in” the North Koreans and bring them back into a “framework of discussion” towards “denuclearization” that will “benefit the people of North Korean, the region and the world.”

If you’ve been reading my posts on the heavy nuclear breathing coming from Iran you know that I believe there is little the U.S. or the world can do to stop Iran from going nuclear. North Korea is a model that proves this point even more strongly. World leaders, no matter whom or where, have really missed the mark on what’s been developing over the years we’ve been trying to think small, incremental and one nation at a time, thinking disrespecting mad men and tyrants will make them more logical. Maybe we had a chance at the end of the Cold War to muster forces for a new non-proliferation coalition that actually meant something, but we didn’t think broadly enough. We simply didn’t have the imagination to envision a world at zero. We still don’t, because if we did we’d understand that the entire world has to buy in. That means everyone.

Now we’ve got North Korea making everyone nervous. Tom Ricks says ignore them. Well, they’re not going away, nor is the prowess they now have achieved going to do anything good for the region. But still we ask, How do you stop him?

.. Ed Friedman, a specialist in Asian international relations at the University of Wisconsin, was not optimistic. “The continuing development of nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them by North Korea … has large and dangerous consequences,” he said by email.

“Evidence suggests Chinese analysts have concluded that little can be done to stop either North Korea or Iran from going nuclear.”

Friedman worries Japan might ultimately go nuclear to defend itself, and that this would heighten tensions in the region – especially between Tokyo and Beijing.

Exactly. We can’t. So, now what?

Conservatives like to argue whose fault it is that North Korea went nuclear.

First, on the political front, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years. Since Obama has taken office, North Korea has kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, launched both short- and long-range missiles and tested a nuclear weapon.

If not this, it’s Iran must be stopped at all cost, including military action, which is the dumbest suggestion since preemption on Iraq, with neocons still believing in a strategy called regime change. It’s the Don’t Blame Us, You Talked to Them diplomatic bankruptcy that led to our current dilemma. But whether the U.S. can get beyond this juvenile political dialogue is doubtful given that this is what drives our critical media.

While Obama is tinkering in Iraq and Afghanistan, the importance of both not in doubt, an even more serious situation beckons beyond and I’m not talking just about Pakistan. It’s a world with Iran and North Korea both nuclear nations, Japan turning nuclear provoking China, with a wider Middle East escalation incubating as well, while loose nukes remain a big threat to U.S. security.

Smarter minds than mine aren’t offering up any solutions, let alone definitive strategies. But it seems to me that someone has to suggest a “Zero Nuke Summit” or something less threatening, bringing all players to the table, including those we don’t want to engage or admit are serious players. That means it would include Russia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia, because beyond Israel, no one has a bigger stake in Iran not going nuclear than the Saudis.

Will this happen? When pigs fly. There’s no conversation among the “experts,” let alone intellectual or media pressure coming from anywhere demanding it. Not the traditional media, including cable or network news, so dealing with the nuclear world rumblings and escalation threats collectively remains a far off conversation that amounts to talking to yourself.

We simply can’t continue to pretend this is going to go away. … Well, we can (and have), but it’s not.

Read full story · Comments are closed

When ‘Experts’ Frustrate

Photobucket

Fareed Zakaria’s article about Iran is really frustrating. Jeffrey Goldberg found it so as well, though we have different reasons.

Zakaria states that Iran “may not want the bomb,” using parts of a New York Times piece by Goldberg, which I’ve already referenced, to make his case, though Zakaria doesn’t credit Goldberg.

Goldberg then takes offense and goes on to explain that Zakaria doesn’t get it in Does Zakaria Misinterpret Iranian Intentions?

As experts in the region, both Zakaria and Goldberg seem hell bent on ignoring what some of us would call the plainly obvious. That Iran does indeed want the bomb, if only out of national pride so they can become a player, with there being no real threat to them not moving forward with enrichment to get a bomb, because we are not going in militarily and Iran is too far along not to succeed. Neither Goldberg or Zakaria seem at all interested in addressing the other part of the Middle East puzzle, which is Israel’s own nuclear capabilities in the region that never registers. As experts, you’d think both men would know that the Persians nor the Arabs in the region are stupid.

We’ve come to an impasse on Iran, minus the “crippling sanctions” threat that is doubtful to gain the required support. Since we’re certainly not going to put Israel in a box of addressing their nuclear capabilities maybe we should address the hypocrisy of expecting nationalistic nations like Iran to do something we’re not asking others in the region to do.

Obama’s dream to get to zero has to start with transparency, which must include everyone. It’s stunning that this is such a radical reality.

Both Zakaria and Goldberg ignore the obvious. It’s the usual stuff we get from experts, because they’re afraid to be honest about what’s actually going on. We need fewer experts pontificating and more realists with no agenda other than America’s wading in.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Torture Author Opines on ‘Excellence’

This is rich. John Yoo slamming Pres. Obama on Judge Sotomayor, claiming excellence has been sacrificed through her nomination. Who says irony is dead?

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows that empathy has won out over excellence in the White House. … The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race.

Playing from Rush’s race deck. Charming. Hey, but we are talking about John Yoo.

Yoo opines that “locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities,” which should come with a laugh track. Because of the Republican attack machine against Hispanics, we’ve already won the political support of Hispanics, which after the current display against Judge Sotomayor will be a lock.

That this is the same guy who proclaimed torture not only legal, but a hill on which he was willing to destroy both U.S. and international law by making the argument that it was legal, illustrates what his opinion is worth.

And Yoo says Sotomayor has an undistinguished record?

At least Judge Sotomayor, by my analysis, understands the difference between legal and illegal, and doesn’t seem all that predisposed to concoct a torture policy that gets the U.S. caught up in an international scandal.

Hey, but I’m not a conservative masquerading as a legal mind pretending to understand our responsibilities in a world bound by international law, with Yoo evidently thinking the law is there to bend to a president’s personal political will, because his vice president got him caught in a jam. Replacing political duty for upholding the U.S. Constitution.

The day anyone starts listening to John Yoo again is the day we no longer deserve the country we’re trying to save.

Sotomayor’s record on the bench, at first glance, appears undistinguished, writes Yoo. Well, by the bare minimum of standards it’s a few notches better when compared to the disgrace Mr. Yoo has delivered through his own creative penmanship, which has led to torture, though few convictions, and instead led us all down the road to perdition. A place John Yoo knows all too well.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rush Plays the Race Card Against Sotomayor

–updated–

Photobucket
Sotomayor as a child.

Rush Limbaugh went on quite a tirade today. I heard it. Here’s part of it:

So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he’s appointed one — getting this, AP? — Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court …

So she’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be, she’s not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So yes, there’s a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in and this is how it could happen. Now will the Republicans do it? That’s another question.

A racist is a racist, reverse has nothing to do with it.

But juxtaposed against Judge Sotomayor’s humble nomination acceptance speech today (see video), I don’t think there’s any doubt what Rush is really trying to do. Raise the issue that the white guy has been overlooked because of affirmative action; pit one person against another because in his judgment all things are now equal.

Hannity did the same thing on his show today. The world should be color and gender blind, because all things are equal, even if they’re not.

As an aside, people are doing the same thing with women too, saying sexism doesn’t exist because women are succeeding in greater numbers, even if we’re paid less and have fewer chances to rise to the top.

One African American president doesn’t make the playing field even for all.

Lily Ledbetter Act doesn’t dissolve the sexism that is real.

Judge Sotomayor making the case that a Latina woman has different experiences that make her judgment richer in some cases doesn’t make her a racist.

Photobucket
Sotomayor and her baby brother.

I’m a little surprised that Rush didn’t come right out to squeal the opening lines to the wingnut anthem: Rise up. Hispanics are taking our jobs!

But “reverse racism” is nothing less than a desperate man’s argument. Desperate because the blue collar white guy is leaving the Republican Party in droves. I won’t say that they’ve finally learned the American Dream can never be captured through Republican policies, but instead keep them in a constant state of wanting, while feeding the guys at the top like Rush. But after 8 years of George W. Bush they can look at their paycheck to see it’s not going as far as it used to. If they have a paycheck at all. And they can’t blame Obama because he just arrived.

Rush’s “reverse racism” rallying cry is pathetic. From a rich Republican male who has been so long at the game that he’s beginning to sound like a Dixiecrat. Strom Thurmond would be proud.

Read full story · Comments are closed