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

Obama Defeated on Gitmo

By on 20 May 2009

President Obama made an ask without a plan and ran straight into a Senate wall. Shorter: the majority Party hasn’t a clue what they’re doing on Gitmo. How in the world does the Democratic president get in a situation where the Democratic Congress hands him a defeat on something as important to national security as closing Guantanomo Bay?

Senator Feinstein said that our prisons are “eminently capable” of handling detainees. But voted no on funding.

Senator James Webb, on Sunday with Stephanopoulos, said: “I do not believe they should be tried in the United States.” This could have more to do with Virginia politics than anything else, as well as the financial burden on places like Alexandria. But it still reeks of the incomprehensible and illogical.

Our prisons can handle the worst of offenders, so certainly we can handle Gitmo detainees.

But as if on cue, F.B.I. Director Mueller has “concerns” as well, no doubt looking out for his agents.

“The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others,” Mueller said, as well as “the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States.” “All of those are relevant concerns,” Mueller said.

But leave it to Senator “majority leader” Harry Reid, the person charged with leading his flock of Senate pigeons, to deliver one of the most incomprehensible moments in recent congressional history:

“If terrorists are released in the United States, part of what we don’t want is for them be put in prisons in the United States. We don’t want them around the United States.” – Senator Harry Reid

Excuse me?

Why doesn’t Mr. Reid just read from Republican Party talking points and be done with it. As if Pres. Obama or anyone else for that matter is suggesting detainees will be running amok “around the United States.”

Senator Durbin was able to find some angle to pursue that didn’t make him sound like a mouse of a man.

“If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held,” said Durbin on the Senate floor. “I should note, no prisoner has ever escaped in the United States, period. Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists in our communities, some kind of work release, walking around situation for terrorists. What an incredible charge, and patently false. President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a manner consistent with our national security.”

But the question remains: How did President Obama find himself in this situation in the first place?

Gibbs yesterday: “We agree with Congress that before resources, that they should receive a more detailed plan.”

Well then, why in the name of the incomprehensively stupid wasn’t a plan in place before handing Pres. Obama this resounding defeat on something as important as his pledge to close Gitmo?

**crickets**

Then finally we hear from Michele Flournoy, Obama’s new Pentagon policy chief (who I think should be a candidate to replace Bob Gates), who spoke bluntly about the Senate’s yellow streak:

…that members of Congress must rethink their opposition to accepting these detainees into the United States. Flournoy said it is unrealistic to think that no detainees will come to the United States, and that the U.S. cannot ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden.

Without singling anyone out, Flournoy said lawmakers need to think more “strategically.”

I hope Ms. Flournoy isn’t holding her breath.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Keeping Tabs on Israel

By on 20 May 2009

The truest thing uttered today by Secretary Clinton was that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons “is going to spark an arms race” in the Middle East. She went on:

Clinton also described a nuclear capability in Tehran as an “extraordinary threat,” and said the U.S. goal is “to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear weapons program.”

Less secure because Israel has threatened to strike if they do.

The Obama administration refusing to hold Israel to any NPT standards, with the Netanyahu government just the latest to receive special treatment from the U.S. Great deal if you can strike it.

Eli Lake reports today that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government are forming a “high-level working group.” Can there be any doubt that this is so the Obama administration can assure that if Israel decides to strike they have warning? Obviously, whatever assurances CIA Director Panetta received on his trip to Israel before Netanyahu touched down in the U.S. wasn’t as much as the Administration needed. So call the “‘high-level working group” insurance, if nothing else.

The agreement, reached during Monday’s meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Obama, gives the U.S. a clear channel for communicating with the new Israeli government and a vehicle for keeping tabs on any military contingency plans Israel might make if diplomacy fails and Iran develops nuclear weapons capability.

Flynt Leverett, a former Mideast specialist on the National Security Council and advocate of a “grand bargain” between the U.S. and Iran, said the new working group could undermine the credibility of any U.S. offers to Iran. … “It is an idea that unfortunately is in keeping with a number of other statements and decisions by the Obama administration that will completely undercut the credibility of any U.S. overtures in the eyes of Iranian leaders – assuming the U.S. will make such overtures,” he said. “The Iranians are going to see this as Israel setting policy toward them.” (emphasis added)

Mr. Leverett’s assessment is stark.

Even as Pres. Obama sends a message to Arabs that Israeli settlements will not be tolerated, he gives a nod to Israel through this working group, which will seemingly allow Israel to know what Obama’s doing in Iran’s direction on diplomacy.

So, I guess as we keep tabs on Israel, they will be keeping tabs on us.

Think taut rope over a deep gorge. But one thing it’s not is a continuation of Bush-Cheney policy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Shame

By on 20 May 2009

“Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.” – Ben LaBolt, Obama spokesperson

It seems clear from Mr. LaBolt’s statement that Pres. Obama is content to play chicken with Democrats in Congress, holding servicemen and women who are gay hostage. Waiting out the court journey so that he won’t be, as the White House evidently sees it, blamed for reversing a dreadful policy that is weak constitutionally, as well as counterproductive.

The interview Rachel Maddow did with Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach illustrates how alarmingly unfair DADT is. Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network wrote a post laying it out.

But yesterday, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell stood arrogantly at the podium talking about a policy that is a disgrace to this country as if it didn’t matter. The aura he exuded while talking about it revealed a cavalier approach to an issue that is insulting to our soldiers who are putting themselves on the line, sometimes heroically. Morrell:

“I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don’t ask-don’t tell will be repealed,” Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon.

More practically, the Obama administration decided not to appeal the recent ruling on Maj. Margaret Witt.

The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military’s ban on service members found to be gay.

In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform “create an unacceptable risk” to military morale and “unit cohesion.”

But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.

President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.

… A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn’t be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

Through no courage from Democrats, the issue of DADT could eventually wind its way through the courts with a positive outcome. But it sure won’t be because Pres. Obama, his Administration or the Democrats in Congress showed leadership or any courage on the issue.

ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked the president’s National Security Advisor retired Marine General James L. Jones if he thought DADT will be overturned. Jones replied, “I don’t know,” and then what is clearly one of the main talking points, “We have a lot on our plate right now.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Fun with Michael Steele

By on 19 May 2009

Mr. Steele delivers an ultimatum:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told FOX News that part of his job is to “manage the money” and suggested that if committee members strip him of that authority he’ll step aside.

“They can contemplate all they want to, but the reality is if they want a figurehead chairman you can have a figurehead chairman, but it won’t be Michael Steele,” he said.

Steele’s big contribution is to put up for a vote whether Republicans should call liberals the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

Any Democrat should pray the Republicans stay with Steele. He’s the gift that keeps on giving.

As the video illustrates, Steele has trouble with reality and any Republican culpability in the mess we’re currently in. That he deems Obama “farther left than we imagine” should come with a laugh track. His audience seems to be asleep.

I’m not sure what to make of this Politico article penned by Mr. Steele. “The Republican Party turns a corner” is at the best wishful thinking, at the worst political delusion.

The Republican Party still has no path to enticing the American people to follow their lead.

“The honeymoon is over,” declares Steele. I can’t help but think this statement applies more to his own “leadership” position than anything having to do with President Obama.

But what’s really astounding is that MSNBC gave Mr. Steele around 30 minutes of air time today. It must have been nap time in the control booth.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Around the World, Plus Times Buries Netanyahu-Obama Lede

By on 19 May 2009

One would not guess, judging from yesterday’s press conference, that Gaza lies in ruins with the Israelis continuing to block the delivery of essentials. … USAID, which is the lead American agency working with the NGOs to supply relief, is so intimidated by Israel’s watchdogs in Congress that it won’t simply approve delivery of the sheeting. – MJ Rosenberg

First, Secretary Hillary Clinton announced aid to Pakistan, as 2 million refugees flee the Pakistan war against Taliban terrorism. But something really cool has been added so you can join in:

Now, Americans can use technology to help, as well. Using your cell phones, Americans can text the word “swat” — to the number 20222 and make a $5 contribution that will help the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees provide tents, clothing, food, and medicine to hundreds of thousands of affected people. And before I came over here, we did that in the State Department. So we are making some of the first donations to this fund.

The most important international news is the defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, which ended up with their leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran (Ve-LU-pi-lay PRAH-bah-ka-ran), being killed. Reader “spincitysd” (here’s his blog), has been covering this development “In the News,” with a terrific diary that helps explain it all. Also see Huffington Post. The Tamil Tigers have been utilizing horrific terrorism tactics for decades to enact a separation from Sri Lanka so they could form an independent state. Where they could then harass the Sri Lankan government with more terrorism, war and carnage. As others have reported, the death of Velupillai Prabhakaran makes it less likely that the rebels can regroup, or if they try it will be harder to get it done. An historic moment for Sri Landa.

Middle East Pulse has the best round up of the uncomfortable presser on view yesterday, as Obama and Netanyahu sat for their obligatory meet the press teaser.

Nahum Barnea in Yediot Acharonoth: The visits paid by Israeli premiers to the Oval Office are usually like class reunions: everybody knows one another and likes one another. And even if the fondness is forced, contingent, it isn’t hard to do it for the media. After all, we’re all one big happy family. Not last night. Obama and Netanyahu were as grim looking and formal as politicians can be. (read on)

Ben Caspit in Ma’ariv: What happened there? Everything. There were those close to Netanyahu who promised him in recent weeks that Obama would not embarrass him in his first visit to Washington and would try to make light of their differences. Obama never heard that promise. He deluged Netanyahu with “two states” at least three times, he spoke about the road map, and even “Annapolis,” thanks to Avigdor Lieberman, got mentioned twice. He spoke about freezing settlements, of past commitments of the sides and the need to treat them seriously, about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, about everything. There wasn’t a single blister that Obama didn’t step on, and it didn’t seem to bother him. He left no stone unturned with Netanyahu sitting by his side and listening attentively. (read on)

But read the rest of their roundup, because it’s good.

The Obama meet with Netanyahu unfortunately produced a jaw dropping assessment in The New York Times that had me scratching my head. I looked around to see if I was having a nightmare or if anyone else saw what I read into the piece. I’m not alone, with David Bromwich over at HuffPo seeing the same delusion, compliments of Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who makes the entire story about Iran. As Bromwich also points out, what Stolberg writes about and what Obama actually said are two very different things, with headline writers going all Iran: Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has an Iran Timetable. This is not in any way what President Obama said. Obama:

My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn’t mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach.

Stolberg’s entire premise seems to ride on Obama channeling George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama wants time for his diplomatic overtures to work. Israel is rattled by those overtures and concerned that the president will not be as unwavering a supporter of Israel as was his predecessor, George W. Bush.

God help us.

Stolberg also buried the lede.

“Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”

Read Marc Lynch.

So if you want reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue you’re not going to get a fair assessment from the New York Times. Though if you read Jeffrey Goldberg’s op-ed Sunday you’d already know that by now.

Juan Cole sees Netanyahu the loser, but he’s an ardent pro Palestinian expert, someone who rightly has called Israel out when it’s deserved.

The Obama-Netanyahu talks were clearly a train wreck for Israel’s far rightwing Likud Party. The talks went on nearly twice as long as scheduled, suggesting a lot of bumps in the road. The two seemed to me stiff in their body language afterward, and they clearly did not agree on virtually anything important. Both finessed the disagreement by appealing to vague generalities and invoking the long term. Obama wants to negotiate with Iran regarding its civilian nuclear enrichment research program, but stressed that his patience is not infinite. Netanyahu, of course, wants military action against Iran on a short timetable.

Netanyahu’s hysteria about Iran is a piece of misdirection intended to sidestep the issue of Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and allows regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, even if the latter is not completely satisfied with Iran’s transparency. Israel just thumbed its nose at the NPT. Israel would only have the moral high ground in demanding that Iran cease enrichment research if it gave up its own some 150 warheads.

…and in Britain, we’ve got their speaker of the House of Commons resigning. Seriously, read why at the link. The first speaker to be forced out since 1695.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Virginians, Don’t Vote for Brian Moran

By on 19 May 2009

–debate update–

Tacky. Tacky. Tacky.

That’s Brian Moran.

And this is the last post I thought I’d be writing today, because I rarely weigh in on state races, which aren’t my thing (Webb and Sestak were my two exceptions in the last years).

For those of you who don’t know, Moran is running in the Virginia gubernatorial primary against Terry McAuliffe and state Sen. Creigh Deeds. Moran is trailing McAuliffe, who is leading, according to the latest PPP polling, done on May 5. So now Moran’s desperate and it’s showing.

I hope McAuliffe trounces him. Hey, but if you don’t like Terry McAuliffe, give your vote to Creigh Deeds. Call it a vote for the underdog. Just don’t vote for Brian Moran.

That wasn’t my feeling until today. But when reading in the Washington Post a report that Moran took his campaign for governor to a new low, basically saying that Terry McAuliffe shouldn’t be elected because he supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries, that was it. But if that isn’t bad enough, Moran’s running targeted ads in African American communities that are really low considering Hillary Clinton has one of the top spots in President Obama’s cabinet. But that’s not good enough for Mr. Moran, who would rather dredge up primary battles.

In a fundraising appeal to supporters yesterday, McAuliffe’s campaign called Moran’s ads “a new low,” and said they were “deliberately designed to deceive voters into believing Terry opposed Barack Obama’s candidacy last November.” It released a video of McAuliffe campaigning for Obama before the general election and a radio ad with McAuliffe saying he worked as hard for Obama in the general election as he had for Clinton during the primaries. … “He is rewriting history,” Moran said yesterday. “There’s some audacity with him taking credit for helping elect Barack Obama when there were so many volunteers who worked diligently over many, many months to get him elected.”

No one and I mean no one wants to rehash the primaries. Something that Scott Surovell, chairman of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, reminded Mr. Moran today. But with his latest campaigning, Moran also proved he doesn’t have the gray matter to be governor. Because he’s an idiot if he believes McAuliffe and all the other Hillary Clinton supporters, including Clinton herself, didn’t help elect Barack Obama president, with no Clinton supporter believing he or she played a bigger role than the die hard Obama fans who took him across the finish line. But a short memory and primary desperation has led Moran to a tacky, stupid campaign mistake that deserve to cost him with Virginians.

You likely know a lot about Terry McAuliffe. For the record, I’ve met McAuliffe, who’s got more energy than any ten people, and who has finally turned from supporting the Clintons to his own campaign. But it’s unlikely you know much about Creigh Deeds. So here’s a bit about him, someone I do not know, nor have ever met, but who has a solid record in fighting for Virginia.

Senator Deeds has spent the last two decades serving constituents from all walks of life–from his start as Bath County prosecutor to his current position as a State Senator representing the City of Charlottesville and a district that stretches to the West Virginia border. Whether he was working to clean up one of Virginia’s largest Superfund sites, fighting for economic development, or writing some of the toughest legislation to keep our families safe and secure, Deeds has built his career as a consensus builder who delivers results.

He wrote Megan’s Law, which allows public access to the state sex offender registry, and sponsored the Amber Alert Program to keep our children safe. Using his relationships with law enforcement officers and his experience as a prosecutor, Deeds wrote the state law that has turned the tide against homegrown illegal methamphetamine drug labs.

In addition to his work to cleanup the Kim-Stan landfill Superfund site, Senator Deeds also wrote one of the most progressive laws to preserve open space and protect the environment. For his leadership and advocacy, he received the Leadership in Public Policy Award from The Nature Conservancy and the Preservation Alliance of Virginia named him Delegate of the Year.

Tom Daschle, Obama’s presidential campaign co-chairmen, just endorsed McAuliffe yesterday. Of course, that doesn’t surprise anyone, because insiders stick together, especially ones in the Democratic elite. However, will.i.am has also endorsed McAuliffe.

Moran’s moves to make Hillary Clinton the scapegoat for his inability to catch McAuliffe are despicable. Note to Brian Moran: Mrs. Clinton is now Secretary of State, doing a good job by anyone’s objective standard, serving President Obama well, no looking back.

Let’s hope Moran’s cheap shot doesn’t influence Virginia Democratic primary voters. He’s proven he doesn’t have the class to represent such a great state.

So if you’re a Virginia Democrat, vote for Terry McAuliffe or Creigh Deeds. They at least have their eyes on what’s important. Brian Moran does not.

UPDATE: VA. governor debate was streamed online today, so it was easy to see the candidates in action. Brian Moran opened his mouth once too often removing all doubt that he’s a jerk; sniping at McAuliffe without landing a blow; saying he didn’t have time to teach McAuliffe about how VA works. McAuliffe didn’t flinch, just smiled, while the audience audibly grimaced. Moran only hurt himself with his negativity. Deeds was good and on message, detailed, obviously qualified. As for McAuliffe, he showed a fuller grasp of business and the need to wheel and deal with companies to bring them into Virginia. His claim that he’s created jobs clearly ticked Moran off, but McAuliffe just kept repeating his talking point that zeroed in on job creation, job creation, job creation. Quote of the debate goes to McAuliffe: “I apologize for being optimistic.” Ask anyone. That’s his trademark characteristic. Compared to Moran’s sour puss it was a tonic.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Keystone Republicans, Democratic Stooges

By on 19 May 2009

You almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost. The pitch is just pathetic.

“The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over,” Steele will say in a speech to the RNC’s 2009 State Chairmen’s Meeting, according to excerpts obtained by CNN. “It is done. We have turned the page, we have turned the corner. No more looking in the review mirror. From this point forward, we will focus all of our energies on winning the future.”

Oh, if only words were wings.

Problem is that hardly anybody is interested in what Michael Steel and his Party are peddling.

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

It makes it all the more curious why Republicans think their full scale war on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, complete with the demand that she resign, could actually work. Desperation meets delusional.

Newt Gingrich offers up a most bizarre charge that she’s no longer fit to be Speaker. But that actually came after Rush Limbaugh uttered the hilarious notion of whether Pelosi will really break the glass ceiling and resign her job, like a Republican man would do. Someone on one of the cable shows today said Pelosi would likely be able to keep her job through Memorial Day.

In what alternative universe do Republicans, in their current state, get to grab the talking point and run with it at a time when Democratic power is at a high after an Administration that ran this country into the ground, including our image and prestige abroad?

The fact that Speaker Pelosi got one briefing that’s causing such a ruckus is nothing compared to the reality of what Bush and Cheney supervised. Do I have to actually write this down?

But having to listen to the self-righteous Mike Huckabee opine on how Speaker Pelosi should “resign” is really the kicker.

It’s gotten to the point that I’m not really interested in what anyone thinks of Pelosi, because allowing Republicans to turn this in on Democrats while they twist talking about torture into a game is so infuriating one can only judge that some Democrats have a self loathing so strong that they’d rather hand over the keys than stick it to the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

Having Norah O’Donnell tell Matthew Ygelsias that Bush-Cheney’s torture debacle will not be investigated because Democrats don’t want it, just as Pelosi is being asked to resign, was as Alice in Wonderland as I want to watch.

But something tells me it’s going to get worse. That is unless Democrats wake up and hand the Republicans what they deserve. A real investigation that gets to the nub of our national nightmare. Or are our leaders too stupid or lazy to keep the spotlight trained on the bad guys long enough to finish the job, happy instead to let the scandal linger so that we never really know the truth?

May the gods damn the weak if the guilty are let to slip away.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘TM-DC’ Launches

By on 18 May 2009
Photobucket

I’ve gotten a lot of emails on when in I’m going to start doing podcasts again. Well, we’ve begun and we’ll be tweaking things as we go; some things still in the working out stages, which happens when you have new equipment, etc. “TM-DC” is the new name.

The first podcast is going out as an introduction, which you’ll notice, because I talk about some of the foreign policy reporting I’ve been doing since landing in D.C.

Lots of topics, though the Pelosi kerfuffle didn’t make it in, due to the fact that we only got one podcast uploaded. Had to do some tinkering so we could upload the full hour. I’ll be adding interviews as we go. One person I’m trying to hook up is Scott Kesterson, who is now in country in Afghanistan. I interviewed him before, when he was the only photo journalist there at the time. We’re trying to hone in on a good time. Anyway…

Enjoy!

We’re just getting started.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Poll Finds Pelosi Ahead of CIA

By on 18 May 2009
Nancy Pelosi
by Paul Szep
(Welcome back, Paul!)

But not by much: 43% say it’s “somewhat likely” the CIA misled Speaker Pelosi; with 22% saying it’s “very likely.”

People are closely watching this story.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters say they’re following news about Pelosi and the CIA at least somewhat closely. Democrats are less interested in the story than Republicans and unaffiliateds.

The toughest statistic going forward for Pelosi is that her unfavorables are demonstrably higher than the CIA.

However, Pelosi’s clarifying statement on Friday, which is what it seems like to me, could bring with it further scrutiny, because it seems she’s attempting to walk back her “CIA misled Congress” statement, trying to turn her criticism towards the Bush Administration instead.

“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.”

You can’t throw the president and the CIA director under the bus and not expect a little Administration heat to come your way. Pelosi’s swipe at the CIA in her press conference last week obviously put Obama in a tough spot, but Panetta in particular had no choice but to respond, which we’ve already discussed. Though it should be noted that Panetta wasn’t challenging what Pelosi has continued to say about how she was briefed. We all know the Bush Administration stovepiped information to benefit the case they were making on Iraq. Just because it isn’t the CIA’s habit to misinform Congress doesn’t mean Cheney’s people didn’t do it.

Unfortunately, along with her clarifying statement pointing the finger away from the CIA and towards Bush-Cheney, Speaker Pelosi made a strategic mistake turning down the Sunday shows. This doesn’t help her public case at all. It’s the polar opposite of what Rep. Jane Harman did when she was accused. Harman was everywhere pushing back hard. Instead, Pelosi’s absence allowed her opponents to nail her across the dial. It’s an example of how not to handle a public relations crisis.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Moment for Obama to Spend his Capital

By on 18 May 2009

If ever Pres. Obama was waiting for his moment, he gets one this week. It’s a chance to negate the clamor over torture photos, as well as military commissions. To catapult over questions of his Supreme pick. A moment where he can walk around the every day conflicts and stand apart from the pettiness that’s so choking. He simply needs to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that the primary goal on his agenda is the two-state solution. The world is holding its collective breath.

“I think this president gets it, in terms of the suffering of the Palestinians,” said Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “He gets it, which is already light years ahead of the average elected American politician.”

Now’s the time to prove it.

“I think that Barack Obama, on this issue as well as many other issues, brings a fresh approach and a fresh background,” Mr. Levy said. “He’s certainly familiar with Israel’s concerns and with the closeness of the Israel-America relationship and with that narrative. But what I think might be different is a familiarity that I think President Obama almost certainly has with where the Palestinian grievance narrative is coming from.”

If Obama falls short the Middle East will revert back to the negativity that’s already begun to spread, simply because hopes are so high and nothing’s happened yet.

As usual, Jeffrey Goldberg is continuing to draw the Iran argument out, recently more concerned with Old Testament points of reference and Israel’s fears, ignoring what is in America’s interest.

Nevertheless, the prime minister’s preoccupation with the Iranian nuclear program seems sincere and deeply felt. I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.”

“Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit.

Goldberg continues his preoccupation with explaining Netanyahu’s fears and goals, which is important to understand, but mustn’t guide Pres. Obama’s strategic planning on the Mideast.

In fact, what Goldberg misses is that at present, Israel’s Amalek is actually Israel. Obama must keep the Israeli leader form continuing to be his own worst enemy. Whether in Lebanon in 2006, or recently in Gaza, with Israel continually building new settlements, their leaders don’t seem to grasp that this is their last moment, our last moment to help our friend.

Tough love, Mr. President. You’ve not spent any capital on anything vital, anything big, a national security imperative that could change the game for the U.S., as well as the whole Mideast region, bringing Arab states on board with energy that could ripple through the Mideast and beyond, to Pakistan. Because don’t kid yourself, Mr. Netanyahu cannot afford to fail.

You’ve got the capital, Mr. President. Spend it all. If you don’t you’ll lose it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Who Ignited the Current Dialogue on Pakistan?

By on 17 May 2009

Besides facts on the ground, which have been building for years. Something tipped the scales. It all began at what could have been a routine appearance in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which we’ll get to in a minute. That today was taken to an all new level. David Kilcullen co-authored an op-ed today that comes down conclusively against drone use in Pakistan. Interesting this article appears right after reports that the U.S. and Pakistan have come to an agreement to share control over Predator drone attacks.

The U.S. military has launched a program of armed Predator drone missions against militants in Pakistan that for the first time gives Pakistani officers significant control over routes, targets and decisions to fire weapons, U.S. officials said.

On the heels of what seems to be a real effort by Zardari to focus the Pakistani army against the rising strength of the Pakistani Taliban.

From Kilkullen’s piece:

The drone strategy is similar to French aerial bombardment in rural Algeria in the 1950s, and to the “air control” methods employed by the British in what are now the Pakistani tribal areas in the 1920s. The historical resonance of the British effort encourages people in the tribal areas to see the drone attacks as a continuation of colonial-era policies.

The drone campaign is in fact part of a larger strategic error — our insistence on personalizing this conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Devoting time and resources toward killing or capturing “high-value” targets — not to mention the bounties placed on their heads — distracts us from larger problems, while turning figures like Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban umbrella group, into Robin Hoods. Our experience in Iraq suggests that the capture or killing of high-value targets — Saddam Hussein or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — has only a slight and fleeting effect on levels of violence. Killing Mr. Zarqawi bought only 18 days of quiet before Al Qaeda returned to operations under new leadership.

[...] Having Osama bin Laden in one’s sights is one thing. Devoting precious resources to his capture or death, rather than focusing on protecting the Afghan and Pakistani populations, is another. The goal should be to isolate extremists from the communities in which they live. The best way to do this is to adopt policies that build local partnerships. Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies must be defeated by indigenous forces — not from the United States, and not even from Punjab, but from the parts of Pakistan in which they now hide. Drone strikes make this harder, not easier.

But excuse me if I bring up a possible political media moment that became a tipping point on this dialogue and debate on Pakistan, drones, Zardari’s power and his use of the Pakistani military, as well as the urgency to do something concrete about the Pakistani Taliban. Regardless of the critics’ review. It came in late April, delivered by Secretary of State Clinton:

“I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists…” – Secretary Clinton (House Foreign Affairs Committee)

Peter Feaver had a rhetorical cow. But at least he laid open the possibility of it working, which I believe it has:

Yet the acid test of such diplomacy is not whether it makes the striped-pants-set squirm, but rather whether it will work. If the Obama team is basically right, and the United States had far more leverage over Pakistani behavior than was effectively wielded, and if they are right again that public rough stuff will get Pakistan more on side, we should see the results soon enough.

Clinton also took a hit in the Washington Post:

The day after the Buner reports surfaced, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton infuriated the Pakistani government by telling Congress it was “abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists” and that the situation posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

“Absolutely, they’re getting irritated,” a senior U.S. official said of the Pakistanis. Clinton, he said, “knows she went too far” in her unscripted testimony. “But on the other hand,” he said, “it was that kind of statement that helped wake up the Pakistanis.”

The Shadow Gov.’s Christian Brose also chimed in:

No matter how inadequate and frustrating Pakistan’s civilian leadership may be, let’s air on the side of saying nothing publicly rather than saying something that might undermine them — for if we are not still stuck with these guys in a few years time, we will have far bigger problems.

That Secretary Clinton further warned that the U.S. faces an “existential threat” from Pakistan likely also caused the upper crust of the national security peanut gallery consternation.

But Clinton’s comments opened up the floodgates on Pakistan, unless you believe in coincidences, which today resulted in one of the most respected military minds we’ve got saying our drone attacks aren’t helping. The hearts and minds issue most forcefully represented since Pres. Obama took office.

That Secretary Clinton helped get this ball rolling through her testimony in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee only reveals the strength of the ally Mr. Obama has at State, validating his decision to put her there in the first place. At the very least it’s the right person in the right place at the right time saying exactly what was needed to be said.

Clinton said what President Obama couldn’t, even if it made some in the national security circle reach for the scotch. However, this is no doubt what Mr. Obama expected, even if her words ricocheted around the U.S., as well as among our allies, because it should have been said a long time ago. It’s not like the Pakistan Taliban’s influence just started to rise.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Week Ending 5.17.09 – Hot Topics (Miss CA kerfuffle, Sykes & Rush, meeting George Stephanopoulos, and more); Pakistan and Hillary Clinton; Dick Cheney’s Torture Tour

By on 17 May 2009


Photobucket

 
Read full story · Comments are closed

Decision on Military Commissions Shouldn’t Surprise

By on 17 May 2009
Photobucket

This is going to put some right off their Sunday brunch.

Understanding that this is an analysis, not an opinion being offered in agreement, but simply a reality check surrounding the latest political decision delivered by Pres. Obama.

So, straight off the top let me say that Pres. Obama’s decision to keep the military commissions, while expanding the parameters of rights and procedures, in no way surprises me. Remember, Senator Obama actually voted for military commissions in 2006, which he mentioned in his statement yesterday.

Many others were surprised:

Some liberals and human rights groups said they were stunned by the announcement on Friday, with several calling it a betrayal.

Frankly, I find it stunning people are seemingly shocked that Obama continues to act in keeping with who he is. Once again I go back to the interview he had with George Stephanopoulos, which I do every time one of these controversies flares, to remind people that regardless of his lofty rhetoric, it’s more important to keep your eye on the foundation of the politician.

“… I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week”)

This is likely what led Pres. Obama to reverse himself on the detainee photos as well.

Obama’s decision on military commissions, while a disappointment to many, inspiring some to call him “Bush lite,” really is a step in the right direction, regardless of the hyperbolic reviews being delivered. I’ll let the lawyers delineate the specifics of the grievances many have with the Administration’s decision.

No one in the Administration has yet explained why courts martial won’t work, because according to experts that’s the way to go, something of which I’m convinced. Neal Katyal argued the Hamdan case all the way up to the Supremes, explains why:

When asked why they do not use courts martial (or at least borrow their rules), the administration has offered two arguments. First, it has asserted blindly that courts martial are not available to people who lack prisoner-of-war status. That is flatly not the case, as the 1951 law explicitly states. Second, it has claimed that only military commissions have procedures capable of handling classified information. Yet it is patently absurd to think that our courts-martial system could not handle classified information. It already does so, day in and day out. We have had courts martial in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Courts martial are already tooled up to handle evidence seized on a battlefield.

In stating that the rules governing courts martial do not apply to commissions, the administration has placed itself in stark contrast to other administrations. Even in the midst of the Vietnam war, with thousands of dead, President Nixon’s Defense Department examined the commissions option and concluded that “the specific protections of the Bill of Rights, unless made inapplicable to military trials by the Constitution itself, have been held applicable to courts-martial. Both logic and precedent indicate that a lesser standard for military commissions would not be constitutionally permissible.”

The U.S. federal criminal justice system is another avenue, which some lawyers have also argued in favor, though the financial burden on communities like Alexandria would be real, something that is making the local papers in Virginia.

It makes one wonder if all this isn’t what is also represented in Obama’s tied in knots procrastination on closing Gitmo.

But no one should be surprised. That is if they were paying attention to Mr. Obama over his political career. He does not like confrontation or fights to the political death. He eschews representing one political philosophy or dogma, but works through compromises and consensus, which rarely delivers anything bold. It is his forceful rhetorical flourishes and incredible performance gifts that inspire following and loyalty, while his governing principles are moored in the modest. The former bringing the masses on board, with the latter always keeping him centered. While not excusing Mr. Obama at all for not delivering on campaign promises, we should not believe that what he promised isn’t his highest goal, though the practicality of delivering those highest ideals falls short because often times these are the things that require fighting. That’s just not Obama’s style. More importantly, it is not who he is as a politician.

Pres. Obama is revealing a cautious presidential nature that is infuriating many who believed he was someone he is not. The dreams of a candidate often solidify in the reality of incremental shifts instead of large moves, especially when national security, war and peace, justice and punishment are his to render. Promises are easy. Living with big mistakes of history are not.

Unfortunately, caution where courage is required rarely puts us on the road least traveled.

Have we seen this play before?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Once Upon a Great Film

By on 16 May 2009

Adventures like this don’t come around very often.

But when they do you recognize them in a flash.

That goes double if you happen to see it in an IMAX theater.

But wherever you see it, just see it. The director, J.J. Abrams, delivers a gem of such epic fluidity, action, story, filled with rich, full characters, the adventure couldn’t possibly be better. Yes, science fiction features can be great films.

Just don’t miss the beginning.

The new “Star Trek” movie is off the charts fantastic from start to finish. The pacing is electric. The plot flawlessly woven, with time for each character introduction to be savored, as the storyline careens as quickly as the masterful special effects do across the screen.

The actors, many new to the eye, work and move together with ease, always keeping faith with what’s come before. With a couple of familiar faces completely camouflaged behind their character’s construction. So if you’re a fan of the humor, the nuances of the relationships, all woven into the conflicts, you won’t be disappointed. And thank goodness “Bones” is back and he delivers the droll. But they all deliver differently on the well known roles so many of us came to enjoy.

Love of great movies runs deep in America.

We’re always waiting for the next great film. Movie lovers always going to the cinema hoping that this one will be it. We sometimes make excuses for favorites that fall short of the mark, while attributing greatness to those because we’re hungry for the mastery. That moment when the screen delivers to us a film of rarity that catapults us into a new dimension of escape, somewhere beyond our dreams and hopes of fantasy and visual marvel, as well as through the actors’ craft, to a place that makes the experience so jubilant that you can’t wait to see it again.

The new “Star Trek” movie does all that and more. It’s raucous fun and unendingly exciting. It is also a truly great film. A review no die hard movie lover ever renders lightly.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Appoints Hunstman for China

By on 16 May 2009

–updated–

Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, due to his Mormon mission in Taiwan (missions being the right of passage for devout Mormons), Gov. John Huntsman has solidified himself as a major player in the future of the Republican Party by accepting Pres. Obama’s charge to become Ambassador to China. It also doesn’t hurt that he began in the Reagan administration, going through Bush 41 and into Bush 43.

Let me add that it’s rare when the star of one political party gives the adversary’s rising star such a marketable platform for future political advancement. Worth noting, so I just wanted to add this point.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATION OF GOVERNOR JON HUNTSMAN AS AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. I am here to announce today the distinguished public servant I’m appointing as our nation’s new ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. I’m making this appointment mindful of its extraordinary significance. Given the breadth of issues at stake in our relationship with China, this ambassadorship is as important as any in the world –- because the United States will best be able to deal effectively with global challenges in the 21st century by working in concert with China.

There are few countries in the world with a past so rich or a future so full of possibility as China. With a vast population, a growing economy, and far-reaching influence, China will have a crucial role in confronting all the major challenges that face Asia and the world in the years ahead.

And that’s why we’re working with the government of China to stem the financial crisis that’s devastated economies around the world and help lay a foundation for sustainable growth and lasting prosperity on both sides of the Pacific. That’s why I’ve spoken with Chinese President Hu Jintao about a number of regional threats, including the situations in North Korea and Pakistan. And that’s why we will continue working together with China on a whole host of global challenges — ranging from energy and climate change to public health; from nuclear non-proliferation to terrorism and violent extremism.

I believe there’s much to be gained from a closer, working relationship with China. But improved relations with China will require candor and open discussion about those issues where we don’t always agree, such as human rights and democracy and free speech. And it will require that each of our nations play by the rules in open and honest competition.

And that’s why this ambassadorship takes on such importance. I can think of no one better suited to take on this assignment than the Governor of the great state of Utah, Jon Huntsman.

When I asked Jon to accept this critical post, I knew it would require a sacrifice on the part of his family, and I want to thank Mary Kaye and all of their children for making this possible. I knew it would require a sacrifice from Jon –- who will be giving up a seat as a popular governor, having just been reelected to a second term. And I hope the good people of Utah will forgive me and understand how proud they should be of their governor for his willingness to answer his nation’s call.

Finally, I knew that because Jon is not only a Republican, but a Republican who co-chaired my opponent’s campaign for the presidency, this wouldn’t be the easiest decision to explain to some members of his party.

But here’s what I also know. I know that Jon is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation. That’s what Jon has always done. Throughout his career, Jon has shown a willingness to move beyond the old ideologies and stale debates that all too often bring progress to a standstill. Time and again, he’s brought people together across party lines to overcome our common challenges and to move our nation forward.

What Jon brings to this post isn’t just a steadfast commitment to advancing the interests of the American people; it’s a lifetime of knowledge and experience that will help advance this important partnership. Jon brings to this post experience as a former ambassador to Singapore, who’s intimately familiar with many of the most pressing challenges confronting Asia. He brings experience both in the private sector and as Deputy United States Trade Representative to Asia and Africa, where he stood up for America’s economic interests abroad. And Jon is well prepared to build a partnership that reflects a new understanding between our two countries because he’s lived in Asia three times and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

That’s the kind of ambassador we need in China –- an ambassador who has a respect for China’s proud traditions, who understands what it will take to make America more competitive in the 21st century, and who will be an unstinting advocate for America’s interests and ideals. With Jon Huntsman representing the United States in China, I’m confident that we will launch a new era of partnership between our two nations that will advance our shared dreams of opportunity and security in America, in Asia, and around the world.

So I’m extraordinarily pleased to announce that Jon Huntsman will be our ambassador to China, and I can think of no more important assignment than creating the kinds of bridges between our two countries that will determine the well-being not just of Americans and Chinese, but also the future of the world.

So, with that, I’d like to have Jon say a few words. Thank you, Jon.

GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

GOVERNOR HUNTSMAN: Well, Mr. President, thank you for those very kind and gracious words. I never expected to be standing here under the inquisitive gaze of George Washington, and equally inquisitive gaze of my wife. Nor did I expect, as national co-chair of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign, to be called into action by the person who beat us.

But I grew up understanding that the most basic responsibility one has is service to country. When the President of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this, that, to me, is the end of the conversation and the beginning of the obligation to rise to the challenge.

I stand here in my final term as governor with plenty to do. I wasn’t looking for a new job in life, but a call from the President changed that.

So, Mr. President, I humbly accept your call to service, and I understand that doing so will carry with it some unique challenges.

So, first and foremost, I want to recognize my wife and best friend, Mary Kaye, and my family, many of whom are here today, who have always been willing to heed the call of public service. I am here today solely as a result of their love and support.

Second, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the people of the greatest state in America. Life’s greatest honor has been to serve the people of Utah as their 16th governor.

Finally, I must thank you, Mr. President, for your trust and confidence in me and my family’s ability to contribute meaningfully to one of America’s most important strategic bilateral relationships. You have my commitment that we will take the U.S.-China relationship to new heights, focused not just on that which divides us, but more importantly, on that which unites us, knowing that this will be critical for lasting peace and prosperity for citizens on both sides of the Pacific.

I’m reminded of my favorite Chinese aphorism. It goes something like this: (Speaks in Mandarin Chinese.) “Together we work, together we progress.” This, more than anything else, I think captures the spirit of our journey going forward.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Heating Up the Defense Meltdown

By on 16 May 2009

by Winslow Wheeler
Center for Defense Information
originally published by Military.com

TM NOTE: I finally met Winslow Wheeler at a Cato Institute military forum in D.C. He’s the toughest die hard defense budget cut hawks I’ve ever heard speak. He’s cross-posted here before. Danielle Brian, who appears in the YouTube clip on the F-22 below, was also at the Cato event and is a spectacular speaker. These people are some of the most ardent watchers of our defense budget, always there to criticize and push back, even if Congress is not. They’re unsung heroes in the fight to get our money where it’s most needed on national security.

It’s too bad some people in states like Texas, Georgia, and Connecticut think that pork is more important than a strong defense. The puny number of additional jobs and F-22 fighters that the politicians want – at huge cost – will make America weaker, not stronger. Some take solace from the economic benefit and relief from unaffordable defense systems they think they will get from the “Raptor’s” country cousin, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They are wrong.

Narrow parochial interests outranking an effective defense has been crippling our armed forces for decades. Pentagon data show that America’s military budget is now larger than at any point since the end of World War II. However, our Air Force has fewer combat aircraft than at any point since 1946.

The Congressional Budget Office informs us that this reduced number of tactical aircraft is, on average, older than ever before. Still worse, Air Force combat pilots get one-half, or less, of the in-air training time they had, for example, in the early 1970s. Major reasons for this decay are programs like the F-22 and the F-35.

For the 184 F-22s currently on order, the cost is $64 billion. That’s an astounding $350 million for each. Too expensive to be bought in numbers beyond the puny 20 per year being purchased now, our F-15 inventory is aging faster than the F-22 will “modernize” it.

Despite the out of control cost, the F-22 is a huge disappointment as a fighter. For dog-fighting, its “thrust to weight” and “wing loading” (i.e. its agility) are barely an improvement over the early models of the F-15. Instead, it relies on its “stealth,” avionics, and long range radar-guided missiles to stay out of a dogfight and kill enemies “beyond visual range.”

What Lockheed and the Air Force forget to tell you is that “stealth” only means that against some radars at some angles the F-22 is less detectable; it’s not invisible. The history of “beyond visual range” radar missiles in real air-to-air combat is failure after failure. Do not expect the Air Force to have changed the laws of physics that make that so.

And there you have it: More money buys us a fighter force that is smaller, older, and less able to fight.

The F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter” will not rescue us. At $299 billion for 2,456 aircraft (that’s $122 million each), it is not affordable either. And, that unit cost is going up, not down. The program has finished only two percent of its flight tests; we will uncover more problems than the ones with the engine and avionics we already know about. Rushing ahead to produce more than 500 copies before we know the test results is a huge mistake, guaranteeing greater cost growth.

Sadly, even if not a single new flaw is found in that testing and the F-35 performs as promised, it will be an even bigger performance disappointment than the F-22. So sluggish in the air in a dogfight, one analyst said it would be like “like clubbing baby seals” if it meets up with competent fighters. With a payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs in its bomb bay – far less than US Vietnam-era fighter-bombers – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber either.

Both aircraft are equally bad as jobs-stimulus. Studies, such as by the University of Massachusetts, show that DoD spending is quite inefficient in creating jobs, compared to education, transportation, and even tax cuts.

Happily, we face no competent enemy air force in the foreseeable future. We should take that opportunity to start with a clean sheet of paper and design far more effective combat aircraft for truly affordable prices. We did that with the F-16 and the A-10 in the 1970s; it’s time to modernize: this time seriously.

Read full story · Comments are closed

IPF Runs Full Page Ad Backing Obama on Two-State Solution

By on 15 May 2009

Guess what appeared in the New York Times today.

A full-page ad from the Israel Policy Forum (h/t MidEast Peace Pulse), timed for the Friday before Prime Minister Netanyahu lands in the U.S. to meet with Barack Obama. That the ad unequivocally supports the American president’s policies on Israeli-Palesinian equilibrium and towards a two-state solution, however, is what’s stunning. The IPF also sent a letter to the president that was endorsed by several ambassadors.

This can only be viewed in one fashion. That Obama is getting “unprecedented” (as one expert reviewed the situation via email) support through the actions of important people who have an interest in moving the Middle East dialogue forward. People who are obviously making a point to simultaneously send a message to Netanyahu that they back the American president’s two-state plan. They also could be sending a subtle message to Obama that if he has the courage to remain tough with Netanyahu, they’ll have his back.

To quote Jewish Week: Do you see Benjamin Netanyahu’s name anywhere in the ad? I didn’t think so.

The text of the ad is below. But a full viewing of the ad really is worth it.

Israel Policy Forum, an American pro-Israel organization which supports sustained United States leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is greatly encouraged by your determination to achieve progress toward a two-state solution during your first term in office. There is no time to waste. As you meet leaders from the region this month, we urge you to insist on five steps forward:

1. RE-START NEGOTIATIONS. US-mediated talks toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel must be re-launched without delay.

2. STRENGTHEN SECURITY. Weapons smuggling into Gaza and Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis must stop. The number of American-trained Palestinian security forces in the West Bank must be increased and their role in preventing violence strengthened.

3. IMPROVE THE FACTS ON THE GROUND. West Bank settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem must be stopped. Illegal outposts, superfluous checkpoints and unnecessary roadblocks in the West Bank must be removed.

4. FOCUS ON GAZA. The Gaza Strip must be reconstructed with a focus on civilian needs and the local economy.

5. PROMOTE REGIONAL PEACE. The Arab Peace Initiative must be embraced and used as a basis for negotiations for a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors, including Syria. These ideas are not new —most have been agreed to at one time or another — but they require implementation without delay.basis for negotiations for a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors, including Syria.

These ideas are not new —most have been agreed to at one time or another — but they require implementation without delay.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bush-Cheney, Torture and Iraq

By on 15 May 2009

The Republicans want to make sure that they don’t go down on Bush-Cheney torture, so they’ve decided to try to drag Speaker Pelosi down into it. They may have miscalculated because Pelosi is fighting back. The most extraordinary take on the fight that just boiled over comes from Dan Baltz.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extraordinary accusation that the Bush administration lied to Congress about the use of harsh interrogation techniques dramatically raised the stakes in the growing debate over the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies even as it raised some questions about the speaker’s credibility.

… But in attempting to defend herself, Pelosi took the remarkable step of trying to shift the focus of blame to the CIA and the Bush administration, claiming that the CIA accounts represented a diversionary tactic in the real debate over the interrogation policies. That amounted to a virtual declaration of war against the CIA at a time when the Obama administration already has rattled morale at the agency with the release of Justice Department memos authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques.

Someone needs to tell me why it’s an “extraordinary accusation” that the Bush administration lied to Congress.

This is our problem and has been since the run up to the Iraq war. Many in the traditional media were, and evidently still are, willing to ignore what was done by the Bush White House on the run up to the war, which now includes the bombshell that Dick Cheney wanted people waterboarded hoping their flushed out confessions would lead to the WMDs that went missing.

As for Obama’s problems with the “rattles morale at the agency,” well, tough. We’ve got bigger problems than an unwilling President to do the job he promised, or turning the page from the cherry-picking, stove piping CIA of the Bush-Cheney years. Let them sweat.

Yesterday the Bush-Cheney torture plot thickened, advancing a horrific possibility that could change this debate forever. Did Dick Cheney push torture to try to get evidence on WMD in Iraq? After the invasion failed to lead to Saddam’s alleged stockpiles, did Dick Cheney push torture to prove they were right?

Robert Windrem has evidence that leads to the answer:

In his new book, Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq, and in an interview with The Daily Beast, Duelfer says he heard from “some in Washington at very senior levels (not in the CIA),” who thought Khudayr’s interrogation had been “too gentle” and suggested another route, one that they believed has proven effective elsewhere. “They asked if enhanced measures, such as waterboarding, should be used,” Duelfer writes. “The executive authorities addressing those measures made clear that such techniques could legally be applied only to terrorism cases, and our debriefings were not as yet terrorism-related. The debriefings were just debriefings, even for this creature.”

Duelfer will not disclose who in Washington had proposed the use of waterboarding, saying only: “The language I can use is what has been cleared.” In fact, two senior U.S. intelligence officials at the time tell The Daily Beast that the suggestion to waterboard came from the Office of Vice President Cheney.…

But what people are missing is that if we don’t follow the threads we’ll never be able to turn this page. That what Vice President Dick Cheney did or wanted done or pushed to have done will be on all of us. If President Obama doesn’t do anything about it, however, we will never be rid of it.

Peter Daou nails it:

But as always, the progressive community, a far more efficient thinking machine than a handful of strategists and advisers, is looking ahead and raising a unified alarm. The message is this: anything less than absolute moral clarity from Democrats, who now control the levers of power, will enshrine Bush’s abuses and undermine the rule of law for generations to come.

However, as I’ve been saying for a while now, the results of Obama ignoring the gravity of this situation go way beyond the immediate. While the Republicans target Pelosi, Dick Cheney’s side bet continue to rides, which I wrote about days ago. That he can develop a narrative and put it into the political bloodstream that America allegedly became “less safe” the moment Obama began dismantling the Bush-Cheney torture policies. He’s betting that when the day comes that we’re hit again, whenever that is, he can point to that day, when he was warning that Bush-Cheney policies kept us safe. With Cheney believing all the blame will then fall on Democrats, because people have short memories, with the Rep. having another chapter in the “Dems are soft on national security” book they can exploit. Cynical, but that’s Cheney. He’s seeing down the field. Dems are not. This needs to change and fast.

We need to find out if the allegations against Cheney on torture and the Iraq war are real, because this goes beyond simply keeping America safe. It goes to the tactics used by the Bush administration and the lengths they would go to in order to save themselves. Remember back to when no WMDs were found? The Republican argument for preemptive war and their foreign policy collapsed on this revelation. That we went to war on a lie. If torture is wrapped up in proving the Iraq war was worth it, the lies that took us into Iraq will be compounded, Bush-Cheney’s role in torture fully revealed. They tortured to save themselves.

Read full story · Comments are closed

CIA Director Sent to Israel

By on 14 May 2009

The person referred to earlier this week by Haaretz as being sent to Israel was CIA Director Panetta. According to The Times:

America’s spy chief was sent on a secret mission to Israel to warn its leaders not to launch a surprise attack on Iran without notifying the US Administration.

…The Israeli leader is expected to insist that the US stays focused on Iran, rather than tackling stalled talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Netanyahu has held meetings with Arab leaders this week, including President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. Both Sunni leaders share Israel’s fears of a resurgent Shia Iran.

If Netanyahu is betting that Iran is of more importance to the Saudis and Egyptians than Middle East peace he’s going to come up empty.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi Accuses CIA of ‘Misleading the Congress’

By on 14 May 2009

Speaker Pelosi’s press conference was a stunner (transcript here).

“… Like all members of Congress who are briefed on classified information, I have assigned oaths pledges not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously, and I’ve always abided by it. The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting the briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of Congress if that technique were to be used in the future. …”

Now the trouble for Republicans is that she’s not playing along. Not only has she upped the ante, but she’s driven the narrative back to Iraq, Bush’s lies right before that election, and what Bush and Cheney were doing to drive this country to war. That the foundation of Bush-Cheney foreign policy was lies and distraction. It’s what is at the center of all the dust currently being kicked up.

“This is a diversionary tactic, to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed, and implemented these policies, which all of us [Democratic leaders] opposed,” (Pelosi) said. “Understand — this is their policy, all of them.”

The story began with Bush-Cheney getting a lot of heat on EIT, fresh off the release of the OLC memos. So much heat that Dick Cheney blasted on to a media torture tour, with his daughter batting clean-up. The job was to make sure everyone understood how important torture was to the Bush administration, but also that what they did was legal; and to mark the moment Obama dismantled the program to make us “less safe.” Oh, and because it was legal it wasn’t torture. In the sense that Bush and Cheney had lawyers distort the law through creatively written legalistic memos, which were intended as cover for the Administration.

In the midst of the Cheney torture tour, someone decides they need another target, a Democrat, someone who they believe is a good focus to shift the blame, if not totally, then to say top Democrats knew about the torture policies and approved. They choose Pelosi, because she was briefed in 2002.

Then the Republican machine gears into the action of distraction.

We don’t know how this will end, but one thing is clear. Republicans might have made a fatal error in stirring Pelosi’s ire. If they’re trying to keep a Truth Commission from gearing up they just screwed up. They went after Speaker Pelosi without the goods to get her. Now she’s mad as hell and isn’t in the mood to suffer fools.

Read full story · Comments are closed