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

Mrs. Edwards and the Press

By on 14 May 2009

When I read this article this morning in the paper, all I could say was good for the Washington Post:

No newspaper has agreed to the restriction so far, according to David Drake, Edwards’s publicist. The Washington Post, among other newspapers, declined to interview Edwards after learning of the stipulation. Although The Post permits sources to speak anonymously under certain conditions, it doesn’t permit subjects of stories to dictate the manner in which a story will be written.

… In his interview Tuesday night, King said, “You do not name the woman who John had the affair with in your book. And you’ve asked us out of consideration for you not to do so, and we will respect that.”

Her name is Reille Hunter. But if Mrs. Edwards is refusing to name the guilty then John Edwards should take the front seat, because all he had to do was walk away.

The more air this story gets the more embarrassing it becomes for Mrs. Edwards. Oh, that it weren’t so.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Preempting the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting

By on 14 May 2009
Photobucket

Haaretz reports that Obama has made his views on Israel bombing Iran explicit. That’s being greeted in some quarters as “putting Israel at risk,” as the Likud lobby finds a new enemy, Gen. James Jones. Let the games begin.

U.S. President Barack Obama has sent a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials. Earlier, Netanyahu’s envoy visited Washington and met with National Security Adviser James Jones and with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and discussed the dialogue Obama has initiated with Tehran.

The message from the American envoy to the prime minister reveals U.S. concern that Israel could lose patience and act against Iran. It is important to the Americans that they not be caught off guard and find themselves facing facts on the ground at the last minute.

Obama did not wait for his White House meeting with Netanyahu, scheduled for next Monday, to deliver his message, but rather sent it ahead of time with his envoy.

All this comes before the much ado meeting on May 18th between Obama and Netanyahu. But is the anticipated clash between the two leaders much ado about nothing? MJ Rosenberg, an expert on the issue, thinks so:

…I believe that no Israeli government can successfully oppose a popular American president who sets out to pursue Arab-Israeli peace.

Neither the Israeli government (nor the lobby) was happy with President Jimmy Carter’s aggressive efforts to promote the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in the late 1970s. But Carter was undaunted and the peace deal was signed–by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, of all people. The same applies to the Reagan Plan of 1982 and Reagan’s recognition of the PLO in 1988. In neither of these cases was a challenge successfully mounted. The lobby loathes the idea of confronting any American president, especially a popular one.

Rosenberg’s entire piece is well worth reading.

If Obama holds firm, it will not be Obama who blinks.

And not only because it is the United States that is the super power. It is also because President Obama will not be asking Israel to sacrifice any vital interest. On the contrary, in leading an effort to achieve peace, Obama will be advancing Israel’s security, along with our own.

As the article linked at the top of this post teases, it looks like Rosenberg’s update is already playing out: **Note: the lobby is not happy with any of this and is, I hear, already going after NSC chief James Jones, who served in Israel and does not take a sanguine view of the occupation. .. The goal, a knowledgeable friend tells me, is to get rid of Jones quietly. “They can’t afford another Chas Freeman situation….

That’s an understatement. But any move to get rid of Jones should backfire, because as we saw with Freeman, as well as the OLC memos, Jones’ presence in the Obama administration, regardless of some of the fits and starts to his adapting to the situation, is important.

Another angle of the hit Jones lobby is represented by a stirring the waters on a “Clinton v. Jones” scenario, favorably forwarded by Robert Dreyfus of The Nation. Based, it seems, on competitive meeting numbers: Truth be told, while Clinton meets Obama about once a week, Jones sees Obama several times a day. Wow, that is worrisome (yes, that’s snark). But also based on the fact that Clinton, as a former New York senator, is so wedded to a hawk position on Israel that some are wiling to imply false motives to Secretary Clinton, who really has it out for Jones. Bluntly, that would be a stupid move by Clinton, and even her detractors should be able to admit that Clinton may be many things but stupid isn’t one of them. Additionally, she’s unequivocally for a two-state solution. Never mind that as Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has done everything to implement the President’s strategies. You know, because that’s her job and she has no intention of blowing it.

As for the beginnings of a campaign against Gen. Jones, he simply cannot go the way of Chas Freeman. Sights set, ready to fire.

Consider this foreshadowing of some of the dynamics playing out as Netanyahu prepares to hit town. Will the Israeli Prime Minister’s preconditions on Iran, already having been rejected, be back in hand? Mr. Obama, don’t blink.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Palin, Miss California & Keith’s Breast Implant Implosion

By on 14 May 2009

–updated–

You know the most popular Democratic position on gay marriage has imploded when a beauty pageant winner and Sarah Palin are using it against you.

Gov. Sarah Palin just nailed Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (both pro civil unions, against same-sex marriage) and any number of other Democratic stars. It’s quite humorous, actually, considering, well, we are talking about Sarah Palin being correct on something. Never mind her statement was partially taken from Miss California’s statement on the same topic, as she stood close to Donald Trump. The visuals of that should give all Democrats pause.

The Alaska governor notes that she can relate to Prejean “as a liberal target” herself.

Here is the full statement:

“The liberal onslaught of malicious attacks against Carrie Prejean for expressing her opinion is despicable.”

“Carrie and I spoke soon after the attacks started; I can relate as a liberal target myself. What I find so remarkable is that these politically-motivated attacks fail to show that what Carrie and I believe is also what President Obama and Secretary Clinton believe – marriage is between a man and a woman.” …

Liberal target, indeed, but Palin actually missed the biggest slam.

But Did Keith Olbermann really do almost 7 minutes on Miss California’s breast implants? Yes, he did. Segue to Bob Somerby:

Why did Olbermann mention those breast implants twice? Rubes! Because that was the actual topic!

That, and the fact that Olbermann has a remarkable, long-time jones about trashing young women.

Miss Prejean’s interview with the Christian king of radio is laughable, all the talk of Satan and standing up for God, but the continued vitriol directed at this woman who simply spoke what she believes?

Prejean is wrong on gay marriage, hypocritical in the extreme when her naked photos and her Satan-God morality pontification are compared, opportunistic to use her military grandfather for a weep at will moment, but what was her original offense? Prejean spoke her mind about gay marriage in a beauty contest. So that should bring the wrath of Keith down on her head, which dissembles into dissecting her body parts and breast implants?

Is it any wonder that Prejean and Sarah Palin joined together to hit the Democratic star gallery for their own hypocrisy on gay marriage, even as people like Keith Olbermann use a beauty pageant queen’s body parts against her?

Memo to Keith Olbermann: Women have been given augmentation for pageants for years. Do your homework if you’re going to cover such drivel.

Better yet, spend your time in covering Roxana Siberi, the gassing of young Afghan girls in school, or the film about stoning women in Iran. Maybe even the slam against Judge Sotomayor, or perhaps the plight of Dawn Johnsen getting stuck in limbo?

Keith Olbermann can’t cover those subjects, now can he. Because he would be compelled to actually do a positive story about women, something he just can’t bring himself to do. “WFT?”, indeed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Backtracks on Releasing Detainee Photos

By on 13 May 2009

Pres. Obama has changed his mind.

Consider what good comes from releasing more abusive detainee photos. It’s not like the whole world doesn’t know what happened under Bush’s watch. That the U.S. employed torture, as well as lesser indignities on prisoners to coerce confessions. So what do we gain by seeing more atrocities committed?

Or maybe we should ask what harm the release of these photos will do, especially as we begin to draw down from Iraq, while Obama simultaneously plans to travel to the Middle East to speak in Egypt. Inflaming the Middle East as Pres. Obama greets the region seems like a lose-lose proposition to me.

It’s a different subject entirely from investigating torture policy and the people who put it together, which would unearth unknown facts and truths, unlike the photo release.

That said, I’d rather see transparency, though it’s hard to argue with Gen. Odierno on this one.

What is unfortunate, however, is that the Administration’s initial decision wasn’t sufficiently thought through so that now Obama’s decision will be judged as a “flip flop” or “180,” regardless that it could be the most prudent action to take.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TORTURE: Scarborough Should Listen to Zelikow

By on 13 May 2009

–updated–

“The U.S. government adopted an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information… “This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure . . . Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it and learn from it.” – Philip Zelikow

Philip Zelikow is prepared to put his post on torture investigations into testimony, according to The Cable.

“I think the record will show as CIA wants it to be known that quite a number of people from both parties were aware of this program, and endorsed it over a period of years,” Zelikow told The Cable on the eve of his still-embargoed testimony Tuesday. “Goodness knows, this was a problem for the people inside” like himself “who objected to the program. We were constantly told, we briefed XYZ and they had no problem with that.”

But Zelikow said he is not trying to point fingers. “My point of view on this is fairly straightforward,” he said. “This is now a historical problem. Our country quit doing this some time ago. I think that a lot of people agree with me in judging that this program was a mistake – a pretty big mistake. It was a collective failure. A lot of people in both parties of this country convinced themselves for years that we needed a program like this to protect America.

I, for one, don’t think the torture debate is over, in part because Dick Cheney’s media tour is making it more prominent, but also because of people like Joe Scarborough who believe that illegal torture is okay if the U.S. does it. Evidently Dick Cheney’s bet that he can draw a line in the sand to denote when we became, according to him, “less safe” under Obama, has drilled down at least one level. Joe Scarborough adopted it recently (see video), while doing his own “cherry picking” on what Dennis Blair said, choosing to ignore the whole of Blair’s message:

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

Here’s the transcript of Ventura, simply because it’s just to priceless not to post:

KING: You were a Navy SEAL.

VENTURA: That’s right. I was water boarded, so I know — at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence — every one of us was waterboarded. It is torture.

KING: What was it like?

VENTURA: It’s drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you — I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

I’d buy tickets to that.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Round the Pelosi Merry-go-Round

By on 13 May 2009

How many times are we going to get traditional media stories about Pelosi and EIT, which say the same thing over again while trying to posture that something new has been added. Today it’s CNN:

A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Source says Nancy Pelosi didn’t object about waterboard usage because she wasn’t personally briefed about it.

Source says Nancy Pelosi didn’t object about waterboard usage because she wasn’t personally briefed about it.

This appears to contradict Pelosi’s account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.

Holy obtuseness, people. Notice the date in the report above?

Mrs. Pelosi was briefed once, something that has not been contested, and that briefing happened in 2002.

As seems obvious to me, once Michael Sheehy, her intel aide, found out about the EIT in 2003, including possible waterboarding, does anyone believe Pelosi wasn’t told? But that’s not the issue of the one briefing Pelosi had, so there is no contradiction, because hearing something through an aide, assuming she did, is quite different from an intel briefing from the Administration directly.

Now, whether this is a distinction that doesn’t matter in the larger scheme is another point. But it doesn’t change the fact that we have no proof Pelosi was briefed personally on waterboarding.

Anyone knowing of torture and doing nothing about it, including putting their questions and skepticism, even disapproval in writing in some form, are partially responsible. However, the facts learned in classified briefings are not allowed to be made public, including what lawmakers are told about techniques. That is illegal. That Pelosi felt compelled to say explicitly what she wasn’t told does present a problem, which we’re seeing play out now.

Does any of this excuse Democrats for standing by, for not making a record of their disapproval? Absolutely not, but that’s a different topic altogether.

But let’s get something clear. Pelosi has become the target to take the spotlight off of Bush-Cheney and the people who not only concocted their torture policy, but the people at the top who signed off on it.

Look over here!, they cry. Ignore the masterminds behind the curtain.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What If Cheney’s Wrong Again?

By on 12 May 2009

Richard Cohen seems to have missed the point. So instead of being scared of bloggers, maybe he should concentrate his mind on what matters.

Blogger Alert: I have written a column in defense of Dick Cheney. I know how upsetting this will be to some Cheney critics, and I count myself as one, who think — in respectful paraphrase of what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman — that everything he says is a lie, including the ands and the thes. Yet I have to wonder whether what he is saying now is the truth — i.e., torture works.

Can there be any more obtuse question than asking whether it might be possible if torture works?

Let me put it another way.

Say you don’t like the noise of your neighbors. If you take a gun, threaten them, telling to shut up or you’ll shoot. But then they ignore you, so you shoot them. Murder “worked,” right? You’ve now produced quiet.

The question isn’t whether torture works. To put it in terms that even Liz Cheney might be able to understand. It’s not about how carefully you concoct a way to torture. It’s that it is still torture. “Careful” torture is not only irrelevant. It’s an oxymoron. It’s still cruel and unusual punishment that has been deemed morally and legally wrong and beyond the bounds of human decency.

Oh, and intent has nothing to do with. It doesn’t matter how much the Cheneys believe in torture and the practice they are convinced should be embraced, or that they are driven by love of this country, which no one is doubting. Barbaric treatment of human beings, using waterboarding and other inhumane means to achieve an end at any cost is still torture.

Cheney wasn’t right about anything on Iraq. But for some people there just aren’t any consequences. Yet, we’re taking that insanity to another level, deciding that past wrongs can mean he’s right. It’s positively daft, but people like Cohen are doing it.

It’s called a tipping point.

The minute Dick Cheney went on the airwaves in the hopes of turning torture into a political football, the game changed. It’s working because of the Cheneys non stop media juggernaut, in which they are daring the Obama administration to do something about it, while knowing betting they won’t.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Notes from Session with British Foreign Minister David Miliband

By on 12 May 2009
Photobucket

The live Twitter feed during the event didn’t load to the blog today (though you could follow it on Facebook). Have no idea why. So, notes, with some expansion of Twitter liveblogging, is below. Steve Clemons has a post up on the event, including some of the new media attendees. (TM UPDATE: Talk about tech troubles; the Liveblogging Twitter feed just now appeared. Choose which you’d rather read. I give up on this weirdness, though the notes below have a few more data points.)

//NLB// Liveblogging Brit Foreign Minister Forum @ NAF

Sitting next to and chatting w/ George Stephanopoulos. Edwards bombshell topic. (TO ADD: Told him some pundits bellyaching that he didn’t put the staffer stuff on TV, instead only the blog. “I did,” he responded.)

FM Dave Miliband “out Obama’d Obama,” introduces Steve Clemons via Skype from Germany.

Align gov, biz @ citizens, says Miliband, you get surge that makes change.

Miliband: “Feeling a new America being built.”

Taboos (Obama is dealing with today, according to Miliband): Iran talks; 2-state in MidEast; NPT. Can’t “bring world to heel.”

Photobucket

Nuke disarmament ? from Joe Cirincione, directs an attack at Stephanopoulos on SRice interview. (TO ADD: JC says even though GS one of the “best journalists” in America –cue the incoming– in his interview with SRice he ignored the NPT issue in the news, instead choosing to talk about North Korea. As an aside, NK had just launched a missile. Steve Coll chastised JC a bit for making it a personal back and forth, hoping, obviously, to keep this all on point.)

David Corn asks on global warming. “Econ/social justice ?” says DM. UK emissioins down (because of Kyoto), and because it’s demanded in budget; US, no.

Photobucket

GSteph re: MidEast to MB, asks him to talk about situation and tensions as Netanyahu prepares to visit: not a 2-state solution, 22-state solution. Don’t “prejudge” Netanyahu. “Stakes are too high.” (TO ADD: Before his question GS pushed back on JCir. charge that he didn’t cover NPT issue, stating that covering NK was covering it, as well as the fact he addressed it in discussion.)

Clemons asks DM about new media. “Just getting started.” “My blogging isn’t so exciting.” Hard when you’re FM.

SColl asks about Sri Lanka, horror that’s getting no attention.

Question on torture didn’t log on Twitter, which had lots of problems for me today. DM refused to get involved in domestic US issue, which brought laughter after his I’m Not Touching That One response.

After the event I ran into David Corn. Talks briefly, said one of the places I post is on Huffington Post. He made a point to tell me he doesn’t read HuffPost. “Too many blogs.”

Terrific opportunity to hear Foreign Minister Brad Miliband. Thanks to Steve Clemons for the invite.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liveblogging Brit Foreign Minister Forum @ NAF

By on 12 May 2009

**The feed below didn’t post in real time, for whatever reason. Sorry ’bout that. More here.**

10:57:28 AM: Sitting next to and chatting w/ George Stephanopoulos. Edwards bombshell topic.

11:06:07 AM: FM Dave Miliband “out Obama’d Obama,” introduces Steve Clemons via Skype from Germany.

11:08:04 AM: Align gov, biz @ citizens, says Miliband, you get surge that makes change.

11:09:03 AM: Miliband: “Feeling a new America being built.”

11:12:04 AM: Taboos: Iran talks; 2-state in MidEast; NPT. Can’t “bring world to heel.”

11:16:44 AM: Nuke disarmament ? from Joe Cirincione (sp) directs an attack at Stephanopoulos on SRice interview.

11:19:58 AM: DCorn on global warming. “Econ/social justice ?” says DM. UK emis down (Kyoto), in budget; US, no.

11:28:14 AM: GSteph MidE to MB: not a 2-state solution, 22-state solution. Don’t “prejudge” Netanyahu. “Stakes are too high.”

11:33:36 AM: Clemons asks DM about new media. “Just getting started.” “My blogging isn’t so exciting.” Hard when you’re FM.

11:36:47 AM: SColl asks about Sri Lanka, horror that’s getting no attention.

11:54:14 AM: Short David Corn back and forth: Don’t read HuffPost blogs; too many. Okay.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Wanda Too Mean To Rush

By on 12 May 2009

When you clip and truncate quotes, or in this case, a comedienne’s routine, you’re actually guiltier than the person you’re attempting to smear, due to the dishonesty of your actions. You also don’t have to like the comic’s routine, but when you book her you at least know what you’re getting.

The final evidence is in on why journalism is dying and why political coverage is so pathetic. The press doesn’t have a spine. So let’s just stop the pretense and do away with the pain they’re being caused by being exposed to strong comedy. It’s time to stop the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The invitees just don’t have the stomach for it. That they invite a comic to their event, someone whose work they are fully aware of, as are her politics, then take her down for doing what she does best, is an indictment on our press, not the comic.

There’s a reason Rush didn’t mention Sykes on Monday and it’s not because she blew it.

I wasn’t even going to write about this, because I had real things to read, so it wasn’t exactly at the top of my list. I also wasn’t there, but in seeing the clips the Sykes pile on seemed, well, absurd. Then I got to talking about it with some friends and it started ticking me off all over again. Don Rickles and Joan Rivers should thank their bank accounts that they never had to live through the current crowd of collapsing ninnies who feel compelled to rush to the aid of –wait for it– Rush Limbaugh.

It’s hard to believe I just wrote those words.

This is what Sykes said, in full, not just the clipped segments that have made their way around, but were also featured on MSNBC, all without Sykes’s set up.

Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy, Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So, you’re saying “I hope America fails,” it’s like, I don’t care about people losing their homes, or their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, Sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just so strung out on oxycontin he missed his flight.

Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how ’bout that? Needs a little waterboarding, that’s what he needs.

Emphasis on the bold section is for good reason. That’s Sykes’s set up no one is playing. Keith Olbermann cropped it completely, then went on to, well, make a fool of himself.

So when I unwound “Countdown,” needless to say, I had a reaction somewhere between is Keith kidding? and, of course, how fitting, Olbermann is now the arbiter of what’s over the line for comics. “A seasoned pro went well beyond the line,” says KO, wincing. That’s the plateau on which his ego now resides. In the judgment section of the gods’ eternal reckoning.

“Oh, no, not good. Not about him, not when you mix in 9/11, not about anybody.” – Keith Olbermann

For a moment I even thought he was saving his Wanda Sykes dress down for “worst persons.” Instead he had on Richard Wolf so the two of them could discuss just how inappropriate Ms. Sykes was in her routine, while truncating her routine making sure the “Countdown” clip matched their point. The minute Olbermann announced in a promo early on in his show that he was going to come to Mr. Limbaugh’s aid he should have known he’d jumped the fat man. However, Olbermann was hardly the only nervous Nelly. I mean, really, the noise of the teleprompter scared “the hell out of us,” said KO. Poor baby. How could a black chick eviscerating the fat man not too?

Cue Chuck Todd and the First Read wimps: The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes that Sykes’ remarks angered some Republicans in attendance.

Oh, no. Don’t you dare anger “some Republicans” by criticizing Rush.

Gibbs admits he didn’t bother to talk to the President about Sykes. Thank goodness. But he did prepare a statement to make sure everyone knew that making jokes had its limits, even if the jokes Sykes made were not at the expense of a national tragedy.

No wonder we aren’t going after the torture authors. We just don’t have the stomach for that.

But by all means let’s go after Sykes. Love or hate her routine, when taken in its entirety it was flawlessly delivered, with a smile, cutting to the bone. But only if you listen to it in its entirety, including the set up. Again:

Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy, Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So, you’re saying “I hope America fails,” it’s like, I don’t care about people losing their homes, or their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying.

Anyone coming to Limbaugh’s aid on this one has no business in political analysis. They’re obviously too lazy and soft to be trusted.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Gates Fires Gen. McKiernan

By on 11 May 2009

Gates asked for Gen. McKiernan’s resignation after talking with Petraeus, getting Pres. Obama’s okay.

Ouch.

And that’s the door that just hit you, sir.

Abu Muqawama, who served with McChrystal:

I do know that many policy-makers and journalists think that McChrystal’s work as the head of the super-secret Joint Special Operations Command was the untold success story of the Surge and the greater war on terror campaigns. I also know that McChrystal and David Petraeus forged a close working relationship in Iraq in 2007 and have much respect for one another. (Prior to 2007, the relations between the direct-action special operations task force and the overall command in Iraq were strained at best.)

Anyone still thinking that Obama’s Af-Pak strategy is in any way debatable needs to rethink their counter programming campaign. He’s serious enough to publicly fire the commander. Got it?

Leave it to conservatives to think decisive action could simply be “impatience.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jordan a Better Choice

By on 11 May 2009
Photobucket

Sorry to the experts like Marc Lynch, even as little clout as it has compared to Egypt, I still wish Obama had chosen to speak in Jordan. Let’s just hope he can do the U.S. some good, though by picking Egypt it just reminds everyone of their repression and U.S. acceptance, even complicity, in it.

The poll of six Arab nations found that residents think that Obama will have a positive impact on the Middle East — a region marked by war, religious disputes, ethnic and sectarian violence — as well as on the United States and the rest of the world.

Obama scored highest in Jordan, where 58 percent of its citizens have a favorable opinion of him, 29 percent have an unfavorable view, 6 percent had no opinion and 7 percent didn’t know.

… The difference between Obama’s popularity and that of the United States is a goodwill gap that spreads from 26 points in Kuwait to 11 points in Lebanon, all in Obama’s favor.

As for Egypt. Ugh. Mubarak has been a pain in our foreign policy, especially with regard to Hamas, but also Iran (though the Saudis aren’t great either, but Obama wouldn’t dare speak there), with Mubarak’s domestic oppression so intense that I just don’t see the plus here. It just compounds the U.S. coddles dictator talking point.

Lynch disagrees:

Obama could take advantage of the location to forcefully speak out in favor of democratization and human rights. He could point out and favorably cite Rice’s remarks, acknowledge the weak follow-through, and vow to do better by being more pragmatic and cooperative. If he wanted to be really bold, he could reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood as an example of an organization facing a choice between “resistance” and “constructive partnership”, and criticize the Egyptian regime’s repression of the Brotherhood at a time when it was trying to play the democratic game. He could do the same on the foreign policy front, reframing the moderate/radical divide into something more constructive.

If he does some of that with his usual dexterity, then the Cairo location could go from a negative to a net positive — and set the stage for the real purpose of the address, which I assume will be to fundamentally reframe America’s approach to its relations with the Islamic world.

Okay. I just don’t see Pres. Obama in a “reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood,” while tut-tut-tutting the host, Pres. Mubarak. Hey, but hell could freeze.

Egypt’s historic greatness could use resurrection rehabilitating, or maybe the term is redemption, especially since they’ve been a partner in U.S. rendition. Except to be redeemed you must repent. Fat chance from Mubarak.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dick Cheney’s Bet

By on 11 May 2009

What motivates Dick Cheney?

It’s not what people think, though Mr. Cheney should be worried about his role in U.S. torture policy, though he’ll likely never be held to account. So, it’s not that. Though as Greg Sargent reports, we may get the “holy grail” evidence Cheney keeps talking about soon.

If we get hit again it’s going to be blamed on torture, Rush said today on his show.

So why is Dick Cheney on this media tour?

Mr. Cheney wants to draw a line in the sand where Pres. Obama began dismantling the torture policies of Bush-Cheney, which Cheney postulates is making us “less safe.”

“That means, in the future, we will not have the same safeguards…” – Vice President Dick Cheney

Cheney knows that we will be hit at some moment in the future, something experts have said is inevitable, whether it’s before Obama is out of office or not isn’t the issue. Cheney’s bet is that when this happens the legacy of Bush-Cheney must be solidified as the Administration who after 9/11 “kept us safe.” He wants Americans to remember the moment those policies were dismantled. It happened on the Democrats’ watch.

Mr. Cheney along with his fan club, headed by Rush Limbaugh, is betting that the American people need to be reminded of who kept us safe and when those safety policies were destroyed, believing that Americans won’t care about torture anymore when the next attack lands.

Nothing Dick Cheney does is by accident. This is a calculated plan to weave a narrative before it happens into the political blood stream, with the attempt of casting blame in advance. Call it preemptive marketing.

It’s the same tactic with a new twist, with Cheney finding a new line of attack on the old standard that Democrats are weak on national security. Considering what Bush-Cheney has cost us internationally this takes incredible gall. But when you think of how low Dick Cheney is thought of in this country, what has he got to lose?

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Trouble with Saudis

By on 11 May 2009
Photobucket

Earth to Saudis, get a grip. Oh, but not on your woman.

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that “if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.”

Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine’s statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.

Regular readers know about the conference I attended on US/Saudi relations recently. An attempt to begin to get a clue about the most important Arab leaders in the region, though as a modern American woman it’s tough, very, very tough.

After the conference I talked about the importance of the Saudis when it comes to Middle East talks and trying to get to equilibrium. The challenge being that Saudi pr in the United States is awful and it’s not just about 9/11. In fact, I talked to Lucien Zeigler of the Committee for International Trade (Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce & Industry), who sponsored the conference along with the Saudis (and the New America Foundation), about their pr problem, particularly among one specific group of voters who aren’t going to give the Saudis a pass for obvious reasons. It’s one thing to have religious differences that make customs diametrically opposed to our nation. It’s quite another to condone violence against women, which the Saudis clearly do.

This is my pet peeve with the Saudis, even as they step up in the Middle East. They set themselves up for failure, which can blow back on Obama at a cost. Not the least of which is because a leading demographic in this country think they’re no good. Part of the Saudi story lies buried because many in the U.S. don’t want to hear it, which is understandable. Gates on the Saudis:

“The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has been one of the mainstays of stability in the Middle East for more than 60 years,” he said at the Eskan Village military base outside the Saudi capital.

“Saudi Arabia continues to be an important partner for the US in counter-terrorism and a range of other issues.”

How the Saudis hope to get credit or support for anything they do in the Middle East as long as stories like the wife slapping come out of Saudi Arabia is beyond me. You’d think the Saudis would look at the bigger Middle East picture when these stories come out of Arabia. It won’t help us solve issues in the Middle East.

If we don’t the region is headed for another war, as King Abdullah of Jordan has said before, but reiterated again in an interview with The UK Times.

The Obama Administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.

The Saudis are so incredibly tone deaf on pr they never move fast enough on stories like the one above making any U.S. partnership, even for the good of the Middle East, impossibly complicated for Obama. How can Americans who only think of Saudi Arabia in terms of 9/11 possibly cut them slack, even when they’re doing good? They can’t and won’t, because the Saudis are just too easy to hate.

Why do I care?

Because women matter in the Middle East. Like the reality of Arab Israeli women, who can’t work and have no independence, as Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka said on a media conference call I was on recently when I asked about the challenges of Arab Israeli women: “… the main problems for Arab-Israeli women is participation of work for them, which ‘is very, very low. … Without work you can’t have independence.’” They stand beside Afghan women, who stand in front of Saudi women, who stand in front of Pakistani women… not to mention Egyptian, Iranian… As women are treated in countries, so goes that country’s stability, which is very much an American interest, especially in the Middle East.

Are you hearing me now?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Kurds Reach Oil Deal with Baghdad

By on 11 May 2009

That’s what’s being reported:

Ending months of political stalemate, the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq reached an accord Sunday that would allow the Kurds to export oil for the first time.

…. Under the terms, the Kurds can begin exporting about 60,000 barrels of oil a day from the Tawke field starting on June 1, and an additional 40,000 barrels a day from a second field, Taq-Taq, later in the month. The oil will be marketed by the central government and all revenue will go to Baghdad, said Asim Jihad, chief spokesman of the Oil Ministry.

[...] The oil news came as Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, made a surprise here.

The Wall Street Journal adds an important point:

Mr. Jihad said the oil ministry’s State Oil Marketing Organization will handle the sale and marketing of Kurdish exports, which will be shipped via a major pipeline that snakes to a big export terminal in Ceyhan, Turkey.

Next stop Kirkuk?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Saberi to be Released

By on 11 May 2009

According to Roxana Seberi’s lawyer, it’s being reported that her sentence has been suspended and she is to be released today.

Iranian judicial authorities have suspended the remainder of the eight-year jail sentence given to Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi for alleged espionage and will release her Monday, her lawyer said.

Attorney Abdolfattah Khorramshai and Saberi’s father, Reza Saberi, arrived at the gray-colored metal gates of Evin Prison in northwest Tehran Monday to await her release.

“We are at the prison now, and hopefully she will be released in one or two hours,” Khorramshai said during a phone interview.

As part of the deal, Saberi has been banned from working in Iran for 5 years, a country where she has dual citizenship, though Iran doesn’t acknowledge the term.

There is no way that anyone in Iran could have honestly interpreted Saberi’s presence or her work as espionage. That she was arrested after buying alcohol, then charged, has always been a bit suspicious, made more so when Pres. Ahmadinejad came to her aid. As if we’re not supposed to believe this wasn’t for political reasons, for show? With elections coming up, Ahmadinejad knows the challenges he faces. Presenting a new face as Pres. Obama shows intentions to reach out isn’t a coincidence.

Let’s hope the reports about Saberi’s release are correct.

Read full story · Comments are closed

This and That

By on 10 May 2009

Enjoy.

…and happy Mother’s Day, including dads who play both roles, as well as all the grandparents and relatives who for one reason or another find yourselves raising another generation. It happens across this country.

It’s also a day to remember, as many of us have lost our mothers (or guardians, caretakers, whatever you want to call the people who raised you, maybe it even was your brother or sister).

As for stemothers, what a job you have if you’ve inherited kids that now live with you. But if you simply have the gift of your husband’s kids visiting, enjoy their presence, but remember the job of mother belongs to someone else. It could be the greatest gift you give them, as well as your husband. Unless he refuses that interaction out of pain of memories. Then you’ve got the unsung job of making sure he reengages with his kids before it becomes too late. Never give up the push. The rewards are endless.

But what has changed the most over the years is the role of mom. No longer is she simply staying at home all day tending to children. Most moms have the reality of also having to work outside the home. It’s these moms that deserve even more recognition than the lucky ladies who get the 20th century model of homemaker. No doubt her job is daunting, but if she’s lucky enough to have a mate who can financially do all the lifting, on this day that mom should be also sharing her gift with him.

Today, especially in the current economic times, it takes two (and sometimes overtime as well) to get the job done. The extended family, or the “it takes a village model,” to complete what’s needed.

For those of us who have chosen to remain child free by choice, we marvel at the 21st century mom. Even the Bristol Palin model who chooses to have her child as opposed to not. With women like Miss Palin”surprised” by pregnancy and “unexpected” motherhood still happening far too often, with the question floating across such circumstances obvious: In the 21st century, how in the world could a woman, no matter the age (excepting violent events that thrust tragedy upon a life, or the uncommon but real contraceptive malfunctions), find herself with a “surprise” pregnancy? There is no excuse, no reasoning, no circumstance that should ever present a woman in modern life with an “unexpected” pregnancy. In the modern era, our circumstances are by our own design, or our own negligence and irresponsibility. It’s time to quit making excuses that it’s otherwise.

Becoming a mother (or father) today is absolutely a decision. It can be a gift, a curse or a disaster. In the modern era we have choices and they present themselves, not as unexpected events, but as a fork in the road, which can be easily planned in advance.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi Plotline Thickens

By on 09 May 2009

But the fact remains that there remains no evidence that Speaker Pelosi was personally briefed on waterboarding in her single briefing in September 2002, one month after the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded over six dozen times. In 2003, a top Pelosi aide was. Briefings that none of the participants were allowed to talk about, which compounds the problem when things go wrong. And, according to Greg Sargent, Pete Hoekstra is promising details on Pelosi.

However, in 2003 the information about EIT briefings was shared more broadly, if still in a manner that left questions about what exactly was being done. This is in keeping with Bush-Cheney secrecy that we all know pervaded the previous Administration. More, with Michael Sheehy the aide spoken of below:

A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday.

Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. …

[...]Harman was surprised at what she learned, particularly that intelligence officials had video of the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida and were planning on destroying it. Captured in early 2002, Abu Zubaida, whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, faced months of standard interrogations before being sent to a CIA-run facility where the harsher techniques were used.

Harman wrote to the CIA’s general counsel on Feb. 10, 2003, to question whether the methods “are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?”

But any reading of the contagion of stories on the issue of waterboarding reveals that Democrats eventually did know about the procedure, even if they weren’t personally briefed, some as early as 2003. Pelosi not being personally briefed, when her aide was, but also Harman who wrote a letter to which Pelosi openly admits she agrees, reveals some sort of guilty knowledge about what was going on. As does the information that Rockefeller, someone who has never been a profile in courage on anything (that I remember), was also aware of what was going on.

Pelosi’s denial of being briefed on waterboarding continues to stand. But will the distinctions she’s making make a difference as we learn the wide circle of Democrats who eventually had inklings of what was going on inside the interrogations? It seems clear that knowledge flowed to Pelosi from others, even if she wasn’t personally briefed.

Neither Pelosi nor her staff would comment on how she learned of the techniques she now considers torture, and Harman said in an interview that she “did not recall” discussing the issue with Pelosi. Sheehy was Pelosi’s top aide on the intelligence committee when she served as the ranking Democrat on that panel, and he remained her top national security aide until he left the speaker’s office this year.

Pelosi never filed any official letter of protest, but some lawmakers said such objections to the Bush administration at that time were pointless.

“I felt that it was minimally responsive,” Harman said of the CIA’s response to her February 2003 letter. “It didn’t address the issue I asked.”

Let’s put the truth, the whole truth, on the table. No matter where it leads.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Alan Keyes Stars in Notre Dame Protest

By on 08 May 2009

Keyes and his buddy, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue. It’s so retro it’s close to quaint.

Former Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes and 21 other protesters were arrested this morning when they refused to leave the Notre Dame campus during a protest of President Obama’s upcoming commencement address there, authorities said.

[...] Activists including Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion rights group Operation Rescue, who was arrested at the campus last Friday, have begun targeting the school for protests in recent weeks. A student group, Notre Dame Response, has organized its own protests regarding Obama’s visit.

Evidently conservatives have forgotten the point of universities. They don’t call them places of higher learning for nothing. Conventional wisdom is to be challenged. Comfortable arguments greeted with opposing viewpoints.

But Allan Keyes and Randall Terry just make me chuckle. Once again it’s the extremists from last century holding down the fort.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi, EIT and the Briefing

By on 08 May 2009

As I said on Twitter last night, ABC doesn’t have the story they think they do. Greg Sargent offers some proof that this analysis is correct. The following graphic is from Greg:

Photobucket

It clearly reveals that Pelosi was briefed on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), but the specifics are left out.

Nevertheless, breathless with a breaking fever, people have decided to report that Pelosi was briefed on EITs, assuming waterboarding was part of the package. There is absolutely no proof or actual conclusive evidence that Speaker Pelosi was specifically told that waterboarding would be used in the torture of prisoners. As of today there simply isn’t, though this is still unfolding, so we don’t know where it will lead.

Reports do prove that although Pelosi was indeed briefed on EIT, the specifics were missing in the single briefing she had.

…The CIA declined to comment on why the chart does not make it clear whether waterboarding was covered in the Pelosi briefing. But a federal official familiar with the list indicated that the agency’s records may not have been that specific.

[...] Although the records describe early briefings on the CIA program, they also indicate that the operation was shielded from the vast majority of lawmakers for years. It wasn’t until September 2006, four years after Goss and Pelosi initially were briefed, that the agency’s interrogation program was described to the full House and Senate intelligence committees.

Porter Goss pontificating on what should have been deduced means nothing if the specifics weren’t delineated. People are now assuming that a briefing on EITs automatically means that Pelosi knew that waterboarding was being used on prisoners.

There’s another wrinkle to the Pelosi story from Sargent as well. The CIA doesn’t even know if the notes of the briefings are accurate.

(U//FOUO) This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. …

Pelosi was briefed in September 2002. Abu Zubayda, as we now know, was waterboarded the previous month over six dozen times. You’d think if the Pelosi briefing included waterboarding numbers like this would certainly have stuck in the Speaker’s mind. It’s not something you’re likely to forget.

Read full story · Comments are closed