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 | June, 2009

CLINTON: ‘Were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation’

–updated–

“I never had any — any dream, let alone inkling that I would end up in President Obama’s cabinet.” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Hillary's World
art by Paul Szep

In her first Sunday show interview, Secretary Clinton sat down with George Stephanopoulos to talk about, well, everything you could pack into twenty or so minutes. The headline right now, including when ABC sent out their customary email, reads like this: “Sec. Clinton: Obama Has Passed 3a.m. Test” Has Obama passed this test? “Absolutely,” stated Clinton.

But the back and forth on Israeli settlements and “natural growth” was more interesting to me. Where Clinton emphatically denies any Bush agreement on this issue.

Senior Israeli officials have accused Obama of failing to acknowledge their understanding with the Bush administration that included an exception for the “natural growth” of families already there. Former Bush official Elliott Abrams made similar claims in the Washington Post.

“That was an understanding that was entered into so far as we are told, orally. That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations, as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration. … Nobody in a position of authority at the time that the Obama administration came into office said anything about it. And in fact, there is also a record that President Bush contradicted even that oral agreement,” she said.

Ah yes, Elliott Abrams. One is also not surprised that this was a verbal “agreement,” but something that was never officially put down in policy, but also only understand on the Israeli side. It just makes no sense for the U.S. to agree to something like that in private.

“We are setting forth our views. obviously decisions about how to go forward are up to the Israelis and the Palestinians. But I think it is an appropriate role for the United States, and certainly it is what the president has decided, to make clear some of the obstacles he sees. The fact is that the road map which was agreed to officially, adopted by the Israeli government said something very clear about settlements. So, I think that what the president is doing is saying, look, everybody should comply with the obligations you’ve already committed to. And for the Palestinians, let’s not forget. They must end incitement against Israel. They must demonstrate an ability to provide security.” – Secretary Clinton

It’s in these moments that Clinton makes clear that everything she is doing is to further President Obama’s policies and agenda, which she feels are the only means we have for “digging out” of the mess Bush-Cheney dumped in Obama’s lap.

“I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation,” she said. “And I think part of what is clear is we want to avoid a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East. And we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.” – Secretary Clinton

Read full story · Comments are closed

Week Ending 6-6-09: D-Day at 65; Dr. Tiller’s Murder; Obama in Cairo, with Clinton; the Liz Cheney Media Blitz; McChrystal and 1,000 new Special Ops for Afghanistan


Photobucket 

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘TM-DC’ Podcast

–updated below–

This week’s podcast is ready, also available on ITunes, as well as RSS feed. Subjects include… Week Ending 6-6-09: D-Day at 65; Dr. Tiller’s Murder; Obama in Cairo, with Clinton; the Liz Cheney Media Blitz; McChrystal and 1,000 new Special Ops for Afghanistan.

Pres. Obama in his weekly radio address stressed the importance of getting health care reform passed. Something that is important and on many minds around here.

The week culminated today in D-Day ceremonies that were unbelievably moving, made more so because Pres. Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama make us all so proud. I seem to never make it through a playing of “Taps” without having to hold back tears. Coupled with the story Pres. Obama told about the one D-Day veteran who made it to see the beaches where he landed one last time, and then when he went to bed that night died in his sleep. Seeing combined Air Forces of our countries flie overhead, one peeling off, it just hits home so deeply. I’d like to just mention someone, my brother-in-law’s father, Mr. B.D. Simon, who is still alive and living in Missouri, who was one of those men who made a difference and is now in his 90s, sending a silent meditation to Uncle Dick, too. Hoo-rah goes out to my big bro as well, who, if JFK hadn’t prevailed, might have ended up landing in Cuba.

It’s been quite a week. …and don’t forget Secretary Clinton will be on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos tomorrow, her first interview since joining President Obama’s Cabinet.

TM NOTE: This post has been re-posted after a tech snafu.

Read full story · Comments are closed

C’est Dommage

–updated below–

TM.com’s official position on the French is that we love all things French, but especially the wine, the culture, the food, and yes, the people.

However, Pres. Sarkozy got on our bad side when he dared to diss the American President after the G-20. Evidently Mr. France didn’t understand what it means to be a politician from Chicago.

According to the UK Times, the President of France is paying for his bad manners. Now, we know how these rumors go, so maybe there’s more to the story than meets this web page (and the stories that are told within), but it sure makes for delicious Friday evening reading:

The Obamas turn up in Paris this evening, but have declined a dinner invitation from the couple next door: the Sarkozys.

President Obama’s reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysée Palace.

America’s First Family will not be dining with President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, even though they are staying at the residence of the US Ambassador, yards from the Elysée apartments where the Sarkozys spend their weekends. …

Not only did Sarkozy choose to gossip about Pres. Obama, but he had the bad manners to not invite the Queen of England to the D-Day remembrance ceremonies that are being held this weekend, which will include honoring the all-black battalion that landed in Normandy. Talk about gauche.

No matter how this turns out in the end, President Obama has sent a message to Mr. Sarkozy of France that certain things will not be tolerated. He is, after all, leader of the free world.

No doubt Sarkozy doesn’t like where he currently finds himself, ridiculed by his own countrymen.

Mr Sarkozy has been pilloried in France for his failure to invite the Queen to the events. “The palace is fearing a snub,” Le Parisien newspaper said yesterday after the news emerged of the Obamas’ plans to keep themselves to themselves.

Yesterday the popular comedian Nicolas Canteloup did an impression of Mr Sarkozy worrying that he had “only two days to become tall, handsome and elegant”. The French leader is 5½ inches shorter than Michelle Obama.

The French were also piqued after the White House said that it was working on an invitation to Normandy for the Royal Family. Face was saved when the Prince of Wales agreed to attend with Gordon Brown. “Sarkozy has pulled off a double hit: insulting Queen Elizabeth and exasperating Obama,” the weekly Canard Enchaîné said on Wednesday.

Tsk. Tsk. It’s a pity.

UPDATE: Of course, it’s the elections.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama’s Support for Israel Missed by AIPAC Crowd

–this post bumped/updated–

It just goes to show that tough love is hard to take. Even when the policy being instituted behind it will do our long standing allies in Israel a lot more good than what’s come before. Tell that to the JPost writer slumming over at NRO, who writes today about “the end of America’s strategic alliance with Israel?” Coming on the day that Pres. Obama is scheduled to visit Buchenwald, plus reiterate the importance that we never forget what happened on that ground, one has to wonder about the alternative universe the right lives in. Ms. Glick’s conclusion is that Netanyahu now has permission to wage war.

[...] The only silver lining for Israelis from the president’s speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill.

But not even that nonsense tops this nonsensical back and forth between Rep. Wexler and Greg Sargent. It revolves around this line from Obama’s speech: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.”

He was saying that “it is no longer acceptable to say in private, `Go Israelis, take on Hezbollah,’ or `Go Israelis, take on Iran,’” Wexler said. “He has called out all of the parties, including ourselves, to step up to the plate as adults and make difficult political decisions.”

But then Wexler had a fit of panic, evidently, imagining his Jewish support evaporate into the ether, that was bad enough for Sargent to title his post, in all caps, “POST UPDATED BELOW,” in which Wexler says just the opposite. In Wexler’s AIPAC mind meld world, Obama’s statement was actually singling out only the Arabs and Palestinians.

This is the kind of crap we get even when a Democratic president is willing to stand on a line to change the course of history.

For eight years before Obama came into office, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did nothing but talk about their support for Israel. That’s all the Republicans do, talk. They never actually do anything to move the Middle East off the violence cycle. That’s because Republicans thrive on it, campaign on it, so they encourage it. There hasn’t been a new idea towards Israel coming from the right, besides James Baker (20 years ago), who was often criticized for being an Arabist. Nothing the last Administration did moved the equilibrium meter one iota.

Pres. Obama’s support for Israel is steadfast. He’s now got the thankless job of playing father to a stubborn child who refuses to do what’s good for her. Obama’s trying to save Israel from herself. I don’t know if anyone can save her from her “allies.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Opposition to Obama’s Faith-Based Pick at HHS

–updated below–

There is quite a kerfuffle stirring about Obama’s new pick to lead the HHS Faith-Based (even as an Episcopalian, I loathe that term) Office, Alexia Kelley. Sarah Posner has a post up on it. Evidently Ms. Posner isn’t too familiar with Mr. Obama’s political gamesmanship.

It’s called triangulation. Obama appoints Kathleen Sebelius to head HHS, who has a strong pro civil rights record (aka on supporting a woman’s right to choose), then appoints a Catholic that’s known for a group put together during the Kerry – Catholic fights, which was founded by John Podesta and others, to lead the faith-based office. Posner’s jumping off point is Dr. Tiller’s murder. (As an aside, Justice just launched an investigation on it.)

President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Kelley is a leading proponent of “common ground” abortion reduction — only CACG’s common ground is at odds with that of Obama. While the administration favors reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake of George Tiller’s assassination. …

Holy hyperbole! He’s done it now.

Forgive me if I demure.

Secretary Sebelius is in charge under a President who has no intention of alienating anyone, including on abortion, and especially if it involves Democrats reaching the broader Catholic vote, when he can instead reach “common ground.” Translation: reducing abortions.

I’d also like to know what Posner and others think is going to happen when Obama picks a Catholic, especially someone who headed Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG). Last time I checked, the Pope is still against abortion, as well as contraception. If you think that’s a movable venue to work I’d say you’ll have a short career in politics. Now, if Posner wants to make the argument, part of which she offers in her post, that religion has no place in this debate, well, she’s about thirty years too late for that one. Reagan solidified their presence by embracing them, and since Obama has given overt signs he admires Mr. Reagan, why would you expect otherwise from him? Beyond that, religion is in politics as long as we have a president who believes “common ground” is more important than picking up ideological ground.

But most disagree with my realist analysis when it comes to Obama on these things, which is still good to take around the block when we confront certain road blocks.

See dissents from my view here, here, here, here.

Besides, if anyone has watched the way Obama has plucked Republicans from moderate districts, so Dems can win to replace them, you’d see he’s not exactly diminishing our tent, which goes along with what he’s doing at HHS. Giving a nod to Catholics in an office and under a department that is a target for the right, thereby inoculating Sebelius, etc.

So what I suggest is that everyone pocket the outrage on this one and save it for something or someone who might actually warrant it. Which brings up the issue that we don’t have a clue where Judge Sotomayor, also a Catholic as well as an Hispanic, will come down on the issue of a woman’s civil rights where choice is concerned. Let’s hope during confirmation someone asks her a question that leads to light, because right now it’s darkness. Though even with any knowledge there’s no fighting the eventual outcome. All we can do is hope precedence will be her guide.

UPDATE: I got an email from someone with knowledge, shall we say, who has given me permission to use (anonymously) what I was sent from her/him, which I offer below. CACG stands for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

CACG was originally founded by people like John Podesta, Tom Perriello and Ms. Kelley, in the wake of the Catholic Right making the dominant story that Catholics could not vote for John Kerry. Democratic Catholics like these believed that the Catholic Right’s partisan attacks were a major reason Bush won the Catholic vote. Therefore, these Catholics founded a group (or more accurately, a number of groups, including Catholics-United) set to refocus the faith debate on issues like healthcare, poverty and war that are important to Catholic teaching and that also are part of the Democratic platform. Their first test case was in Ohio, and they played a major role in the Catholic outreach of the victorious Ted Strickland.

CACG’s chief problem was that it wanted to be a a progressive Catholic organization, and yet still operate as an accepted group within the the American Catholic hierarchy. Kelley spent more of her time meeting with Bishops and USCCB officials assuring them of CACG’s support for Church issues. In doing so, CACG can not support abortion. It must be a “pro-life” organization. CACG has instead supported the Pregnant Women’s Support Act (also supported by the Bishops) because it did not criminalize abortion. They funded a study which found that a more effective way of reducing abortions is to provide full and complete health care for women and children rather than to get rid of Planned Parenthoods. They advocated family support rather than abortion restriction. Despite what Posner says, this IS a position of President Obama. It’s also a position most Catholics can support.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Stop Obama’s Secrecy Provision Now

Okay, so it’s not technically called that, but it’s what’s tucked into the war supplemental. Jane Hamsher has an action item up on the issue that I encourage everyone to support by getting involved. I already put an item up “In the News” on it that has the info you need.

And I say this as someone who wholeheartedly supports Obama’s plan for Afghanistan.

But I will not support the Democrats sticking in Joe Lieberman – Lindsay Graham’s Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. This provision is meant simply to give Obama cover on the unreleased torture photos, so that he doesn’t have to fight the issue in court.

This is the kind of sneaky political stunts that drives people crazy.

Rahm’s whipping on the war supplemental now. It’s time to send a message that we won’t have “secrecy” acts stuffed into national security legislation, especially when it has to do with scuttling transparency. Didn’t Pres. Obama campaign on fighting this sort of thing?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Secretary Clinton in Cairo

TM NOTE: George Stephanopoulos will have Sect. Clinton on Sunday as his *exclusive* guest, in her very first Sunday show interview since joining Obama’s Cabinet.

Nothing but superlatives for Pres. Obama from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“…as the President pointed out in his speech… Women’s rights have to be elevated and respected. … What was so important about the President’s speech is that it was a speech he could give anywhere. .. It was, as he said, the truth as he saw it. … I think the fact that he came here and talked about everything. Of course there was going to be some greater reaction to parts of it, because it was familiar terrain. But he planted seeds. He encouraged people to have to have conversation and to think hard about their perspectives and points of view. I think he also challenged Americans. … This was a speech that I believe will be viewed historically as a very significant turning point. One of the most important points that he made was how if the Palestinians had pursued a different path of non-violence, of following an example of a Ghandi or a Dr. Martin Luther King who knows where we’d be right now. That violence is not the answer. That it doesn’t change hearts and minds. [...] …but without saying it, without offering the challenge in such an elegant and reasoned way, one thing I know for sure is that nobody will have that conversation, and I think it will happen now. [...]” – Secretary Hillary Clinton

The entire interview was Clinton giving Obama complete support and praise for his speech, as well as what it meant in policy. The one word that stood out throughout was “we.” No daylight anywhere.

Whether the efforts of Pres. Obama and his team will work is another matter, but no one will ever be able to say he didn’t lead from the start, stake out new ground in the equilibrium debate, forging ahead to try to get something concrete accomplished that would benefit not only the Israelis and Palestinians, but the entire region, as well as nations and people well beyond.

If expectations were high before Cairo, they’re stratospheric now.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Cairo Speech Comes as Iran Race Ignites

Juxtaposed against Obama’s speech today (my thoughts are here) are reports coming out of Iran that all hell broke loose in a presidential debate, when Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s strongest opponent, didn’t like his adversary targeting his wife, who’s being touted as Iran’s Michelle Obama.

Iran’s president waved an apparent intelligence file on his challenger’s wife in the air Wednesday night, accusing her of violating government rules in an explosive televised debate that laid bare the rifts within the country’s establishment. …

[...] Mousavi was calm and quiet throughout much of the debate, but his body language showed contempt for the president. He rarely looked him in the eye except while delivering a searing, 12-minute final segment that sounded like a prosecutor’s closing argument.

He took Ahmadinejad to task for harassing students, shuttering newspapers and banning books and accused him of cronyism for appointing an interior minister who had a fake university degree, the gambit that probably prompted Ahmadinejad to raise the issue of Mousavi’s wife. …

Another nugget:

“Ahmadinejad started very well and Mousavi was indeed struggling to find the right words at the outset but I think, as the debate continued, Mousavi became more composed and assured in his remarks. I think the biggest mistake was to pour scorn on Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard. Women will not like the president for this and it only served to enrage Mousavi who delivered a very forceful counterattack, preventing Ahmadinejad from interrupting him, and effectively ending the debate on a winning note.”

Mousavi rising at the moment Obama gives his Cairo speech, which had the American President revealing a definite difference on how he intends to deal with Iran. If Mousavi could pull an upset, still a long shot, what history Obama would have an opportunity to make.

Daniel Levy has a breakdown of ten things Obama accomplished in his speech today, which includes Iran.

4. Finally a President Who Can Talk to Palestinians

[...] Instead Obama spoke a language that actual Palestinians could relate to, recalling the 60-year “pain of dislocation,” the “wait in refugee camps” (without in the same breath emasculating the refugees of any rights). He spoke of humiliation, occupation, and an intolerable situation – in other words, Palestinian daily reality. Only after recognizing the Palestinian experience did he chart the course for achieving “the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity,” namely, via a Palestinian state. This shift in discourse may be lost on most American ears, not so for Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world, and it begins to give Obama a moral authority that will allow him to address this issue in speaking directly to the Palestinian people above the heads of their divided leadership.

5. Shimon Peres Could Not Have Done a Better Job

In what is becoming classical Obama, he at the same time presented perhaps the most compelling justification and explanation of Israel’s rights and its existence ever spoken in an Arab and Muslim capital. No Israeli has ever done a better job, he is a true friend. In the most unequivocal of terms and in a speech that so captured Muslim world attention, Obama placed the notions of threatening Israel’s destruction, stereotypes of Jews, and Holocaust denial, as being irredeemably beyond the pale and unacceptable. And he reaffirmed America’s “unbreakable bond with Israel.”

8. More Hand Less Fist on Iran

[...] However, I think this was more important, if not entirely new: “any nation- including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the NPT.”

The president also had this intriguing chestnut to share on nuclear nonproliferation: “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not.” Now I may be a bit Israelocentric in how I look at the world but this sounds like a not too subtle hint to me. Might this be a kind of “yes – we acknowledge there is a double standard here regarding the Israeli nuclear issue, and eventually we will get to that too.” It won’t be a headline, Israel will officially ignore it, and when asked Obama’s spokespeople will obfuscate but in more than a few capitals, including Jerusalem, a parsing industry will grow up around those few words.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Unions Even Help My Non-Union Husband

The “Morning Joe” crew has really been on a race to the bottom this week.

First they refused to even discuss the murder of Dr. Tiller. Relegating this horrific assassination to quiet “horrifying” murmurs from Mika, as Scarborough ran for cover.

Then the crew mixed up the generals in back to back segments that had anyone watching in full tilt whiplash. First showing a picture of fired Gen. McKiernan, Mika saying he was to have his confirmation hearing that day; then in the very next segment finally getting Lt. Col. McChrystal’s photo up, with Mika saying it was his confirmation that was on deck. No correction offered, just two different segments, one wrong, the next right, without ever acknowledging what had happened.

Now we’ve got “Morning Joe” and guests Andrew Ross Sorkin and Jim Cramer proclaiming that unions cause companies to fail. Never mind what they offer middle class families.

“Name a successful unionized company. Think. You’re going to go to break before you come up with one. And that’s the problem.” Andrew Ross Sorkin

Mind you, this ignorant pronouncement was said in a room full of union NBC employees, as Brian Beutler also noted.

They even impact people who are not union.

Take my husband. He’s a blue collar genius who can fix and build anything. Mark has always proclaimed loudly that without the unions trying to push where he worked for 25 years, his wages wouldn’t have been competitive with what they offer, including benefits and pension. I cannot count how many times Mark has hailed the unions in being responsible for keeping the company he worked for honest. Now that we’ve moved to D.C., Mark has looked for work across the region, with some companies telling him joining a union would be mandatory at some point. He just smiles and says, gladly. He’s working non-union again, having no trouble getting job offers, proving once again that a little college is terrific, but having a trade and being creative in a bad economy is even better.

Brian Beutler nailed them.

Off the top of my head I can give you several Teamster-represented companies who continue to thrive, despite the economic downturn, but there are thousands more: UPS, Eight O’Clock Coffee, Coca-Cola Enterprises, PepsiCo, Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. The Morning Joe team really should be embarrassed for showing their lack of knowledge on the subject. – James Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, in a statement to TPMDC

Joe Scarborough, Mika and their entire crew have no idea how valuable unions are to people and families, including ours. Even when a company isn’t union, the fact that unions are out there working for the average family makes all the difference in the world.

Read full story · Comments are closed

For Obama in Locked Down Cairo, Honor Killings Don’t Exist

–updated below–

“Culturally sensitive” is how Bob Shrum judged Pres. Obama’s historic speech in Cairo, as he pronounced “a new beginning,” which was the foundation of his speech.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. (transcript)

However, let’s not kid ourselves, shall we? The site of Pres. Obama’s speech could not have been worse. In the place where he will lift everyone up, Mubarak continues the practice of keeping his people down.

The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the “historical speech,” State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations…

The stage is set.

Standing in the heart of the Arab world, Pres. Obama didn’t give an inch on his Middle East policy, stating bluntly inside this world that the habit of acquiescing to Israel on all things is over.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Stunning coming from an American president and also proof that at the dawn of the 21st century there is a dramatic new policy in place, one with the intention of changing the status quo. As this is a topic on which I am focused, it was heartening, but the hard work lies ahead.

Haaretz reports protests in Israel by one lone group, proving that Obama’s words are not going down well in Netanyahu’s country, with today’s language setting a hard line that Israel now must know will not be moved.

On Iraq and torture:

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

… I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Words that needed to be said, but over here there still isn’t transparency on Guantanamo, with most of us not sure what the hell to make of detainee photographic records protection provision, tucked deep inside the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. Glenn talked about this on Monday.

For me, however, that’s nothing.

It was on women’s rights that Pres. Obama sought to truly, as Mr. Shrum said, show cultural sensitivity, completely and totally ignoring the horrific issues women face in Muslim and Arab countries across the world. That is the threat of death if they do not kowtow to the men who make the rules and enforce them through beatings, rapes, honor killings and all manner of abuse, mostly in the name of religion. It is a cause I have fought for since the 1990s, when Mavis Leno took up the charge of Afghan women under the Taliban. But today, Pres. Obama chose instead to respect the cultural differences that are not only dangerous for women, but deny them basic human rights. When it comes to violent extremism towards the populace, talking about an older woman getting blown up was okay, but acknowledging the wholesale violence against women and girls, Obama offered an American shrug in reaction to what women in Arab and Muslim countries have to endure. Mentioning that was just too much. Instead, Pres. Obama focused on, unbelievably, hair and traditional coverings of Muslim women. As for a 13 year-old-girl stoned to death, that was just too much.

… Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. [...]

[...] The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. [..]

What Peter said.

It’s hard to worry about literacy when the basic rights of women are ignored, held hostage by the whims of fanatics in a place where tyranny towards them reins.

Ah, yes, one speech cannot change everything, as Pres. Obama said. But if the American president doesn’t lead on calling the horrendous treatment of women out who will? Obama ducked his responsibility on this, choosing instead to have “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” which didn’t include calling out the barbarism perpetrated against women across the world.

Patrick J. Buchanan judged Pres. Obama’s policy a new direction for which he offers approval.

Bob Shrum talked about “cultural sensitivity,” which reminded me of Speaker Pelosi going to China to talk about global warming, but not feeling compelled to say anything about women’s rights, the forced abortion, and human rights.

It’s the new Democratic Party diplomacy, as we not try to stray too far into another country’s business, because we “do not presume to know what is right for everyone.” On diplomacy, it is not our business to tell countries how they should operate. But it should always be our duty to stand up for the oppressed, the beaten, the raped, those killed in 19th century murder called “honor killings” and say this is not only wrong, but immoral and against the cause of human rights. That doesn’t mean we can stop the behavior of nations, or hold our diplomacy hostage to their barbarous ways, but they sure need to know we’re watching, see what’s happening and condemn what they do. We should never stand silently as Pres. Obama did today.

Pres. Obama is always eloquent. Repeating his policy on Israeli settlements was so very important, as he also honored our abiding friendship with Israel that is “unbreakable.” It gave new hope that something may yet crack in the equilibrium stalemate, which is the Palestinians only chance, but also of Arab Israeli women as well.

But under the Obama administration, as the President made his first and most important outreach to the Arab and Muslim world, he pulled up short on fundamental human rights as it applies to women. But Obama will be hailed across America and the globe, no doubt, even as he gave the speech in a city under absolute lock down, while women were relegated to fashion items and talks of “education,” even if they have to risk their lives to get it.

UPDATE: Some are bristling that I dare to mention women’s rights and the importance of calling out Pres. Obama on this subject. I’ll offer here what I said in the comments “In the News.” It begins with one small step, no lectures or insults. This could have been simply to begin with saying “honor killings” are wrong, immoral, choose your language. I never expected Obama to go down the line on all the issues facing gender equality in the Arab and Muslim world. I’ve studied this subject for years, so I know better. But because there is vast agreement on “honor killings” across the Arab world this was such a great place to begin. It was important and could have been done with one line: It is never honorable to kill a woman. That it wasn’t was a choice.

Read full story · Comments are closed

HACK-tacular

Photobucket

Hey, why don’t you write a book about me?, asked Barack.

Nah… –thinks a minute as he sees dancing dollar signs float across his brain– Well, maybe, says Wolffe.

As if there were ever any doubt.

This story is as nauseating as when Jim VandeHei teased it yesterday on “Morning Joe,” but it’s anything but surprising.

Whatever journalism cred Richard Wolffe had before the 2008 campaigning began, it didn’t take him long to lose it or maybe I should say sell it. Of course, he is by no means alone. Seriously, how many “journalists” did we see on TV who took the role of “political analyst,” claiming no bias, while obviously being in the tank for a candidate? I guess Wolffe just got lucky and was able to cash it in, right under Newsweek’s nose.

But Theodore White? Wolffe must have needed a bib after that come on. You have to hand it to Obama, talk about a seduction and if you can pull it off, why not? The arrogant reporter bought it. But forget White; Richard Wolffe is to Barack Obama what Bill Sammon is to George W. Bush. With Wolffe a pr flack on MSNBC, while Sammon chose Fox News Channel. It’s all ends up the same: selling out.

Now Wolffe’s a real player and Dan Bartlett’s got him. What digby said.

Long before the worst kept secret started circulating, anyone with half a brain new where this love affair was headed. Straight to the book shelves. But somehow Newsweek missed it. It cost them $170,000, with Wolffe running away with the story and getting himself a new life.

From journalism to political advertising, though to Wolffe it’s a short walk.

“The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what’s going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers,” he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers.

“You tell me where the line is between business and journalism,” he said.

Okay, I’ll bite. You can talk to advertisers to pitch them how good a reporter you are and how hard you work to get the story; even the sources you have that you can tap along the way, no matter the headline. Maybe even share anecdotes of your reporting success. What you never do, that is if you have any integrity at all, is sell yourself to the subject you’re covering then go to the advertisers (or publishers) to tell them you’ve got a sure thing, as your subject shares big pieces of cake and private basketball games with you while you write his innermost thoughts via mind blowing access, because the subject has offered you a wink and a nod quid pro quo. A journalist stays separate from what he/she is covering and never makes a deal with the subject where you willingly take on the roll of using your power as “independent journalist” and “political analyst” to shape the outcome, which is sure to give you a financial payoff.

Got it, Dick?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Red Meat for the Right

Photobucket

On the wings of ABC’s article on Obama’s Muslim roots, we get an idea of what this week will be like for the Obama White House. No matter how successful his outreach is received in the Arab world, the juvenile center of the Republican right intends to run Robert Gibbs around the track. Segue to Pres. Obama’s statement on French TV, as reported by the Jeff Zelney of the New York Times, that has the right blogsphere in a tailspin.

The White House has a full translation of the interview (video). An excerpt:

OBAMA: …What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples. ..

It will be telecast in a wide variety of languages on our White House Web site, whitehouse.gov. And my hope is, is that as a consequence you start seeing discussions not just at the presidential level, but at every level of life. And I hope I can spark some dialogue and debate within the Muslim world, because I think there’s a real struggle right now between those who believe that Islam is irreconcilable to modern life and those who believe that actually Islam has always been able to move side by side with progress…

Greg Sargent attempts to explain how the statement was made and what it meant, with Steve Benen joining in on the task. This exercise only matters in America, where the defensive crouch on all things Muslim and Islam, especially where Barack Hussein Obama is concerned, is always on a hair trigger. A liberal attempt at translation just comes off as defensive. It’s also not required, because last time I looked Mr. Obama is doing just fine over there.

In the Arab world, as well as in France where there is a significant Muslim population, Pres. Obama’s message was far simpler than is being described. It’s at its core a reach out saying that American Muslims are alive and well and Pres. Obama welcomes them, because they’re a significant force, also stating the broader population in this country needs educating on Islam.

As if to prove his point, the right wing circus kicked into action immediately (via Memeorandum).

Power Line: “Robert Gibbs Call Your Office… In what sense can any rational person consider the United States to be a Muslim country?

Gateway Pundit: It seems like it was just yesterday that Dr. Dobson was attacking Dear Leader for his “fruitcake distortion of the Bible.” Now we know why.

Roger L. Simon completely cracks over it, trying his own hand at translating Obama: We also know what dhimmi law is… and taqqiya. For those of you who have missed it, here is a definition of taqiyya – again from Wikipedia: The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.” A one-word translation would be “dissimulation.” The WikiIslam defines it as “sanctified hypocrisy.” That is Barak Obama to a T.

“The Astute Bloggers,” a name that is the essence of oxymoronic goes full tilt wacky with a photo on this occasion.

America for all its glory isn’t very cosmopolitan. If the last eight years have taught us anything, in fact, it’s that parts of our citizenry revel in ignorance, in the elitism of Americanism or bust. It’s what led to 9/11; this ignorance of how we impact the world and how our western tunnel vision no longer serves this nation in the 21st century.

As a side note, it’s not an accident that the moment Pres. Obama touches down in Saudi soil we hear from Osama bin Laden. The timing reveals the real fire inside this mass murderer, which begins in Saudi Arabia, the home country that exiled him, where the grudge he carries has flared again on the occasion of the American President’s trip. He’s irrelevant.

Instead of explaining Pres. Obama, just wait and see.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘There Is This Very Pious Jew Named Goldberg…’

Marty Peretz needs to hear Thomas Friedman’s joke, even though I doubt he’ll get it.

There is this very pious Jew named Goldberg who always dreamed of winning the lottery. Every Sabbath, he’d go to synagogue and pray: “God, I have been such a pious Jew all my life. What would be so bad if I won the lottery?” But the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Week after week, Goldberg would pray to win the lottery, but the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Finally, one Sabbath, Goldberg wails to the heavens and says: “God, I have been so pious for so long, what do I have to do to win the lottery?”

And the heavens parted and the voice of God came down: “Goldberg, give me a chance! Buy a ticket!”

Drum riff here.

But seriously, what Friedman is saying while riffing on a conversation he had with Pres. Obama is simple when boiled down:

“Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” – Barack Obama

Israeli leaders don’t seem to care what they say in public, because they have no intention of buying a ticket. The truth is that they’re so accustomed to getting free rein, with a shrug from the U.S. no matter what they do, that it never dawned on them that the tide could shift.

Shift it has.

But the opening will be short, as we saw recently when House Dems decided to get their AIPAC on after being shocked that people were starting to get seriously tough on Israel. Barack Obama, with a no daylight voice coming from Hillary Clinton as well, are the ones providing the cover, giving rational people space to step up and say what’s true and needed to be said.

The Arabs need to invest in the Palestinian state, not just talk, which means putting their money where their grievances lie.

Then there is Obama’s comment to Friedman on Iran that goes like this: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” At the Saudi conference I attended, Turki al-Faisal admitted that if Iran goes nuclear the country most in danger is Saudi Arabia. But that was mentioned only once. It coincides with the fears of Shia dominance in the region as well. However, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was mentioned time after time after time by the Saudis and other Arabs that day. Far be it from me to argue with the President who has the Arabs’ ear, but I’m not buying his quote or the rationale behind it. Mainly because it was begun from Netanyahu’s mouth.

When Pres. Obama speaks in Cairo there will be a lot of young minds listening, young men especially. The best news about this is that they won’t be hearing the American voice through George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Instead, we will be heard through a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama and whose heritage gives him a vein or two that includes the Muslim world.

Don’t expect a sea change from Obama’s speech. But again, it is a shift.

Read full story · Comments are closed

‘Morning Joe’ Mixes Up the Generals

Photobucket

“Morning Joe” comes early. Very, very early. But you’d think Joe Scarborough would at least notice when his co-host reads the wrong general up for confirmation in the Senate. Or when they blew it they’d be open and honest enough to alert their audience. Now everyone gets things wrong. But none of us have a huge staff, big salaries and MSNBC backing us up either. The least you’d expect is that they’d openly correct the record. Nope.

Poor Mika. The teleprompter was set and she was ready. Too bad the information was wrong. Really wrong.

So, I didn’t get to see “Morning Joe” today as it rolled, viewing the tape later in the day. At one point I thought I’d lost my mind. It wasn’t me, it was them.

Cue Mika, who is heard while the “Morning Grind” graphic displays “War Strategy,” with a huge picture of Gen. McKiernan on the screen.

“The man set to take over command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will be on the Hill today for a Senate confirmation. General David McKiernan will likely not face tough opposition, as the Obama adminstration needs to ramp up the fight against the Taliban.”

Huh? Who? It’s about this time that I hit rewind wondering if I’d been doing too much research and scrambled my brain.

Yeah, he “will likely not face tough opposition,” because the Pres. Obama already had the man fired.

But unsuspecting viewers didn’t know that, but neither did the people on “Morning Joe.”

The very next “Morning Grind” segment, Mika offered something different, complete with a huge picture of a different general:

“And today the Senate will hold a confirmation hearing for Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal who is set to take over as America’s top general in Afghanistan. McChrystal will replace Gen. David McKiernan.”

However, there was no mention whatsoever from the “Morning Joe” crew, Mika or anyone, that they’d gotten the story wrong the first time, embarrassingly wrong. They just did a second segment of “Morning Grind” pretending that the first one hadn’t happened.

We know it’s early, but come on. The firing of Gen. David McKiernan was a big story, with his replacement of Lt. Gen. McChrstal equally significant, considering what it might mean on the ground in Afghanistan, but maybe even Pakistan.

The priceless thing about this is that Joe Scarborough didn’t have a clue. A general is a general to him, I guess. His new book should be a whopper.

This in the same week “Morning Joe” relegated Dr. Tiller’s murder to quiet murmurs of “horrifying” and one mention in the “Morning Grind,” plus the crawl as a reminder of the carnage. But did they discuss it? Nah. After all, you wouldn’t want to put people off their Starbucks.

Read full story · Comments are closed

As Drones Decline Will Covert Strikes Inside Pakistan Rise?

The advent of “spy chips” adds an interesting nugget to Karen DeYoung’s piece reporting Al Qaeda “shaken” in Pakistan.

Drone-launched U.S. missile attacks and Pakistan’s ongoing military offensive in and around the Swat Valley have unsettled al-Qaeda and undermined its relative invulnerability in Pakistani mountain sanctuaries, U.S. military and intelligence officials say. …

As Danger Room points out, there’s more to this than just the drones. Not surprisingly, we’ve got spies.

Word of these tiny transmitters has been circulating in militant circles for months. In early April, the Pakistani Taliban leader Mullah Nazir said he had caught “spies” who were inserting into militants’ phones “location-tracking SIMs” — Subscriber Identity Module cards, used to identify mobile devices on a cellular network.

Ten days later, 19 year-old Habibur Rehman made a videotaped “confession” of planting such devices, just before he was executed by the Taliban as an American spy. “I was given $122 to drop chips wrapped in cigarette paper at Al Qaeda and Taliban houses,” he said. If I was successful, I was told, I would be given thousands of dollars.”

But Rehman says he didn’t just tag jihadists with the devices. “The money was good so I started throwing the chips all over. …

Recently, Kilkullen and Exum weighed in against drones, foreshadowing that drone policy is about to shift.

Because this subject coincides with McCrystal’s confirmation hearing today, here’s Tom Ricks:

I think this is of a piece with replacing Gen. David McKiernan with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. If you can’t do drone strikes, you are occasionally gonna need to whack people with covert strikes of another sort. Manned raids, as it were. And who knows those better than Stan?

As far back as 2008, SecDef Gates has been blunt that further counterinsurgency inside Pakistan is an option. This year once again reiterating that Pakistan is a sovereign nation, but that the U.S. stood by to help whenever asked. Gates with Fareed Zakaria (at around 8:10 in), with the excerpt below a follow up to what he said in ’08:

“…we have been willing to provide the training, all the training and that kind of equipment, as much as we can, as much as they would take. There has been a reluctance on their part up to now. They don’t like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that. And–but we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation. I think that we have been willing to do that for quite some time. …we are prepared to provide whatever help in developing this counterinsurgency capability to the Pakistanis that we possibly can. But it’s their country and their sovereign and we’ll let them dictate the rule.”

Once again, I refer you to Ricks above. What actually develops remains to be seen, but the set up seems to be unfolding, as is Obama’s Af-Pak strategy that treats these two countries as one, with McChrystal’s entrance another addition to the scene.

Read full story · Comments are closed

AIPAC’s Congressional Friends Begin Pushback

You knew it was too good to be true and not going to last. Ben Smith has the story, as AIPAC’s friends in the House begin their due diligence.

“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”

“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said.

Berkley is a 20th century politician who may be beloved in Nevada, but she’s never going to be part of the solution in the Middle East, as she sees the whole argument in terms of what Israel wants. Her views have nothing to do with what will actually help U.S. foreign policy in the region, or Israel for that matter.

As for Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), according to Smith’s reporting, wanting to “narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama,” is about as likely as Bibi bending on “natural growth.” The pressure will remain, because Obama, at least right now and unless he pulls a reverse under pressure like he did on the torture photos, is content to do what’s required, not what’s not worked before.

But it’s Rep. Cantor (R-Va.), as usual, who barricades himself behind the baloney barrier:

“It’s misguided. Behind that pressure is the assumption that somehow resolving the so-called settlements will somehow lead to the ultimate goal” of disarming Iran, said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip. “A backward assumption is being made that if we deal with the Israel-Palestine question, somehow all the problems in the Middle East will be solved,” he said.

It’s just plain ignorance on parade to say that Obama believes that equilibrium alone between Israelis and Palestinians will solve all the issues in the Middle East.

What it will do is open up a whole lot of room for discussion. Conversation that right now is focused on one thing and one thing only. In the void just maybe allies can be sought and new relationships forged.

The other issue the congressional AIPAC pals don’t mention is that if Obama doesn’t work aggressively to move forward, as King Abdullah of Jordan has said, with others agreeing, the hopes of equilibrium will disappear into a ratcheting up of violence that could likely lead to war.

Mr. Netanyahu cannot want that, because it would likely bring the fall of his government and end the last chance he has to make his mark for Israel.

As for Mr. Obama, here at home, Democrats aren’t going to make it easy for him.

“I think that most people could understand somebody having a child and their child living with them, as long as it’s not a ruse to expand” the settlement, said Ackerman, who said two of a dozen questions to Netanyahu during a meeting with members of Congress had concerned settlements.

The type of logic that Rep. Ackerman (D-NY) applies in the above statement is indicative of the nonsensical debate in this section of the Middle East. “A ruse to expand” is exactly what this is, so you have to wonder if Mr. Ackerman is just dense or he thinks we’re stupid.

If you care about the Middle East, let your representative know you support what Pres. Obama is doing. Because the noise from AIPAC’s friends is only going to get louder from here.

Read full story · Comments are closed

McChrystal Confirmation

Sen. McCain asked Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal about Pat Tillman’s Silver Star, that it was fratricide… C-SPAN has the confirmation hearings live. On Tillman:

“I also sent a message informing my chain of command that we believed it was fratricide… We sent a Silver Star that was not well written… I will tell you now that I didn’t review the citation well enough to capture, or I didn’t catch, that if you read it you can imply that it was not friendly fire… If I had it to do all over again, and we subsequently changed Army policy after this, because the intent on awards at that time was to do the award rapidly so that it could be presented to the family at the memorial service for their comfort. …It is better to take your time, make sure you get everything right with the award and not rush it. … were entirely well intentioned on my part and everyone forward that I saw was trying to do the right thing, It still produced confusion at a tragic time and I’m very sorry for that.” – Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal

McCain also asked McChrystal, who is to be the International Security Assistance Fore Afghanistan Commander, if confirmed, whether the Army Field Manual provides enough of the tools needed for interrogation. McCrhystal’s answer was simply: yes.

Confirm him, I agree.

Read full story · Comments are closed

O’Reilly on Defense

Immediately after the segment shown here, Juan Williams joined Bill O’Reilly to talk about the murder of Dr. Tiller. Well, not exactly. Juan Williams joined Bill O’Reilly in order to stick up for him and offer him cover. This is what Mr. Williams defends. Transcript via Think Progress:

Now, it’s clear that the far left is exploiting — exploiting — the death of the doctor. Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller. That — and hating Fox News — is the real agenda here. Finally, if these people are soooo compassionate — so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others — maybe they might have written something, one thing, about the 60,000 fetuses that will never become American citizens. Or am I wrong?

To answer Mr. O’Reilly, yes, you are wrong.

There is no exploitation of Dr. Tiller’s death. It’s about putting light on the violence surrounding a legal medical doctor’s life and what women in need have to go through to get the care they are afforded under U.S. law. Nothing Dr. Tiller did was anything other than legal, necessary to his patients, and a service to them that they voluntarily chose to seek.

As for the “60,000 fetuses,” well, maybe Mr. O’Reilly will speak to his church, the Catholic church, to try to change their minds on contraception and every other means that women and men use to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

However, Dr. Tiller performed health care emergencies due to the need for late term abortions, which is less than 1% of all abortions performed and usually done in dire circumstances.

Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly could say something compassionate for the women in these circumstances?

Mr. O’Reilly has no conscience and no moral compass if he believes that his rhetoric, especially since he holds such a high position in the cable media circus, doesn’t impact on people. That his character assassinations doesn’t provide an excuse for those looking for reasons to react. The depictions of Dr. Tiller, a man doing his job legally and for women who needed him and asked for his help, added to the culture of fear and aggression that surrounds women and their doctors at a most difficult time in life. An atmosphere that has doctors being guarded, with women unable to peaceably make choices afforded to them under U.S. law.

Put more simply, Mr. O’Reilly incites. He inspired violence through his rhetoric against Dr. Tiller. That he’s not ashamed or at least a bit remorseful is an indictment on his program and on Fox News, which allows his hate speech.

Attacking Huffington or Moulitsas as O’Reilly does will not change his own culpability in forwarding the violent rhetorical attacks against Dr. Tiller.

That Juan Williams sat there with Mr. O’Reilly giving him cover not only shows deplorable judgment, but destroyed his credibility, especially given the amount of tape available that proves Williams wrong.

Some of us don’t hate Fox News Channel as much as we detest that they are part of the problem in this country. Bill O’Reilly gave evidence again of why that’s true last night.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Remains Adamant on Israel and Settlements

Being “honest” with Israel, how revolutionary. And as Michael D. Shearer notes, Pres. Obama even gives Dick Cheney grace. On the eve of his visit to Saudi Arabia, then Egypt, where he will give his outreach speech to Muslims and Arabs, Obama reiterates his Israeli policy regarding settlements.

Via NPR, which has the transcript and the audio.

“I don’t think we have to change strong support for Israel,” Obama said during an interview with NPR hosts Michele Norris of All Things Considered and Steve Inskeep of Morning Edition.

“We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace,” Obama said. “And that’s going to require, from my view, a two-state solution.”

… It will also require, he said, a freeze on Israeli settlements, including expansion to accommodate successive generations of settlers, and for Palestinians to make progress on security and end “the incitement that understandably makes Israelis so concerned.”

The president also suggested that the United States’ special relationship with Israel requires some tough love. “Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Obama said. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.”

Israeli’s Netanyahu remains belligerent, saying that what Pres. Obama asks equals “freezing life.”

Pres. Obama also weighs in to say Dick Cheney’s analysis is “flawed,” but that he doesn’t doubt the former vice president’s motives in wanting to protect this country.

This is one of the flaws of our current president. Giving quarter to people who have only one interest at heart: destroying his presidency.

It doesn’t mean Pres. Obama has to go out of his way to castigate Dick Cheney. But giving him respect is something, given his record, Mr. Cheney has not earned. On Israel, the Bush-Cheney administration did nothing to promote equilibrium. Then there is Iraq, but also Afghanistan. So it really doesn’t matter the motives of Dick Cheney, because the outcome of what his rhetoric and actions have wrought deserve condemnation and nothing less. Something Obama can offer simply by saying they had their chance and couldn’t move the ball, with much left in his lap to do, because of what Bush-Cheney’s foreign policy philosophy left undone.

Read full story · Comments are closed