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 | September, 2009

Newsmax Scrubs ‘Military Coup’ Article

By on 30 September 2009

John Perry’s article is no longer available at Newsmax. Why was it published in the first place? is the better question. It still lives in The Google.

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

There was never a doubt in my mind that this article would disappear, even as people started writing about it.

A citizen version was offered today on Rush Limbaugh’s show, between 2:15 – 2:45 p.m., by a mother of 7 children from the West Coast who was allowed to ramble on and on and on in a performance that makes Glenn Beck look calm, and Sarah Palin rational. She blathered on about what the Democrats are doing in Congress, her jumping off point the health care bill. Something about changing bills virtually, taking two bills and smacking them together to make one to cram down everyone’s throat, which was going to harm her children. Jumping off at one point to talk about getting a shot, because she might break her hip, and the Democrats won’t want her around after that. Her voice shook, sarcasm sometimes dripping from her voice, as her suffocating platitudes about her children clogged the radio waves. If I’d been Rush I’d have called the cops to her house. She sounded positively unhinged as she described a love for her country that didn’t include the reality that… um… WE won. Evidently, she’s waiting for a dictatorship, with Rush her dear leader.

Meanwhile, Republicans have the nerve to go after Allan Grayson for fire breathing rhetoric spoken on the House floor. Never mind their own history on that score.

All this bickering over what Democrats are TRYING to do, but still haven’t managed to accomplish. The talking continues on health care. Demanding settlements be frozen by Israel is now petering out to nothing. Obama continues to vamp on Afghanistan. Nothing on Gitmo, except that Obama won’t make the deadline he promised during the campaign.

Gore Vidal unloading about it all in an interview with the Guardian. I won’t begin to pick a snippet, because you’ve got to read it to believe it.

All this complaining about Pres. Obama and the Democrats. Imagine what will happen when Democrats actually quit talking and get something done.

They will actually get something done, right?

Read full story · Comments are closed

US Urges Israel to Investigate ‘Credible Allegations’

By on 30 September 2009

Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, released a statement saying the United States took the mission’s allegations seriously and encouraged Israel to use “meaningful” efforts to investigate “credible allegations.” However, he also described the report as “deeply flawed,” and said it failed to deal adequately with the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. – New York Times

Yesterday, Mr. Posner, trying to cover all of the bases while also calling Israel out, came out to encourage Israel to take the Goldstone report seriously. This came at the same time that Mr. Goldstone reiterated that, “A culture of impunity in the region has existed far too long.” Defending himself, he didn’t let up on Israel saying, “the response to date of the Government of Israel avoids dealing with the substance of the report.”

On another note, this afternoon, I’ll be meeting and listening to current Israeli Labor party MK Ophir Pines-Paz. (I’ll tweet the meeting.) It should be very interesting. The discussion will include how the Israeli opposition is reacting to Pres. Obama’s initiatives, as well as Netanyahu’s governing dynamics, which coming after last week’s trilateral theater (my words) could be interesting. The position of Pines-Pas amidst all of this makes the closed meeting important. Blurb on Pines-Paz from the invite: As a kind of leader of the dissident rebels within the Labor party in the current governing coalition, Pines-Paz is not only well-placed to take stock of the disunity within Israel’s center-left, but also has a great insider’s knowledge of what’s going on with broader political developments.

In other dramatic news, Israel will release 20 Palestinian women from jail in exchange for a proof of life video showing Cpl. Gilad Shalit is still alive.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Obligatory Obama – McChrystal Story

By on 30 September 2009

Well, this was predictable. …and right on cue.

It doesn’t matter to Obama’s critics that he gets weekly briefings from SecDef Gates, which obviously would include Afghanistan.

szep_afghan-obama

The second “60 Minutes” aired Gen. Stanley McChrystal answering that he’d only met with Pres. Obama once since he’d taken over his Afghan command it was clear what the soundbite of the week was going to be. Those on the right jumped on it, with everyone else following behind. So, it’s not a coincidence that Pres. Obama will be speaking with his national security team later today, which will include McChrystal via secure video. The New York Times was quick to spin the normal chain of command into a rift, complete with breathless postulating.

When President Obama looks at the screen in the Situation Room on Wednesday, he will find a face he has not seen lately except in newspapers. There, via secure video from Kabul, will be Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, his commander in Afghanistan, explaining directly to the president for the first time why more troops are needed.

… General McChrystal has denied any rift with the White House, though his request for up to 40,000 more troops has created a political problem for a president whose liberal base is increasingly speaking out against the war. In an interview last week, General McChrystal emphasized that he had been given complete freedom to conduct his strategic review and troop request.

Also using the newly scheduled meetings to gather the usual suspects, with Michael O’Hanlon offering criticism on Pres. Obama for utilizing his SecDef as his point man on Afghanistan, instead of the commander on the ground.

Still, questions arose again after the general, responding to a reporter’s question, said on the CBS program “60 Minutes” on Sunday that he had talked with the president once since assuming command in June.

Some supporters said Mr. Obama had made a mistake not to consult more directly with his commander.

“I don’t think I can defend him for being out of touch with his commander,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. “He has other people who advise him. But there’s no one else with the feel on the ground that McChrystal has.”

Can a “surprise” visit from Obama to Afghanistan be far behind?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ronnie, Mike, and Bad Democrats

By on 29 September 2009

I just love seeing Ronald Reagan outed for his atrocious economic policies. I wish Mr. Obama had learned the lesson, too, but he still touts Reagan in ways that are hard to understand.

Moore’s making the rounds, with this interview on “Hardball” a good one. He also leveled threats to Democrats who think voting against the public option is good politics.

“To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want,” Moore told supporters of women’s groups and unions gathered at the headquarters of the government watchdog group Public Citizen. “That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.”

[...] “You think that we’re just going to go along with you because you’re Democrats? You should think again,” he told the Tuesday crowd in a speech that was carried to members of the media dialed into a conference call. “Because we’ll find Republicans who are smart enough to realize that the majority of Americans want universal healthcare. That’s right. That’s absolutely right. Don’t take this for granted.”

One Democrat already struggling, according to Rasmussen, is Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. She doesn’t top 50% against her Republican challengers, which as an incumbent automatically makes her vulnerable.

But the big one to watch is Sen. Harry “get along” Reid, who is a “toss up,” according to Charlie Cook, with Politico doing a serious right up about Reid’s challenges, but also his supposed gifts, as well as Durbin v. Schumer as leader, though nobody’s talking about it. I’ve never been a fan of Mr. Reid, having had a couple of exchanges with him that left me cold. That said, I do like his son Rory Reid very much, so I hope his dad’s problems don’t blow back on him.

It’s no secret that off-year elections can be tough on the ruling party. Some Democrats we’d be better off without. Maybe that’s a lesson that needs to be taught, especially if we can’t get a solid public option and a real health care reform bill passed.

What good is a majority if you don’t use the power?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Game Still On

By on 29 September 2009

–updated–

Rockefeller amendment on public option fails: 8 yeas – 15 nays.

(Baucus voted nay, then smiled at Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln.)

Schumer amendment on public option fails: 10 yeas – 13 nays.

(Baucus voted nay again, kept on smiling at Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln.)

Ensign, the GOP’s veterinarian, just spent some time pontificating about “best practices.” Woof.

The headline of the day: More Americans Believe In UFOs Than Oppose A Public Option.

Just to note, it’s not a bad sign that Schumer’s amendment got to 10 yeas.

…as for the photo, Obama didn’t get game by giving in when it got tough. Keep pushing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Public Option Moment

By on 29 September 2009

–updated–

Could it be that all of your work is paying off? All those calls and pushing politicians to do the right thing is taking hold?

Senator Rockefeller blasted insurance companies today in a performance that is worthy a Democratic fighter on principle. “They are getting away with banditry and they revel in it,” Rockefeller said bluntly.

Harkin says he has the votes to pass the public option.

Listening to Senators Rockefeller and Schumer today on the health care debate, these two Democrats have been stellar. Bingamon and Conrad sound like a version of the Bickersons. Understanding that Conrad is a numbers geek, he’s really gotten on my nerves during this debate.

The Hill:

Sen. Charles Schumer has revived the prospect of a public insurance option in the Senate’s version of healthcare reform.

Whether it ultimately passes may depend on a handful of first-term Democrats who owe their seats, in significant measure, to the support they received from Schumer (D-N.Y.) when he headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in 2006 and 2008.

TPM caught John (I’m still senator despite my paid mistress) Ensign’s gun moment on tape (I was driving at the time).

“Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?”

It’s destined to be a GOP classic, though not in a good way.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dear Male Democrats, Abortion Is Legal

By on 29 September 2009
abortion

A New York Times story today focuses on how the “abortion fight complicates debate on health care.” It shouldn’t. Abortion is settled law, a civil rights issue for women that has long been decided. The Hyde Amendment doesn’t deserve worship, it should be rewritten to reflect reality. It’s an old argument, but if this was a discussion about what men could do with their bodies we wouldn’t be having the debate.

Male senators, led by Democrats, are leading the fight against allowing abortion access to middle income and poor women, because they have an aversion to allowing public funds to be used for women’s health issues like abortion, which could be used via the health care coverage now being debated. The head Blue Dog of them all, Barack Obama, is pandering to these men, allowing this argument to pick up steam.

After months of pushing the issue, Mr. Stupak said in an interview, Mr. Obama finally called him 10 days ago. “He said: ‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party,’ ” Mr. Stupak said, adding that Mr. Obama did not say whether he supported the segregated-money provision or a more sweeping restriction. “We got his attention, which we never had before.”

After the president called, Mr. Stupak said, Ms. Pelosi agreed to meet with Mr. Stupak on Tuesday to discuss his proposals for the first time, her office confirmed. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, said in a statement, “As we have throughout the process, we are meeting with our members to listen to their concerns, consulting with the administration, and making progress.”

The Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote this week on a proposed amendment from Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, to restrict the use of federal subsidies.

Somebody needs to tell all of these men that abortion is legal. That women won the civil right to control our bodies decades ago. Regardless of means. Of course, with that comes responsibility on all fronts, which women should respect and on which we should be held accountable.

Nobody likes to talk frankly about abortion. If the religious right and the foundational hierarchy of a vast array of churches hadn’t allowed contraception to become part of this debate, abortion would be talked about much less. But because the perfect is the enemy of the good, many organized religions even frown on focusing directly on prevention, which has to go well beyond abstinence, to include an agreement on all sides that contraception and prevention must be our first job.

Nothing has done more disservice to young people than the myopic notion that abstinence only is the answer.

We are a juvenile nation in this regard, led by mostly men who are so totally clueless on how to actually prevent abortion that they now are planning to offer health care reform that keeps public funds away from women without the means to help themselves.

The current crop of Democrats in Congress, led by Barack Obama, make me ashamed. These men seem set to push women’s civil rights back by their ignoring a simple fact. Abortion is legal. Worshiping at the altar of the Hyde Amendment, politicians act like this archaic offering should actually preclude what the Supreme Court ruled decades ago. It should be changed to mirror that reality, which must extend to allowing abortions to be funded through the new health care initiative crawling its way through Congress.

Abortion is legal. A poor woman should have as much access as a senator’s daughter. Or a president’s.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Polanski Lawyers to Ask Clinton for ‘Clemency’

By on 28 September 2009
romanpolanski

If Roman Polanski weren’t an award winning film director, having made one of the greatest films of all time, “Chinatown,” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Ann Applebaum agrees, but for very different reasons. Though if this post is true Ms. Applebaum has some explaining to do. If an ordinary citizen, instead of a brilliant auteur, had committed a crime like this and been a fugitive all these years, would such powerful forces align to aid him?

Back in 1977, Mr. Polanski drugged, then raped a 13 year-old, though he said he didn’t know she was that young at the time; plus the judge was rumored to have been a little shady. “Wanted and Desired” chronicled it all. Still, Polanski plead guilty that same year to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor”. Someone remind Ms. Applebaum who insists Polanski “did not commit a crime.”

1977: Los Angeles police arrest Polanski on suspicion of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.” Polanski, 44 at the time, pleads guilty.

He just was never sentenced.

Insert irony alert… This is bubbling up on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, with Polanski born to Jewish parents who escaped Krakow Jewish ghettos after the Nazis invaded.

…and his attorneys are intending to ask Sect. Clinton to grant clemency? Via the Hollywood Reporter:

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the arrest “a bit sinister” and, together with his Polish counterpart Radoslaw Sikorski has written to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, asking her to intervene. The Polish Filmmakers Assn. also called for the release of Polanski, and has asked U.S. authorities to review the case.

But you could choke on the laughter this suggestion elicits. It was Pres. Bill Clinton who sponsored the treaty with Switzerland. Want to bet whether she’ll honor it?

Now, the woman who he raped is now 45 and doesn’t want him punished, in fact, she forgives him and says that a new trial could hurt her own family. Back in January the Hollywood Reporter posted her declaration online. Dredging all the sordid details up will be a nightmare, hurting the victim of a horrendous child rape yet again.

Polanski has been on the run for 30 years. He knew very well that Switzerland had an extradition treaty with the U.S., so he stepped into this one himself. Fighting extradition is a loser. Buck up, face the music. Soundtrack of Mr. Polanski’s choice.

However, that’s not Roman’s choice. He’s going to fight it all the way. Dramatic plot line to the end.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tom Ricks Unloads

By on 28 September 2009
57833456

Remember Iraq?

Well, Tom Ricks does and he’s not happy about what’s going on there. Ricks has been doing an exhausted “unraveling” series, which is now in chapter XXIV. It’s been a jaw dropping read all along.

As everyone looks on towards Afghanistan, pretending we’re no longer involved or responsible for Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno and Iraq Amb. Christopher Hill have come to loggerheads.

What I am hearing is that Odierno is profoundly frustrated with Hill, who despite knowing almost nothing about Iraq has decided after a short time there that it is time to stand back and stop influencing the behavior of Iraqi officials on a daily basis. In addition, I am told, the ambassador believes the war is an Iraqi problem, not something that really concerns Americans anymore, despite the presence of 125,000 American soldiers. On the other hand, the diplomats respond, the military guys believe they have good relationships with Iraqi officials, but, the dips add, how would the soldiers really know? Because unlike Hill’s posse, they don’t speak Arabic. Which brings to mind my favorite saying of Warren Buffett, that if you’ve been playing poker for half an hour and you don’t know who the patsy at the table is, you’re the patsy.

But who’s paying attention to Iraq these days?

Tom Ricks:

(Calling Gen. Tony Zinni! Oh wait, the Obama administration screwed him early on about an Iraq post, and he isn’t taking their calls anymore.)

Having read Ricks’s books, when Iraq comes up I always revert back to his article, with Vernon Loeb, on preemption, circa 2002. It should be noted that Michele Flournoy, from CNAS and now Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for Obama, is quoted liberally on the notion of preemption. It’s interesting to re-read, especially looking at Iran.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Wall Street Journal Touts Regime Change in Iran

By on 28 September 2009

Iran reported Monday that it successfully test-fired its most advanced and powerful medium-range missiles as part of war games it said were intended to deter the country’s enemies. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps tested the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles in the third phase of a two-day exercise called The Great Prophet IV, state-run news media reported. The missiles are believed to be capable of striking Israel, U.S. military targets in the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe. …- Iran Test Fires Most Advanced Missiles

Liz Cheney’s going to love this one. The “red state rock star,” as she was called at the “Smart Girls Summit,” Mrs. Cheney is taking her place among the leaders of the Republican Party, as I predicted a long time ago. It goes to her motto:

“We can’t win if we don’t fight,” Ms. Cheney said, noting that she was taught that lesson years before “by a great American, my dad, Dick Cheney.”

It won’t matter that Gates has been emphatic: “There is no military option that does anything more than buy time.” The only hope is that the Iranian government comes to the conclusion that their security is diminished by going nuclear. Anyone taking bets on that one?

But seriously, could there be a worse idea than regime change? From the WSJ:

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.

The author Eliot A Cohen, teaches at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, which doesn’t say much for that department. There is nothing “advanced” about the notion of regime change in Iran, though it’s an idea Dick Cheney championed, which is likely something his daughter will also embrace.

Maybe the GOP’s new “it” girl, Liz Cheney can be the spokesperson on this, because regime change seems to be right down her alley.

Netanyahu and his champions are going to love it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Bill Clinton Said What?

By on 27 September 2009

William Jefferson Clinton seldom misreads the political tea leaves. But a couple of things he said on “Meet the Press” Sunday, as far as I’m concerned, went well wide of the mark. That is unless he believes playing his audience actually works these days. WJC is anything but stupid so that’s not it. He’s simply the eternal optimist. After all, given what he’s faced and where he stands today, why shouldn’t he be?

WJC made the incredible assessment that the right wing is “not as strong” today as it was back during his presidency, while simultaneously saying it’s “as virulent as it was.” It’s weaker, but still extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous (using the definition of virulent)?

MR. GREGORY: Your wife famously talked about the vast right wing conspiracy targeting you. As you look at this opposition on the right to President Obama, is it still there?

PRES. CLINTON: Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It’s not as strong as it was, because America’s changed demographically, but it’s as virulent as it was. I mean, they’re saying things about him–you know, it’s like when they accused me of murder and all that stuff they did. …

There is no evidence of this whatsoever.

That’s not to say that what WJC faced was less dangerous, which it was not; after all he was impeached. But today there are more moving pieces than ever before. Fox News Channel, plus right wing radio with it’s traditional base can whip up quite a frenzy over just about anything, just like in the 1990s. Former President Clinton would have been correct, however, if he’d said that people are wiser to their tactics than they were in the 1990s. On that, perhaps, you can surmise they’re “not as strong,” but not because they have less power, but because people know they’re tricks. That’s not what Clinton was saying.

But even if it was it’s not correct. If he’d been right we’d never have had Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal hijack Pres. Obama’s message putting him behind the 8 ball so that a media blitz out of the ’90s, the full Ginsberg as it’s known, wouldn’t have been necessary. The continuing delay on health care is due directly to the right raising a ruckus, which has gotten Democrats in a real bind that they haven’t figured a way out of yet.

The multiple bailouts have also revitalized and galvanized the right (and many others, too).

That some of Obama’s biggest obstacles are inside the Democratic Party is another angle WJC missed completely, the Blue Dogs being just one element.

Then there was this:

He–but it’s not really good for the Republicans and the country, what’s going on now. I mean, they may be hurting President Obama. They can take his numbers down, they can run his opposition up. But fundamentally, he and his team have a positive agenda for America. Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail, and that’s not a prescription for a good America. We actually need a credible debate about what’s the right balance between continuing to expand the economy through stimulus and beginning to move back to fiscal balance. We need a credible debate about what’s the best way to get to universal coverage.

This is classic Clinton. The idealist on parade. It’s also pure propaganda, with a dash of wishful thinking. Something Pres. Obama appreciated, but again, there is no proof that most people believe it at this point, especially on the financial side.

The right and many others who have moved away from Pres. Obama do not believe “he and his team have a positive agenda for America.” Clinton is dead on, however, when he says Obama’s opponents’ only “agenda seems to be wanting him to fail.” But Clinton ignores what he knows all too well: Republicans do not care if Obama and the Democrats have answers for the country or whether their push back against Democratic goals are good for the country. As someone who experience the right’s wrath, Clinton knows an “agenda… wanting (a Democratic president) to fail” can have the desired outcome the Republicans want. Again, see where the right pushed the health care debate.

Former President Clinton then does something wholly infuriating. He butters up Olympia Snowe.

Now, the one Republican who’s come up with a good idea is Senator Snowe. She deserves a lot of credit for saying when we did this Medicare prescription drug bill, instead of giving the government the power to negotiate for lower prices we gave the drug companies a chance to offer them, but we held the power in reserve. And if there was any state in America where there was no competition, you could do it. So let’s do that for health care. That’s a good idea. That’s, that’s the kind of debate the country needs, and I hope that the Republicans will come forward with it. These…

Ugh.

Then Gregory, who seemed to be pushing one right wing talking point after another through the entire interview, asks about a repeat of ’94 in 2010.

MR. GREGORY: But do you worry about a repeat of ’94 politically?

PRES. CLINTON: It, it–there’s no way they can make it that bad, for several reasons. Number one, the country is more diverse and more interested in positive action. Number two, they’ve seen this movie before, because they had eight years under President Bush when the Republicans finally had the whole government, and they know the results were bad. And number three, the Democrats haven’t taken on the gun lobby like I did, and they took 15 out of our members out. So I don’t think it’ll be–whatever happens, it’ll be manageable for the president.

The country may indeed by “more interested in positive action”, with a health care win for Obama possibly having the immediate impact of dissolving the right’s power, this progress making a difference for some. But what WJC misses completely is the mood of the activist wing of the Democratic Party, which cannot be mollified by just any health care bill so Obama and congressional Democrats can say they got something done on the subject.

The globe trotting Clinton of today, even as he engages with new media on several levels, is far away from the white hot heat people are feeling about the direction of the current agenda. Just look at the big donor syndrome, with money dropping off a cliff for Democrats, which the Washington Post recently covered.

Mr. Clinton doesn’t have to worry about that anymore. His big money games are now global. That his wife’s boss is Barack Obama also didn’t lend itself to candor, plus the fact that WJC is a good former president. But on some things his global role prohibits him from reading the Democratic pulse correctly or even if he does talking about it candidly. But let’s all hope his idealism catches fire. Soon.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tension

By on 27 September 2009

szep_afghanistan

It doesn’t get any better than this editorial cartoon from Paul Szep.

No matter what side you’re on regarding Afghanistan, Karzai and corruption are our biggest enemies right now.

Progressives from all quarters want to completely withdraw. MoveOn.org is pushing hard on that score. Sen. Feingold wants a timetable. The overwhelming majority of readers around here wanting out altogether as well.

So, I’m outnumbered on Afghanistan. And while I’m against further escalation and adding more troops at this point, I’m opposed to a complete withdrawal, even as the entire operation in Afghanistan worries me greatly. Hearing McChrystal may ask for as many as 40,000 troops, while some say that even that amount won’t really matter, gives me heartburn. But looking at Pakistan, which is the real issue, I don’t see how we keep the region from exploding without security in Afghanistan. Waiting for the experts to figure that one out is taking too long for comfort.

Then I see this headline from the Weekly Standard: Déjà vu: Afghan Surge Skeptics Same As Iraq Surge Naysayers. If that was truly the comparison, Afghanisan to Iran, which I do not think it is, there would be no struggling about what to do.

The Administration has hit a collision course of opinions. The New York Times reporting:

Mr. Powell is one of the three people outside the administration, along with Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Jack Reed, considered by White House aides to be most influential in this current debate. All have expressed varying degrees of doubt about the wisdom of sending more forces to Afghanistan.

Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has warned of repeating the mistakes of Vietnam, where he served, and has floated the idea of a more limited counterterrorist mission. Mr. Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and an Army veteran, has not ruled out supporting more troops but said “the burden of proof” was on commanders to justify it.

In the West Wing, beyond Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has advocated an alternative strategy to the troop buildup, other presidential advisers sound dubious about more troops, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, according to people who have spoken with them. At the same time, Mr. Obama is also hearing from more hawkish figures, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. …

Clinton’s position likely comes from security side looking at the threat to the population and the inability to get enough help in to the Afghan people, because of a lack of security. Holbrooke as well. Though there is clearly a large field of challenges that concern State.

But an all in strategy on building the Afghan nation will be tough with the American people clearly not behind it, a deadly political warning that Obama is no doubt watching. It’s also not been proven, in my opinion, that Obama is willing to risk everything on Afghanistan. Is he really a believer? I just don’t get that sense.

This reality should stop everyone from considering an escalation:

Other officers, who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and say they admire General McChrystal nonetheless, have privately expressed doubt that additional troops will make a difference. Others question the broader impact of such a buildup on the overall armed forces.

I’ve resisted, at every turn, any comparisons to Vietnam, but if this is the prevailing feeling, adding more troops is foreign policy suicide.

All of this will be discussed on the Sunday shows. And don’t forget that Christiane Amanpour is on after Fareed Zakaria on CNN. The best two hours of television on Sunday.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TM-DC Podcast: From Bibi to Health Care & Terrorism

By on 26 September 2009

Enjoy the podcast. Also available via RSS feed, as well as ITunes.

Some links to go along with it are below, beyond topics I’ve covered this week.

On hot topics, Qadhafi’s translator collapses, plus much more in the much lighter side of the news; after all, this is a podcast, so entertainment is part of it. All before I get down to a lot of foreign policy talk. It’s been that kind of week.

The following broke after I recorded the broadcast, but it’s too good not to include. George Stephanopoulos, with Gates giving a classic response:

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Ahmadinejad says that President Obama is mistaken and the US owes Iran an apology. Is Iran going to get one?

GATES: Not a chance.

hillary_laurarozen
photo via Laura Rozen

Emily’s List is hitting Sen. Jon Kyl with a petition after yesterday.

What is being reported as a serious terrorist plot has been thwarted. Everyone is adding caveats to this story, however, because we’re all a little gun shy after the Bush-Cheney era of crying wolf. Something to keep your eyes on.

An explanation of what Netanyahu was railing against, the Goldstone report. However, not all Israelis appreciated Netanyahu’s rant.

CBO numbers being used to wrangle Blue Dogs.

…and something to ponder, as people from all over the political spectrum start weighing in negatively on Pres. Obama. Including one expert over at the New America Foundation, where I’ve got some friends, in a devastating post entitled “Obama the Impotent.”

On the other side, is Barack Obama and his administration “Folding Too Quickly to GOP Pressure”? One conservative thinks so and says why.

Okay, full disclosure. The writer of this article is from the conservative part of the political firmament. However, he’s struck by what seems like a relative lack of backbone in the Obama administration. As far as my side of the ideological divide goes, hey, great. We’ll push as much as we can to either get what we want or make sure that the left doesn’t get what it wants.

However, were this writer a Democrat, he might start getting a bit distraught over how quickly the Obama team caves on both principle and defense of its own supporters and colleagues. …

Obviously, the writer has been reading the smart comments In the News. Everyone encouraged to post (or comment) there. It’s easy.

Anyway, enjoy the podcast.

…oh, and about that picture above. It’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heading to cocktails after a hard day’s work during UNGA. No wonder I relate to her so well.

Read full story · Comments are closed

9.25.09 – From ‘You Lie’ to Iran, Bibi, Barack, Health Care, & Terrorism

By on 25 September 2009


Photobucket[podcast]http://www.taylormarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/taylorlive.2009-09-25.161114.mp3[/podcast]

Read full story · Comments are closed

Why Having Women in Congress is Important

By on 25 September 2009

Jon Kyl plays the foil.

Via Think Progress.

Jon Kyl: “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Debbie Stabenow: (interrupting) “I think your mom probably did.” …

A response a woman would be more likely to give; a critical point that matters to the health of American families and our country’s future. Nothing less.

Not surprised it was lost on the good Senator from Arizona, who just happens to be a right wing Republican and a colleague of John McCain, someone who voted against equal pay for women.

Senator Kyl being part of the “family values” crowd that evidently thinks we can have healthy families without healthy moms.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Under Obama, Our Banking System Still Sucks

By on 25 September 2009

The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior. – Democrats Are Jarred by Drop In Fundraising

Dylan Ratigan acquitted himself very well in his interview with Michael Moore.

I challenged Joe “I am a capitalist” Scarborough, doubtful he could do the same. That is, if they even invite Mr. Moore on “Morning Joe.”

One of the classic things about Moore’s new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story” which opens next week, is that he fully and completely eviscerates Ronald Reagan on the economy and deregulation. One classic snippet shows Don Regan telling President Ronnie to hurry it up during a speech, with other clips showing Reagan the pitchman, which is what he was as president.

That’s why I just cannot understand why Barack Obama continually invokes Ronald Reagan. It’s one thing to have fled Jimmy Carter’s weak wrist grip in 1980. Though having been one of those people who started out rooting for Kennedy, only to feel no choice but to run into Ronnie’s direction, it didn’t take long before I knew I’d been hoodwinked. That Obama still doesn’t get the disaster of Reagan’s presidency is stunning, especially since he’s having to clean up after what he began, not only economically but in Central Asia as well. And Obama invokes Reagan while never mentioning the two-term presidency of WJC, which is his right, but the ignorance of elevating Reagan given what we now know is really unfortunate.

Moore on Tim Geithner, Paulson and many others, including Democratic Senators Conrad and Dodd, is positively vicious. This is particularly true of Geithner. To paraphrase, which I tweeted last night: Geithner screwed up everything he touched. “Gives you the wrong answer but the answer you want”.

As for Obama, it’s “Government Goldman” in charge. …as in Goldman Sachs, of course.

We are so screwed. But you already know this, don’t you? You’re living it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iran Tells IAEA of Second Secret Nuclear Facility

By on 25 September 2009

–updated–

Talk about an end of the week news dump of news dumps. Another inheritance marker from the Republicans.

This secret enrichment happened under George W. Bush’s nose, while he and his team were too busy ostracizing Iran into an “axis of evil”, instead of trying to actually engage them. Not that this would have changed the outcome, but let’s be clear that the Republican idea of sitting Iran in the world corner sure as hell didn’t work.

Pres. Obama is about to speak at the G20, directly confronting the news that surfaced last night that Iran has built a covert nuclear facility where it has enriched uranium, which the Iranians broke to the IAEA via a letter.

President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials.

The revelation, which the three leaders will make before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit here, appears bound to add urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Mr. Obama, along with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, will demand that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran. [...]

Reuters is also reporting on the Iran revelations:

“The agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility,” he said.

It’s not in the category of weaponization, but the dance music has started in Netanyahu‘s hotel room.

And when all this is done someone needs to explain to me why Mark I Never Met a Union I Wouldn’t Bust Penn was doing pontificating about Iran on “Morning Joe”? Someone at MSNBC has obviously lost their mind.

Read Gary Sick.

Marc Lynch says…

..I actually think that this public revelation makes war less rather than more likely. The timing of the announcement, immediately following the consultations at the UN and the G-20 and just before the Geneva meetings, makes it seem extremely likely that the Obama administration has been waiting for just the right moment to play this card. Now they have. It strengthens the P5+1 bargaining position ahead of October 1, changes Iranian calculations, and lays the foundations for a more serious kind of engagement. So now let’s see how it changes the game.

Read full story · Comments are closed

NEWSBITES: Bibi Blasts U.N., G20 Locked Down, & Gifts

By on 24 September 2009

–updated, First Lady gifts to G20 spouses–

Israel’s Netanyahu unloaded today in a speech that quoted Churchill, while also invoking Nazis. Michael Goldfarb’s review was succinct: “Bibi kills at the UN.”

Netanyahu made it clear that if Israel is to give up more for peace, as he judged it, that their security must be certain, tying settlements and Iran in a nice little bow without mentioning either. Mr. Netanyahu also used the opportunity to ridicule the Goldstone findings that found war crimes were committed by Israel during their Gaza assault, something that was expected.

Daniel Levy took exception to Israel’s reaction to the Commission’s findings last week in the Guardian:

The Goldstone report is only the most recent, albeit the most important, of a series of investigations that Israel has chosen to dismiss as biased. Israel has, I would argue, mistakenly chosen not to undertake its own independent commission of inquiry. Had that taken place, the Goldstone report would either never have been commissioned or (assuming a credible Israeli inquiry) would never have suggested referral to the UN security council or the international criminal court. Instead, Israel produced a 157-page internal report mainly conducted by the IDF on the Gaza operation, but this serves as an exercise in self-justification, not investigation.

Daniel also sent me a link to his very interesting read out on what I viewed as trilateral theater. I make it a habit to pay attention when Daniel is making his argument. One small section:

[...] By holding Israel’s feet to the fire over settlements for a sustained period, America may actually have achieved a great deal in strategically advancing the two-state goal. The most significant effect may be this: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s preferred approach was to focus on interim issues and confidence-building measures (CBMs) and to avoid negotiating the core issues (territories, settlements, Jerusalem, etc.) on which his positions are the most unreasonable. In particular, Netanyahu has attempted to advance an economic peace agenda, with his supporters feverishly spinning the idea that the West Bank is becoming an economic paradise. The Obama team has staked out a clear position – items number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the interim/CBM agenda are entitled “settlement freeze.” They have been giving short shrift, including today, to the economic peace narrative (they acknowledge the desirability of progress on the economy and freedom of movement, and should even congratulate themselves that the partial progress made is mainly a result of the heat Israel feels on settlements).

The result: The settlement freeze focus has made Netanyahu’s natural comfort zone — the interim/CBM world — a prohibitively uncomfortable place to inhabit. So paradoxically, it is Netanyahu who now feels compelled to embrace and prefer negotiations on permanent status end-game issues. That is no small achievement. …

I’ll slip in here something the New America Foundation sent out on Tuesday, which is a letter in support of Comprehensive Middle East Peace, signed by an impressive array of individuals and groups.

Jonathan Freedland has another piece worth considering, which I missed in the Guardian, also on Tuesday, which was a busy news day. Upshot: don’t write Obama off yet. As I’ve said before, when it comes to the Middle East, Pres. Obama is our best hope of securing progress, though something serious needs to happen quicker rather than later.

Next… A sobering snapshot of the G20 atmosphere in Pittsburgh from Brian Williams. Here’s a bit of a back and forth he had on MSNBC today:

“… here we are in one of the great, vibrant American cities of all time… I don’t know if there is a way to express exactly how much they have shut down the city of Pittsburgh. This vibrant place, you can’t hear a bus, a car, an aircraft; one police boat just went by a short time ago. But they have controlled the protests by draining the city of any population, any moving people. There’s a Pirates day game going on, the last crowd count was 200 people. … There are Humvees at every intersection. It’s an errie sight. … It’s kind of a post 9/11, don’t ask any questions, lock it down. … … .. (People) have been swept from the streets. Parts of downtown Pittsburgh look like Sarajevo at the height of the war. …” – Brian Williams, NBC News

MSNBC news also reports local small businesses owners are “irate” over it. Once excited about having the traffic, downtown has been shut down for four days. Regardless, a confrontation occurred with tear gas fired pepper spray and smoke canisters at protesters later in the day, which, as always, looks dramatic on TV.

From the White House, an itemization of gifts presented by Mrs. Obama. Very cool goodies:

Gifts Presented By Mrs. Obama on the Occasion of The Pittsburgh Summit 2009

The presentation of gifts to visiting foreign dignitaries is one of the oldest traditions of international protocol. Mrs. Obama has chosen to present her guests with a gift that is both personal and historical: a one-of-a-kind porcelain tea set, White House honey, and a honey vase designed exclusively for the occasion of The Pittsburgh Summit 2009.

The platinum and purple porcelain design of the tea cups is classic and contemporary and inspired by the gold and purple White House China that President and Mrs. Lincoln used in 1861. The use of platinum on the saucer symbolizes Pittsburgh’s steel industry roots; the use of purple is the color of the state flower of Illinois, the purple violet, home states of both Presidents Lincoln and Obama. The porcelain is one-of-a-kind and made by a century old family business in Illinois.

[...] The White House Honey produced for this occasion came from the first beehive located on White House property near the First Lady’s White House Kitchen Garden. …

From UNGA comes a very amusing “overheard and overseen” from Laura Rozen:

Overheard and overseen: an aide to a senior State Department official trying to negotiate a governmentally-approved payment method for a lunch to be hosted by said official. Maitre’d at the Waldorf lobby coffee shop was concerned about the arrangement leading to a possible walk out, but aide was assuring him that so and so so and so, would not stiff the joint. Maitre’d said they could not accept a check, even from the U.S. government accounting office.

The best reading list on Afghanistan I’ve ever found.

…continuing in that same vein, I’ve been receiving some predictable incoming on my Afghanistan stance, but also that I feel McChrystal was a good choice, including that he’s doing his best to tell the Obama administration the unvarnished truth; understanding his assessment happened before the election. George Packer, a much respected expert on the subject, says it plainly:

The only surprise is the impressiveness of McChrystal’s analysis. I was wrong in May when I questioned the appointment of a special-operations man to run this war. McChrystal’s report is written in plain English, it’s self-critical, and it shows more understanding of the nature of the fight in Afghanistan than most journalism and academic work. The U.S. military now believes that the Afghan government is just as much a threat to success as the Taliban. That’s a bold conclusion, one that our civilians have not been willing to reach, publicly at least. And the description of the different Taliban networks is as clarifying as it is disturbing.

Ending on a light note, China reacts to Sarah’s speech, while WSJ smuggled some excerpts out:

Sarah Palin’s first brush with China has not made her many friends. “Palin Gives Speech in Hong Kong, Called Boring, Members of the Audience Left Early” was how Ming Pao, a popular Hong Kong newspaper, put it in a headline today. A commenter in a Chinese Web forum wrote of Palin’s speech: “This is such a joke. Since when does China need the U.S. to point the way to the future?”

None of this will faze Sarah’s fans.

And I need to add one more thing. An historic moment for the United Nations Security Council, which voted unanimously on UNSC Resolution 1887 on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Nuclear Disarmament. The White House put out a fact sheet. It’s an historic moment for the UN, but also for Pres. Obama, who was the first U.S. president to chair a Security Council meeting. During it he quoted Ronald Reagan.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pelosi: ‘Trigger an excuse for not doing anything’

By on 24 September 2009

The question in her presser was as follows: What is your feeling about a trigger for the public option as a potential compromise, and what is the feeling of the caucus about a trigger?

We’re thinking and deciding about it. And the evidence seems to point, at this caucus that I just went to, that a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything. [...] – Speaker Pelosi

With one sentence Pelosi launched a direct shot at Sen. Snowe, but also the White House, which regardless of some push back remains open to triggers.

Of course, Pelosi’s direct shot doesn’t mean it won’t become a reality. There will be increasing pressure on all Democrats, including groups that help those Democrats get elected, to form a united front to get something, anything passed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Breitbart Gets His Due

By on 24 September 2009

–updated and bumped–

breitbart

The man who was Arianna Huffington’s researcher as she launched Huffington Post, before he joined Drudge, has put conservative muckraking on the map again. It’s the first time since Drudge leaked the Monica Lewinsky story, because Newsweek didn’t have the spine, that conservatives have landed a big story that has sent shockwaves through their political adversaries.

According to TPMMuckraker, ACORN has been contacted by the FBI and the Brooklyn district attorney’s office in connection with what Breitbart’s investigation has revealed. Bertha Lewis, ACORN’s CEO, has also notified the IRS that their low-income free tax help unit is going to be shut down for the short-term, according to a report in the Washington Post, until after “an external review.”

With ACORN’s scalp under his belt, James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles and Breitbart.com LLC have now been sued by ACORN for supposedly illegally taping their staff, the case being brought in Maryland. This is so many kinds of stupid it’s hard to fathom. With so much negative publicity, the smart move would be to do multiple mea culpas, go on a firing spree, then bring in squeaky clean new partners to turn the organization inside out. And that’s just for starters.

A creature of Hollywood, Breitbart knows the old axiom well, which applies double for what he does: no such thing as bad publicity. That is, unless you’re ACORN. Jack Schafer gives him “two cheers.”

And people are still wondering why Democratic Rep. Barney Frank went on Fox? Let’s also remember that Mr. Frank has publicly defended ACORN when it was deserved, while reminding conservative like Michelle Bachman that the organization was also significantly funded by the Bush administration. Via Fox News:

Frank noted that ACORN receiving $14.2 million in funding from Bush administration through HUD.

“And I do not remember during the period from 2001 to 2006 when the Republicans controlled the White House, HUD, the House and the Senate, and ACORN was receiving millions of dollars, any Republican objection to this,” he said.

[...] “And I reiterate that my own view is that the appropriate response here would be to have the Obama administration continue what it began with regard to the Census and withhold any funding or authority from ACORN pending a very serious examination of their past behavior and significant changes regarding the future.”

After hearing Andrew Breitbart rail at CPAC this past spring, anyone listening had to know the man was going on the war path. No one and I mean no one anticipated that this was the guy who would slay ACORN, which led to not only the Senate voting against the group, but the House voting to strip ACORN of all their cash, then punish anyone who got involved further with the group.

The Washington Independent does a huge story on Mr. Breitbart today:

Who were “these people?” They were not just the leaders or members of ACORN itself. “They” were the Democratic Party, the White House, the progressive Center for American Progress and its president John Podesta. The “Democrat-media complex” is Breitbart’s name for the whole apparatus. “We deprived them of information,” Breitbart explained, “so that they couldn’t come up with a vile, kill-the-messenger attack with the media doing the groundwork for them.”

The success of Breitbart’s strategy was immediate, stunning, and is still ricocheting around the political world. Five days after the story broke, the U.S. Senate voted 83-7 to prevent ACORN from receiving any federal funding. Two days later, the House of Representatives did the same. Meanwhile, Breitbart was talking to more reporters, amused at how the “kill-the-messenger attack” was playing out. When one report from The Washington Post called him for a story about O’Keefe and Giles, Breitbart compared their tape to the photos of Abu Ghraib prison released in April 2004. …

With the launch of BigGovernment, he is gaining new recognition as the conservative movement’s most successful — in terms of damaging liberals — new media pioneer. …

I’m not sure the legality of the filming, being labeled “entrapment” by some, is really going to be a case breaker for the public. The PR damage is done unless ACORN completely reinvents itself, starting with someone brought in to do a thorough review.

I’m all for fighting all the way, never letting conservatives smear our allies, hitting back hard. Media Matters does this today, attempting to turn the light back on conservatives by reminding people that Republicans ignored Abramoff, as well as military contractor scandals. No matter how true, this is a ridiculous tit-for-tat argument that serves no one.

Standing by friends is a test of loyalty. But it’s never a good idea to lose your own credibility in the process, especially when tough talk is the only hope to save them.

Even if ACORN wins their lawsuit, it doesn’t mean they’ve earned back the public’s trust.

Read full story · Comments are closed