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 | October, 2009

Plouffe, Wright, Clinton, and Edwards

By on 31 October 2009

updated

George Stephanopoulos has a “read it here first” post up on David Plouffe’s new book before David Gregory has him first on “Meet the Press.” Plouffe is still the most popular guy at the political party.

But get this, I called it right about Wright, according to Plouffe:

2) The campaign was in denial about Rev. Wright:

By March 12, 2008, when ABC News began to air explosive excerpts from Rev. Wrights sermons, the campaign was in denial about the significance of the Rev. Wright problem. Plouffe writes:

“We had…failed to discuss the various options we might explore vis-à-vis Wright. We never raised with Obama the idea of leaving the church, or discussed with him any detail of how we would respond if inflammatory statements were to emerge. We were in denial. In any competitive enterprise, you need to know everything your opponent knows about you and limit the number of surprises by getting out damaging information about yourself before it can be used to sucker punch you.”

Denial. It’s just stunning, because it was so predictable what would happen. I laid that one out early. To add, all they had to do was listen to Sean Hannity, who had the Wright stuff from the start. Stephanopoulos also reports on Obama’s reaction in the heat of the scandal. Interesting stuff.

Next up, John Edwards…

John-Edwards_Schmuck

Remembering back during the primaries and how visceral it got between Edwards and Clinton, I also remember how down and dirty Edwards got using Mudcat Saunders’ strategy coupled with invoking Jesse Helms. Right then and there I knew what Edwards was willing to do to win or keep himself inside the presidential ring.

5) Edwards is as craven as you think:

Sometime after the South Carolina debate Plouffe got a call from a senior Edwards Advisor who said Edwards was willing to announce the end of his campaign and join forces with Obama to defeat Clinton. When Plouffe asked if he could raise this with Obama the Edwards advisor said, “Yes.…Just to be clear we’re going to talk to the Clinton people too. That’s not where John’s heart is, but he is at the point of maximum leverage now.”

“Obama’s answer,” Plouffe writes, “was quick and firm: he would cut no deals.”

Considering what we learned later about John Edwards, about what he did, lying to his staff and everyone else about his affair, with Elizabeth helping, his despicable lack of character has now long been established. But the hits keep on coming.

Oh, and about Clinton and the veep job? That comes from an interview with Sect. Clinton by ABC’s Jim Sciutto:

Meanwhile, in the United States, talk about the other administration job she might have had is making waves. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe writes in a new book that the president seriously considered Clinton as his running mate but said Bill Clinton would mean that there were “more than two of us in the relationship.”

Asked whether her husband had cost her an opportunity to be vice president, Clinton said, laughing, “I’m happy with the job I have. … I’m not the kind of person who looks backward, I look forward.”

David Plouffe is hitting the circuit, including Costco. He’s likely to sell a boatload of books. After the presidential campaign he helped run he earned it.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Drones Over Pakistan

By on 30 October 2009

Incoming, and I’m not just talking about drones in Pakistan. Clinton faced a tough crowd with even tougher questions over U.S. policy of using CIA drone attacks. From the AP:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton came face-to-face Friday with Pakistanis’ simmering anger over U.S. aerial drones firing missiles in their country. She drew back slightly from her blunt remarks suggesting Pakistani officials know where terrorists are hiding.

[...] ”Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?” she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism.

”No, I do not,” Clinton replied.

Another man told her bluntly: ”Please forgive me, but I would like to say we’ve been fighting your war.”

Unless the Pakistanis believe this is their war too, we’re, well, screwed.

Read Jane Mayer’s piece on drones (now online) if you haven’t already. There is a lot of criticism about U.S. drone policy, but where we can’t go what’s the alternative? The Pakistani army has to step up.

Clinton also gave an interview to Andrea Mitchell, who asked about Pres. Obama’s mission to Dover AFB, as well as our involvement in Afghanistan.

ANDREA MITCHELL: A terrible toll. The President took the unusual step of going in the middle of the night to Dover for that very solemn ceremony. What would – what do you think that signifies, and what would you say if you had the opportunity, as you have in the past, to the families of those 18 soldiers who made this ultimate sacrifice?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I really am grateful that the President went, because he did it not only in his – out of his personal concern, but because he does represent our country and the people of our country who are deeply saddened by the loss of the lives of our young men and women who are serving in Afghanistan.

I would say, as I have said on many occasions, both privately and publicly, that their sacrifice is in the great and honorable tradition of those who have gone before them, because they truly are the very best we have in our country. And they are committed to serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult mission that we are now pursuing. But that their sacrifice is part of what we are trying to achieve. And so it is something that should be honored. It is something that every American should be grateful for.

That doesn’t in any way answer the loss and the pain and the grief that their loved ones and the rest of us feel about these losses. But I have no doubt in my mind that they are fighting for their country in a faraway place for very big stakes.

Sect. Clinton is taking a very public and visible trip to the most critical foreign policy arenas on Pres. Obama’s plate. No envoys here.

Middle East peace is next:

Clinton also commented on Iran, as the United States seeks clarification on whether the nation will agree to a deal brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency aimed at resolving a dispute about Iran’s nuclear program. “I am going to let the process play out, but clearly we are working to determine exactly what they are willing to do,” Clinton said.

The secretary made a vow to Israeli and Palestinian leaders during the CNN interview as well. “We’re going to do everything we can to try to clear away whatever concerns that the parties have, to actually get them into negotiations where they then can thrash out all of these difficult issues,” she said.

Read full story · Comments are closed

House Res. Against Goldstone Report Doesn’t Help Israel

By on 30 October 2009

Travers: We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I’d store munitions would be in a mosque. It’s not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques-one where worshippers were killed-and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship. – MJ Rosenberg

Michael Goldfarb has found another club. Never mind that it won’t do Israel much good to go after J Street, because condemning the Goldstone report will just ignite the usual suspects to say that Israel won’t take responsibility for its actions.

Spencer Ackerman has the text of the House resolution:

RESOLUTION

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.

Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission’ regarding Israel’s conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;

Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission’ to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression’;

Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission’ makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures; … ..

It’s a squeeze play, pure and simple, that intends to empower Netanyahu over Pres. Obama from people who never see the other side of this sorry story, only Israel’s. How’s that working for the Israelis so far?

At the J Street conference this week, over and over again you heard progressive American Jews and their allies like former Sen. Chuck Hagel talk about honoring the Palestinians and their fight for human rights and the ability to live full lives.

Via Ken Silverstein we get another dose of inhumanity.

There are a number of other post-conflict issues in Gaza that need to be addressed. The land is dying. There are toxic deposits from all the munitions that have been dropped. There are serious issues with water—its depletion and its contamination. There is a high instance of nitrates in the soil that is especially dangerous to children. If these issues are not addressed, Gaza may not even be habitable by World Health Organization norms.

The current House resolution as it stands won’t help Israel or the Palestinians, let alone Sect. Clinton who is meeting with both Abbas and Netanyahu, even as the latter hopes to use the Goldstone report to delay meaningful talks, even if the status quo endangers Israel more than anyone.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What will be the two top issues in 2010?

By on 30 October 2009

bumped

nationaljournal_1

That was the question asked by the National Journal in its weekly new media poll, getting answers from the left and right. Both lefties and righties agreed that it would be the economy: left by 93.8%; right by 82.4%. From there partisan opinion diverged.

I was the only one who weighed in by adding another choice than what the good people at the National Journal gave us in the survey. My second choice was GOTV, because as you’ll see next week from the vote in Virginia, but maybe even New Jersey, Democrats are in real trouble on the enthusiasm meter. Here was my response, adding a category all my own, “Volunteered”:

Economy, GOTV

“The biggest issue for Dems will be turnout, with the right revved up and ready to rumble. I’d go for this combo: economy/GOTV. The bailout blues is far more widespread than Democrats acknowledge. It will fuel the right in 2010. Jobs is an issue building for 2012, as the Obama administration hasn’t had the subject in its narrative at all, mostly due to the desperate financial situation and its reverberations.” Taylor Marsh

Thanks to the National Journal for allowing me to be creative on this one. I’m not very good at political analysis within constructed lines, as the answer usually lies beyond.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Sexism and The Speaker

By on 30 October 2009

It may not be all that you want, but no other person has done it. That it was accomplished by the first female Speaker of the House is no small milestone. It’s not easy for women in politics, especially when your job requires toughness.

But if the speaker is tough, it is also a tough world — especially for a woman.

Baltimore-bred, she has an ear for racing metaphors, and there are days when she might be Winning Colors or Genuine Risk, two famous fillies who won the Derby only to be bumped badly or forced outside in the stretch by the boys in the Preakness.

Her poll numbers among men are devastating. Women tip slightly against her, 36 percent to 31 percent, in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Among men, the ratio is far worse: 2 to 1 against Pelosi. Among older men, it’s 56 percent to 22 percent. …

But not even women fully support Nancy Pelosi. So, you can’t write the disapproval off to pure sexism. Congress has a very low approval rating, which the health care bill may not make any better, especially if the parts of it that impact families and kids aren’t implemented before 2010, as well as whether it’s actually health care “reform” that matters.

All you have to do is read today’s Washington Post ethics story to understand what Pelosi’s up against. That the information was accidentally put on a file sharing network is stunning given its contents.

Add in the Republicans’ aversion to strong women with power and the brains to match, who also happens to beating them at every turn, and out comes the age old gripes. As they’ve launched every campaign against Pelosi they can based on traditional sexist language (see “Pussy Galore” and the RNC’s keep Pelosi in her place campaign), so you still have a powerful combination against the first female Speaker of the House, who also happens to be the first person who got health care through that chamber without the Democratic president lifting a finger.

For women in leadership roles it’s a tough, complicated road to success.

Read full story · Comments are closed

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

By on 30 October 2009

“… Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, has been left to round up votes for a tough public option without much help from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. You know, the idea that the President could have maybe come in and said, you know what, here’s ten guys that I can sway. If the President of the United States calls it’s tough to say no. We’ve kind of been left to do this on our own and you really need the full-throated support of a president at a moment like this when we’re having a big national debate. … But really, I don’t think we can close this out unless the President really helps us.” – Rep. Anthony Weiner

The above stinger of a quote came earlier this evening on Rachel Maddow’s show. It needs no analysis, because we all know this has been what’s going on or not going on as the case may be.

In another venue, TheStreet.com’s Eric Jackson (via Memeorandum) absolutely peels Sen. Evan Byah’s wife the day the senator from the good state of Indiana found himself flopping like a fish on the dock after getting hooked. Mr. Bayh thought he could pull a Joe Lieberman, but it didn’t go over so well, especially when it drew attention to his wife’s insurance company ties that allow her to keep the family living in style, but only if the status quo is kept. You’ll get it after reading this:

Susan Bayh’s corporate directorships provide a significant chunk of the Bayh family income. In addition to the $2 million she’s received from WellPoint since 2003, she has received likely double that from additional corporate boards she has sat on. Last year, for example, she sat on four other boards besides WellPoint’s.

She collected $656,062 in cash and stock for all her board work last year, but half ($327,000) came from her WellPoint directorship. Because she first started taking work as a corporate director in 1994 (when she was 34 — when Sen. Bayh was still Gov. Bayh), she has served on 14 boards.

She’s actually cut back on her directorships in recent years. In 2006, she served on six corporate boards and received just under $1 million in total compensation for the year. That year, Evan Bayh received the standard $165,000 annual salary for serving as a senator.

Joe Conason lays out Joe Lieberman, who’s got his own wife troubles when it comes to insurance companies and caving on health care.

Howard Dean also asked tonight on “Countdown” why the House bill has a co-opt in it. Take a guess. It’s not hard.

The Democratic party has real problems that the health care debate is revealing fully. There’s no leadership and too many members that know it and are going their own way, regardless of what’s the best road on health care, as well as cost effective. It’s not an impressive performance by anyone at the top, which continues to concern me looking down the road when it comes to convincing anyone why they should vote a Democratic majority back into power in 2010.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Secretary of Frankness

By on 29 October 2009

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” she told a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in Lahore. “Maybe they are not ‘get-at-able’. I don’t know,” she said. … While acknowledging the many bumps in U.S.-Pakistan relations, Clinton nevertheless asked for understanding, patience and commitment, saying her own experience in deciding to join the Obama administration after running against Barack Obama for the presidency was instructive. – Clinton puzzled at Pakistan failure to find al Qaeda

Today Secretary Clinton leveled what has become her signature frankness, this time in Pakistan, which has a headline on the Washington Post website as: “Clinton gripes on Pakistan efforts.” It seems the Secretary is, let’s just say, curious as to why the Pakistanis cannot find Al Qaeda in FATA and other areas of the country.

Clinton was met in Pakistan yesterday by a bomb in Peshawar targeting a women’s market where 80 people were reported killed. She’s had a close relationship with Pakistan going back t Benazir Bhutto, but it’s her first trip since becoming secretary of state. It’s a place she knows and appreciates.

This bluntness from Clinton is something that is uncommon in the Obama administration, which is likely why she gets along so well with SecDef Gates. Others may prefer a more muddled message, camouflaged in vague non-specifics, instead of simply coming out and saying what you mean and what’s on your mind. That’s simply Clinton’s style, a manifestation of who she is as chief diplomat. Coddling our friends, especially those getting billions of dollars, just isn’t her style. She explains why:

hillary_pakistan

“I am more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States,” Clinton said, “”but this is a two way street. If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together” then “there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment.”

I wonder if it’s appreciated in Pakistan (or in the Administration by some), where Clinton drilled right into the heart of the matter, since not only is the ISI aware of Al Qaeda’s presence, but has had a relationship with the group forever; with the Pakistani Taliban a different breed altogether than what’s in Afghanistan, closely linked with Al Qaeda. Taking it further, because to talk Pakistan you must include Afghanistan as well, the Pakistani government is funding the Afghan Taliban and have been for quite some time. There is no sense in pretending otherwise in public, as everyone knows it.

Al Qaeda is no longer this globally linked network of powerhouse jihadists and they haven’t been for several years. Most experts I talk and listen to press that they’re more opportunistic, if you will, coming into an area of instability or rife with dissatisfaction to take advantage of the situation or any void that may exist. There isn’t a central leader giving orders and likely won’t be again, including in Afghanistan where Gen. Jim Jones (and others) estimate there is “less than 100 operating in the country.” It’s the border sanctuaries and Pakistan that’s the problem, which is why Clinton was so frank. We’re paying billions and blood, so Pakistan’s role has to get out in the open.

Next stop for Clinton? Abu Dhabi, then Jerusalem, via Laura Rozen, who also has some great shots of Clinton dressed in electric blue in Lahore:

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Senator George Mitchell will hold bilateral meetings this weekend with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas, in the region,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Thursday afternoon on a flight from Lahore, Pakistan.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan in the Caucus Room: Levin Slams Cheney

By on 29 October 2009

–expanded piece cross-posted at Huffington Post–
Edited and updated with reporting from the event.

“Fueling the drama, there are some in Washington who are willing to toss cheap and easy lines about presidential ‘dithering,’ or alleging the president is ‘afraid’ to reach a decision, in an effort to push him to immediately, indeed automatically, endorse recommendations from a general who is highly capable, but whose focus is understandably more narrow than that of Secretary Gates or President Obama.” – Senator Carl Levin

russell_caucusroom

The event today, “Afghanistan: Basic Questions – Strategic Choices,” was organized by the Rand Corp., with Steve Clemons of NAF.

The event was sterling, that needs to be said first.

The panelists all qualified, varied and intellectually impassioned, however, every single participant was male. The word “girls” was not uttered until Ambassador James Dobbins did at the end of the program; not one person referencing Afghan women, even as they gave speeches and delivered eloquent defenses of their positions, some saying there was no hope for Afghanistan, none understanding the irony that without women involved in the process Afghanistan will never be stable, so in their forgetting their importance rendered their judgment on Afghanistan obvious. There was one moment when Stephen M. Walt broke out, making the point that there is an argument to be made on humanitarian grounds for being in Afghanistan, but no one’s making that argument for our occupation. That he’d be glad to discuss it on these grounds, but no one is making that argument. But again, women were not mentioned, not part of any calculus, minus Dobbins.

It wasn’t until Zalmay Khalilzad, then Sen. Levin that any humanity crept into the discussion. Yes, the panelists talked about making Afghans central to the new strategy, but again, how can you talk about Afghanistan without talking about women who are central to any developing nation’s promise? Levin at least brought a real empathy towards the Afghans, as did Khalilzad, especially on the economic front. Levin’s remarks stressed Afghanis over our involvement, with troops secondary to so many other issues, something I’m convinced of as well.

This isn’t meant as criticism of an amazing, in-depth event, but to highlight that we simply must get out of the same type of thinking, which requires a broadening of our dialogue and vocabulary to include one of the most important elements of U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century: The development of women in struggling and developing nations as a source that could tip the balance. I simply cannot stress enough that the establishment must mine the promise of women, because they are the next foreign policy frontier.

As backdrop to today’s event, Jeff Zeleny has the story. With this from the White House pool late last night. Pres. Obama visited Dover AFB:

Marine one landed at Dover AFB at 12:34 a.m. It stopped maybe 50 yards behind the cargo plane holding the fallen personnel. Still wearing his topcoat, Potus was greeted by Col. Manson Morris, the 436th Airlift Wing commander. Potus then walked to a SUV that joined a motorcade that took him to an on-base chapel where he was to meet with family members of the fallen.

…An Air Force briefer told us that the official party, including President Obama, …will board the back of the C-17, where an Air Force Chaplain, Maj. Richard S. Bach, will offer a prayer before the dignified transfer (not a ceremony) takes place. The party then will stand in a line as the flag draped transfer cases (not coffins or caskets) are each carried by a six-person Army carry team to the mortuary transfer vehicle, which is parked about 70 feet away. Members of the carry team wear black berets and camouflage fatigues. The vehicle then takes the remains to the Port Mortuary. … ..The dignified transfer that we witness will be that of Sgt. Dale R. Griffin, of Terre Haute, Ind.

Today the Washington Post also reports that Obama is seeking a study on Afghanistan dealing with Afghan provinces before he makes a final decision on strategy.

“This is obviously a complicated security environment in Afghanistan, and the president wants the clearest possible understanding of what the challenges are to our forces and what is required to meet that challenge,” said a senior administration official who has participated in the Afghanistan policy review and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it. “Any successful and sustainable strategy must clearly align the resources we provide with the goals we are trying to achieve.”

LIVE TWITTER REPORTING BELOW

Sen. Lugar arranged for the gorgeous digs today. The famous Caucus Room. Fred Kagan, AEI, and I just had a good casual chat re Afghanistan. (link) –TM NOTE: I really have to say that I was like a teenager on this one; completely in awe of the gorgeous setting, as well as the history, the room where John F. Kennedy announced his presidential run. Sen. Lugar will get a special note from me on this one.

Zbig: “Withdrawal in Afghanistan in near term is a no-no.” (link)

Zbig: Engage China, Iran; thinking long term, a north-south pipeline for econ development. AfPak has a “suction result on ore powers. (link)

Question to Zbig re how many Al Qaeda are actually in Afghanistan. Answer “they still exist” was unsatisfactory. (link) –TM NOTE: See Gen. Jim Jones on CNN: “less than 100″

Fred Kagan: Notice that there are no military on any panel today. Like healthcare w/o including doctors. (link) –TM NOTE: Rand was particularly sensitive about this comment, rebutting it several times that there was military in the audience, but also on the panel.

Fred Kagan: How many troops constitute an occupation? 1 troop. Two or so people clapped.

Paul Pillar: Are the costs worth it re amount of change that will manifest? Main objective: protect Am people. (link)

Pillar on COIN cost: Agrees w est. of “Iraq scale cost for 3-5 years.” Is it worth it for outcome? (link) –TM NOTE: This was a quote from Stephen Biddle, which I neglected to tweet. Biddle did a long piece this summer on “Is It Worth It?” that lays it all out.

Arturo Munoz (Rand): “Tribal engagement”, civil defense forces (CEI) (link)

Arturo Munoz (Rand): “Tribal engagement”, civil defense forces (CEI). Tribal militias haven’t been tried. Consider.

Munoz: “We’re in a life and death situation.” Engage tribes, fight Taliban; don’t just do cities. Taliban shadow gov will rule

Munoz: Our mission in Afghanistan “has been incoherent for years.” Aid needs to be in Pashtun area + east.

Steve Coll (counterterrorism panel): Disablement of al Qaeda is one goal; to prevent a Taliban revolution in AfPak, region.

Michael O’:Hanlon: Narrow counterterrorism strategy won’t work. Already tried it.

Stephen M Walt: Containment panel, but he’s making case for disengagement. “It’s compelling”

Stephen Walt: “Obama painted himself into a corner” last spring, so he can’t and won’t disengage.

Christopher Preble: Agrees w Walt; counterterrorism has been tried and failed.

Preble: “Al Qaeda isn’t in Afghanistan.” COIN won’t stop AQaeda.

Amb James Dobbins: We agree on something, that we all hope you are wrong. (laughter)

Preble: We need to drop any notion we’ll win the war on drugs in Afghanistan.

Walt mentions humanitarian role is legit, but not argument; Dobbins 1st to mention girls. (link)

US Afgan complains about politicians like Dennis Ross being involved; “Karzai must go” (this was a questioner, the part about Ross a quote) (link)

Zalmay Khalilzad: “Policy in Afghanistan is in a state of crisis.” Situation worse, support down

ZK: US casualties at a high; Afghan death tolls hard to count. “Means are not adequate to goal”

ZK: Multilateral solution dealing w sanctuary issue means bringing Haq. + Taliban into political process. Forbid violent avenues

ZK: How to put Afghans to work? Has endorsed Levin’s plan. Use Mil purchasing power

Sen Levin: Is Afghan stability imp? Interests are significant for Pakistan.

Levin: Troop levels are less imp; “change in strategy is more important.” Afghan troops 1st

Levin: “work to peel off low level insurgents,” through offering a “modest sum” like in Iraq.

Levin: The US commitment to Afghanistan thru “resolve” requires “renewed commitment.”

Levin slaps media, but targets Cheney’s “dithering” insult. Invokes JFK needing more deliberation b4 Bay of Pigs.

Ray McGovern asks about oil as motive. Levin: not in any discussion; ZK agrees. (from the audience)

Read full story · Comments are closed

Lieberman Stands for Insurance Industry

By on 28 October 2009

It’s journalistic shorthand to note a politician’s party identification and state after his or her name. For example: Jane Doe (D-NY). And so Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is identified as (I-CT). But the “I” does not stand for “Independent.” It stands for “Insurance Industry.” – Paul Begala

szep_po


All Paul Szep cartoons printed with permission.

Read full story · Comments are closed

CIA In Bed with Karzai’s Corrupt Brother

By on 28 October 2009

“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said. – Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll

Photobucket

I wonder if this was Dick Cheney’s idea?

Andrew Exum writes today that it’s the most important article on Afghanistan that you’re going to read this week: Again, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that the CIA has an enduring relationship with AWK, and I am telling the truth when I tell you that all I “know” about this is what I read in the open source world. But you can be darn sure that if we think that AWK is the CIA’s guy, the Afghans most certainly believe that to be the case.

The real trouble is, if the New York Times is correct, it’s still going on now that Obama’s in charge. Whatever happened to Leon Panetta’s principles? They’re lost somewhere in Afghanistan, along with money paid to yet another Karzai bag man.

Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

… The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw. …

Meanwhile, you’ve got NATO/ISAF (UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force) working on another track saying that government corruption is the problem. CIA v. NATO/ISAF, with U.S. forces caught in the middle. Marvelous.

Amidst the CIA payouts to Karzai’s brother, Obama’s Afghan strategy seems to be slowly emerging, with another meeting planned with Mullen on Friday. So far it seems to be pretty much what I’ve written would happen. A little bit of this and a little bit of that, but more troops seeming definite:

A strategy of protecting major Afghan population centers would be “McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country,” as one administration official put it. Officials said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was playing a crucial role, balancing the case made by commanders with the skepticism of some civilians on Mr. Obama’s war council as the debate entered its final days.

A senior military officer said the developing strategy adopted General McChrystal’s central tenet. “We are no longer thinking about just destroying the enemy in a conventional way,” the officer said. “We must remove the main pressure that civilians live under, which is the constant intimidation and corruption and direct threat from the insurgency.”

But we still will likely be stuck with Karzai as president, with the election coming so close to winter and likely to cause a lower turnout in the north, which is a huge problem. That the CIA has his brother as a bag man has to also make the Karzais feel awfully comfortable. Never mind that Karzai’s government is making our job harder, with women under Karzai’s rule are in more danger, not less.

None of this bodes well for Pres. Obama. But he’s stuck with Afghanistan as we found it. His options are few and none of them very good, because contrary to the calls to get out, we can’t.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Homecoming Gang Rape in California

By on 28 October 2009

We interrupt this packed foreign policy news day to shock you with a case of criminal inhumanity…

Photobucket

What kind of teens are people raising these days? What kind of young men would not only participate in gang raping a young girl, but also leave her to die after they were done?

Investigators say as many as 20 people were involved in or stood and watched the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside a California high school homecoming dance Saturday night.

[...] As many as 10 people were involved in the assault in a dimly lighted back alley at the school, while another 10 people watched without calling 911 to report it, police said.

A 1999 California law makes it illegal not to report a witnessed crime against a child, but the law applies only to children 14 and under.

…The victim was found unconscious under a bench shortly before midnight Saturday, after police received a call from someone in the area who had overheard people at the assault scene “reminiscing about the incident,” Richmond Police Lt. Mark Gagan said. …

The ANIMALS who committed this crime should be not only tried as adults, but charged with every assault crime on the books, and if reports are correct, it should include conspiracy to commit murder for leaving the girl to die under a bench. The people who watched should get serious jail time as well.

There is no punishment great enough.

It’s also a reminder: Mob mentality can be contagious and dangerous for anyone near it.

If I was governor of California I’d make a public statement about it. Gov. Schwarzenegger should shine a light on it. And every single young man found to have been involved, including the bystanders who stood and watched, should have his face plastered across the airwaves and the web. It should follow him the rest of his miserable life.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Reid Not Worried About Lieberman

By on 28 October 2009

–updated–

While I was J Street yesterday, Sen. Lieberman decided to shoot off a warning shot at Democrats and the majority of the American public (audio here, via Ryan Grim @ Huffington Post). The emails I got on this one were classic. No one is surprised.

However, Sen. Reid was nonplussed for reporters.

“I don’t have anyone that I have worked harder with, have more respect for in the Senate than Joe Lieberman,” he said Tuesday afternoon. “ As you know, he’s my friend. There are a lot of senators, Democrat and Republicans, who don’t like part of what’s in this bill that we sent over to CBO. We’re going to see what the final product is. We’re not there yet. Sen. Lieberman will let us get on [to begin debating] the bill, and he’ll be involved in the amendment process.”

I think Mr. Reid needs to read Lieberman’s statement again.

“I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined–i haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined–to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.” – Lieberman: Sure, I’d Filibuster A Health Care Reform Bill With A Public Option

Truth is, there are a few senators that won’t back the bill as it stands, so what it is now won’t be what it will be later.

But the real puzzlement is what happened in the House. How could Speaker Pelosi be so wrong about her count last week? She definitely telegraphed, even if she did say it explicitly, that she absolutely had the votes. Now she doesn’t.

Like everyone has been saying, this thing is fluid as flood water.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton in Pakistan, Amid Explosion

By on 28 October 2009

–updated–

hillary_state

Trying to reiterate broader support for what the Pakistanis are doing in South Waziristan, Clinton is doing diplomacy at a moment when things are very difficult in the region, with a car bomb exploding killing more than 80 people, according to early reports.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Pakistan on Wednesday for a three-day visit aimed at quelling rising anti-Americanism and convincing Pakistanis that the United States wants a relationship based on more than counterterrorism. … Although the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan “remains our highest priority,” Clinton told reporters aboard the flight to Islamabad, the United States will move beyond a “lopsided” U.S.-Pakistan relationship weighted toward the “security and the counterterrorism agenda.” – Clinton visits Pakistan in bid to improve ties

Another report, also from the Washington Post, tells of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis displaced by the army’s offensive, now over two weeks old.

“They will only rise against the Taliban when they are convinced the government means business,” said Saifullah Mehsud, director of the FATA Research Center in Islamabad, which studies Pakistan’s tribal areas. “But they have never been convinced.”

Militancy’s iron grip

For half a dozen years, a stew of Pakistani and foreign militants has exerted near-complete control in the region. Bearded fighters travel ridges in convoys, local commanders police villages, and the rank and file put up posters pronouncing the latest religious edicts.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Reporting from J Street: Packed House

By on 27 October 2009

updated – bumped

About the gala event last night… It was wonderful; great food, wine, conversation, and music, compliments of the Jerome Meltzer Jazz Trio, with Steve Clemons coming as Joe Biden! …well, at least he showed up in a Biden mask, all in good fun and with Vice President Biden’s approval. It was a Halloween joke, as former Sen. Chuck Hagel gave the speech of the evening last night. Mr. Hagel is now co-chair of President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which Steve mentioned last night.  The Cable posted about it this morning. Anyway, Hagel had evidently shown up once with a Biden mask, so it’s an ongoing gag between friends. Sen. Hagel’s speech was simply fantastic. There was serious words about the rights of Palestinians, which are never at issue enough, for my money. On a very sad note, a group of Israeli settlers harassed Palestinians harvesting olives, in another scene of what Steve Clemons calls their “ethnic cleansing strategy.” It’s just heartbreaking what the settlers will resort to, with Israelis continually stopping the Palestinians from doing basic things that make up a life.

—-original post is below—

jones_j-street

The report below was delayed a bit… The conference this afternoon has been filled with speeches, much of the message repeated again and again: occupation impedes Israeli security and peace; two-state solution is the only solution. To add, Michael Goldfarb’s view of Jones’ speech quite different.

Jones offered several strong statements of support for Israel that would have garnered long and sustained standing ovations at a real pro-Israel conference. At J Street the crowd responded with polite applause. Probably the best response Jones got from the crowd was his declaration that the Obama administration would send a representative to any future conference held by J Street. I’m dubious that representative will be as high-level as Jones. The only standing ovation Jones got was when his speech came to an end. This was odd. Like a political convention, a conference is meant to be theater in which the enthusiasm of delegates is on display for the media. It’s possible that most of the participants at the J Street conference just didn’t know they were supposed to get up and cheer at the pro-Israel lines (this was J Street’s first conference), but more likely they just weren’t moved to do so.

I guess it eludes Mr. Goldbard that the people attending J Street weren’t at the conference to applaud all things Jewish as they were to try to discuss challenges facing them (which includes non Jews as well, obviously), especially where the Israeli – Palestinian challenge are concerned.

Then, of course, there is the issue of whether J Street is pro Israel at all, which Yglesias discusses. As a non-Jew reporting on what I heard yesterday, I find anyone saying J Street isn’t pro-Israel missing the most obvious message of all.

Jeffrey Goldberg has a transcript of Max Blumenthal letting fly at Jeremy Ben-Ami for giving Goldberg an interview.

One particular point made earlier was the way the Israeli gov. is stopping Palestinians from manifesting true entrepreneurial freedom. Netanyahu won’t release bandwidth, won’t aid Palestinian businesses. It’s not about money, which they have, it’s about Israel stopping their progress.

Martin Indyk also relayed a humorous story about Arafat’s ability to give speeches, which hinted he as part Jewish. Indyk saying Arafat responded with his signature “shit-eating grin,” to exclaim, “Yes! Yes. Rachel is my aunt.” Hard to know what to say to that one.

When it was suggested, through a question, that Obama go to Israel, Martin Indyk said it’s “really important” for him to go. He recounted the bad numbers Obama has, 4% by some accounts, also talking about other presidents “pouring affection” on the Israelis, which “they got used to.” Indyk: “The speech in Cairo… visited Saudi Arabia… seen as an indication that he was trying to distance himself from Israel to curry favor in Israel.” Hillary Clinton going there is good, but it’s “no substitute” for the President.

Mel Levine: “It’s a terrible decision” for the right to have such a “rabid” partisan response to everything. “Outrageous smears” must be countered.

Twitter reporting on Jones’ speech is below. It was a boilerplate speech, with his delivery subdued, except for two points. When he said the Obama administration would be represented at every other J Street conf., and when he talked about Middle East peace, settlements and a two-state solution being the most important issue as far as he was concerned. Also, he did mention negotiations “without preconditions,” which on settlements doesn’t exactly line up with what Obama has said.

________________
1:42:00 PM: Jones: Honored to reprsnt Pres. Obama “and you can be sure that the administration will be represented at all future conferences.” #jstreet

1:43:17 PM: Gen. Jim Jones, NSC (cont.): Israeli – US relationship “founded as much on personal experiences as on geopolitics.” #jstreet #israel

1:45:46 PM: Jones to Obama: If there was one challenge I’d have the President deal w first, “this would be it,” re: two-state & peace #jstreet #israel

1:48:04 PM: Jones: On peace & two-state: “time is not necessarily on our side.” On Iran, repeated Obama’s choices on Iran that are clear. #jstreet #iran

1:49:17 PM: “Goldstone report overly broad,” Jones stated, with Obama administration saying the asymmetrical issues of attacks not addressed. #jstreet

1:53:09 PM: Jones: Working on plan that “Ends the occupation that began in 1967 & unleashes full potential of the palestinian people.” #jstreet #israel

1:55:16 PM: Jones emphasizes the need to help Abbas and Fayyad to develop institutions; “We cannot accept the humanitarian (crisis) in Gaza.” #jstconf09

1:57:41 PM: Jones also emphasizes the imp. of the release of Gilad Shalit; “unshakable bond” w Israel. #jstconf09

1:58:51 PM: Israel & US have “unshakable bond,” Jones. One note: he also mentioned negotiations getting started “without preconditions.” hmm? #jstconf09

Read full story · Comments are closed

J Street Rising, Right Strikes Back

By on 27 October 2009

Aipac officially denies that it has any role in the assault on J Street, but those at the forefront are close allies of the lobby group, from the conservative Weekly Standard magazine (once dubbed the “neocon bible”) to the Zionist Organisation of America. “If you look at this it’s hard not to see this as a concerted, co-ordinated campaign,” said Levy. “We know that’s how the right wing works. There’s a nexus of funders, there’s a nexus of people who sit on each other’s boards. They’re all very close to Aipac.” – Who speaks for America’s Jews?; J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts’ grip on Congress

That “big beasts’ grip is AIPAC. The Guardian story has one side, while the JPost gives you the other, which the American right is oh, so eager to trumpet. The usual suspects are doing just that: see Peretz and Goldfarb.

J Street is streaming the conference. You can follow my reporting via Twitter.

One of the big gets by J Street is Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones, which is driving the right berserk. But the importance of having a modern, alternative voice to AIPAC cannot be underestimated. For one thing, it gives pro-Israeli U.S. politicians an ally and a rallying voice that goes beyond the belligerent talking points of the 20th century, which has not made Israel, the Palestinians or the region any safer.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Progressives Win One, But Will Obama Listen?

By on 27 October 2009

Give yourselves a pat on the back.

Then get back to work. It’s not over by a long shot, but this win is huge.

Read Ryan Grim, who along with Sam Stein and the Huffington Post’s blaring “Leaderless” headline on Sunday may have been the final straw. After all, it’s not every day the White House pushes back on a Sunday night. Grim:

Democratic leaders were forced to include a national public health insurance option as part of health care reform by progressive Democratic senators who refused to support anything less, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday.

… For many years, it’s been centrist and conservative-leaning senators who have been scoring legislative victories by digging in their heels, so this represented a quite dramatic turnabout. It is difficult to remember the last time that progressives won a legislative victory by laying down firm demands and sticking to them. In the House, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has found its feet, too, and is locked in a final battle with conservative Democrats over the shape of a public option.

But in the end it will Pres. Obama who plays mediator, the role he relishes, between the two chambers. It’s not close to being over.

We still don’t know if Pres. Obama will spend capital to support the best bill, which means a public option with an opt-out, the bottom compromise progressives should make.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Afghanistan: Former Marine at State Resigns

By on 27 October 2009

updated version cross-posted at Huffington Post

His name is Matthew Hoh and this could turn into a story that will haunt Pres. Obama’s decision on Afghanistan every day until the strategy is announced. I’m sure it is already. Hoh simply doesn’t believe in where the U.S. mission has been and where Obama is about to take the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. No doubt it will fuel people who want to withdraw, even as I continue to believe from all information I’ve gathered that no more troops is step one, with many complicated issues to address more important than sending in more U.S. soldiers. So, when Hoh says, “But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve,” I absolutely agree. But as it now stands, the Afghan women are worse off today than they were when the Taliban reigned. We cannot leave it at that or Afghanistan will be more than a corrupt mess; it will revert to a failed state, because no country can stabilize with the women of that country being gang raped, reduced as property and held under lock and key. After all, it was Carter who authorized the first funding that begat Reagan’s partnership with Zia that begat the mujahadeen that begat William Casey’s obsessions that begat, and on and on, until Bush invaded after 9/11, that became the mess he dropped in Obama’s lap.

Mr. Hoh adds more to the nightmare Obama’s been handed after years of neglect by Bush-Cheney:

Hoh was assigned to research the response to a question asked by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during an April visit. Mullen wanted to know why the U.S. military had been operating for years in the Korengal Valley, an isolated spot near Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan where a number of Americans had been killed. Hoh concluded that there was no good reason. The people of Korengal didn’t want them; the insurgency appeared to have arrived in strength only after the Americans did, and the battle between the two forces had achieved only a bloody stalemate.

Korengal and other areas, he said, taught him “how localized the insurgency was. I didn’t realize that a group in this valley here has no connection with an insurgent group two kilometers away.” Hundreds, maybe thousands, of groups across Afghanistan, he decided, had few ideological ties to the Taliban but took its money to fight the foreign intruders and maintain their own local power bases.
ad_icon

“That’s really what kind of shook me,” he said. “I thought it was more nationalistic. But it’s localism. I would call it valley-ism.”

Hoh also believes in more emphasis on Pakistan, on which no expert I’ve heard or talked to disagrees. That’s likely just one reason, according to the Washington Post, that Vice President Biden’s foreign policy adviser, Antony Blinken, has asked Hoh to talk with him.

One of the biggest obstacles is Pres. Karzai, a man who is the women of Afghanistan’s enemy and proved it conclusively with the Marital Rape Law he championed that turned into an international incident. Ann Jones writes regularly for The Nation, covering the plight of Afghan women, among other issues. Her piece last week covered ground I’ve heard many times before, while bringing home a critical point that needs to be highlighted over and over again, which I covered on the NAF event featuring David Loyn. It focuses on Afghan aid. Jones:

Today, most American so-called development aid is delivered not by USAID, but by the military itself through a system of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), another faulty idea of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soldiers, unqualified as aid workers and already busy soldiering, now shmooze with village “elders” (often the wrong ones) and bring “development,” usually a costly road convenient to the PRT base, impossible for Afghans to maintain and inaccessible to women locked up at home. Recent research conducted by respected Afghanistan hands found that this aid actually fuels “massive corruption”; it fails to win hearts and minds not because we spend too little but because we spend too much, too fast, without a clue. Meanwhile, the Taliban bring the things Afghans say they need–better security, better governance and quick, hard-edged justice. US government investigators are looking into allegations that aid funds appropriated for women’s projects have been diverted to PRTs for this more important work of winning hearts and minds with tarmac. But the greatest problem with routing aid through the military is this: what passes for development is delivered from men to men, affirming in the strongest possible terms the misogynist conviction that women do not matter. You’ll recognize it as the same belief that, in the Obama administration’s strategic reappraisal of Afghanistan, pushed women off the table.

What Hoh and Jones and everyone else comes up against is that Afghanistan is worse today than it was. We’ve also unlocked the women’s independence genie, which has unleashed misogyny that was once tightly bottled, because the men ruled with impunity. Without the West, the women of Afghanistan will suffer far more than they already have, with the country spiraling further down with them. Because no country can survive the slaughter of women’s rights and remain stable.

The other side of the knife is that it will take a very long time before Afghanistan will respect women on even a basic level: That their lives matter.

Sect. Hillary Clinton could be a powerful voice for Afghan women and girls. Yet the Obama administration obviously doesn’t want to rock that boat, deeming the situation too volatile, with U.S. representatives from all quarters praising Karzai, which includes John Kerry. Meanwhile, the women and girls of Afghanistan go unmentioned on any serious note, especially where Karzai is concerned, even from progressives who are using the arguments that the violence is making things worse for women, without acknowledging what would happen if the U.S. pulled out and left the misogynistic mayhem to metastasize.

We uncorked these forces. On all that’s moral we cannot turn our backs. The hardest part is that it’s not about more U.S. troops, even as we cannot think about withdrawing. Karma is a bitch and she’s looking for retribution closure mercy.

to be continued…

Read full story · Comments are closed

CNN Comes In Last

By on 26 October 2009

The network that literally invented cable news just came in dead last in ratings, with MSNBC heading in the wrong direction too.

The official monthly numbers will be finalized at 4 p.m. Monday and will include results from Friday. CNN executives conceded that will not change the competitive standing for the month. CNN will still be last in prime time.

That means CNN’s programs were behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but even its own sister network HLN (formerly Headline News.) That was the first time CNN had finished that poorly with its prime-time shows.

Anderson Cooper’s rising star has now been grounded, but when you think about Larry King, their morning show, which can’t hold a candle to “Morning Joe” even when you’re yelling at your screen, CNN also loses out, especially when Dylan Ratigan appears. By the time Wolf Blitzer shows up nobody cares.

Then there is Lou Dobbs, who CNN threw weight behind when he was squealing invectives about immigration. Will he or won’t he go to Fox? CNN doesn’t look like they could lose either way.

Then there’s new media, beating TV and traditional media to the punch. Look at what Huffington Post is doing, as well as Politico, though many progressives hate the coverage there, with the new media community making a huge difference, for which I add many stories no one else dares to cover.

But CNN’s rating’s collapse is really stunning. It used to be the cable show I watched all day, even when I had the others on mute. Now I spend a lot of time watching Al Jazeera English, which covers the world. When I click back over to MSNBC it’s kind of surreal. It’s as if the U.S. is the only country on planet earth.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Weird World of Russ Douthat

By on 26 October 2009

I honestly don’t know where to start with this one. But in the New York Times, Russ Douthat offers a rallying cry to Christians that seems to simultaneously suggest the Pope’s declared religious war against Muslims (in a column that manages to wrangle in the word “appeasement” amidst the holy warrior rhetoric). It’s just, well, weird, especially coming from a newspaper that’s supposed to be liberal and enlightened.

The occasion is Pope Benedict XVI’s outreach to Anglicans, of which I am one, but more specifically to Christian traditionalists who, let’s be blunt, aren’t so enamored with the actual words of scripture to take them to heart for gays or to believe that women’s civil rights actually matter and should include religious interaction with God. Though my faith is much more complex than simply stating my Episcopalian faith, as I long ago made daily meditations the main vein of my spiritual rejuvenation and outreach. Being that I’m a modern feminist, I’m sure you can figure that one out, but also because of my philosopher penchant, which just can’t reconcile some of the dogma of organized faith, no matter how much I’m drawn to ritual and still enjoy its theater. I always hunger for more. Anyway…

Segue to Douthat:

But in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.

Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.

coxandforkumMuslimsImage1

I’m not going to argue about “an expanding Muslim population,” though I obviously don’t find that in the least scary, any more than I do the Catholic Church, whose male leaders long ago unleashed an unholy campaign against modern women and men on a scale that is unprecedented in what has manifested. Ignoring women’s rise, leaving them out of the inner circle, while not only continuing to preach against contraception, but holding the world’s poor women hostage through their dogma, acknowledging the good the Catholic Church charities do around the world. The buy up of hospitals in rural America is also something to worry about, as what comes with it is not full women’s health care.

Glenn Greenwald sees similar scary stuff in Douthat’s piece as well, taking it a step further to include Israelis. In American politics, where there are fundamentalist Christians it’s sure the cause of Israel is never too far behind.

Douthat leaves off the obvious in his analysis. That the Catholic Church is so morally, spiritually and financially bereft that it needs as many converts as possible, which happened when the so called leaders covered up unholy child abuse crimes that left the church pews and their coffers empty. The Catholic Church is a shadow of its former self, particularly in the U.S., so why is anyone surprised that they would reach out to Anglicans, especially after the fiery storm the support of gay marriage created? I say this even as they hold women hostage around the globe with their sanctimonious preaching that offers no answers for modern women and men.

But let’s say Douthat’s point is in there buried somewhere; take it and compile all the other obvious possibilities together and what do you get? What is the Pope actually thinking, according to Douthat? Don’t let a good culture war go un-waged.

By contrast, the Church of England’s leadership has opted for conciliation (some would say appeasement), with the Archbishop of Canterbury going so far as to speculate about the inevitability of some kind of sharia law in Britain.

There are an awful lot of Anglicans, in England and Africa alike, who would prefer a leader who takes Benedict’s approach to the Islamic challenge. Now they can have one, if they want him.

This could be the real significance of last week’s invitation. What’s being interpreted, for now, as an intra-Christian skirmish may eventually be remembered as the first step toward a united Anglican-Catholic front — not against liberalism or atheism, but against Christianity’s most enduring and impressive foe.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Reid Announces Support for Public Option with Opt-Out

By on 26 October 2009

–updated–

“The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. Thanks to their efforts, we’re closer than we’ve ever been to solving this decades-old problem. And while much work remains, the President is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He’s also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.” – Robert Gibbs, from the White House

After a weekend of furious activity, Democratic leaders in the Senate think they are close to getting the votes they need in order to pass an “opt-out” version of the public option. But they feel like President Obama could be doing more to help them, with one senior staffer telling TNR on Sunday that the leadership would like, but has yet to receive, a clear “signal” of support for their effort. – Senate Dems to Obama: Um, a Little Help Here?

Reid’s press conference was short and sweet. He’s betting that when the bill comes back from the CBO and gets to the floor, when Republicans try to filibuster it, Democrats like Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and even Blanche Lincoln won’t join the filibuster. That doesn’t mean they’ll vote for a bill that has the public option in the end, but that they won’t give Democrats a defeat on the Senate floor

It looks like he’s going to send several forms of Senate legislation to the CBO. Via Shailagh Murray of the Washington Post:

Senior Senate sources said they have been informed by Reid that the leader intends to send several versions of health-care reform legislation to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis, and that the bills may offer different approaches to creating a public option.

Three options are opt-in, opt-out, and the trigger, favored by Sen. Snowe.

There is still no sign Obama is sticking his neck out on this one. He’s hanging back to see what Reid can do. If Reid falls short, then no one can say he didn’t try.

This post has been updated and augmented since Reid’s press conference.

Read full story · Comments are closed