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

Report: 13,000 Troops Deploy to Afghanistan

By on 13 October 2009

–updated–

They’re called “enablers,” to refer to support troops deployed beyond combat forces, which won’t sit well with anyone just hearing the term. But you can’t have combat forces deployed without them.

From the Washington Post:

But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

[...] The deployment does not change the maximum number of service members expected to soon be in Afghanistan: 68,000, more than double the number there when Bush left office.

Troops are not the answer, even for someone like me who supports staying in Afghanistan, but that’s the way it’s been headed for some time.

There’s more intrigue on the Afghanistan front as well, compliments of Laura Rozen, who got a scoop about Holbrooke’s aid restrictions and ideas taking serious incoming from USAID officials in the form of a formal dissent memo. Laura’s got the document that lays out the beef with Holbrooke.

To add, it brings me back to Christiane Amanpour’s interview with Gates and Clinton, who will likely be the decisive front on whatever Obama decides. The New York Times profiles the two “pragmatists,” who I’ve always believed will cut a McChrystal compromise.

Read full story · Comments are closed

John Harwood’s Bait

By on 12 October 2009

Harwood and his status quo cronies in traditional media must be really enjoying themselves today. The former staff reporter for the Wall Street Journal, now chief Washington correspondent of CNBC and a political writer for the New York Times, intended to cause a firestorm and did, at least in some quarters, which can be seen in the fulminating coverage listed over at Memeorandum.

There has never been a doubt in my mind that there are some quarters of the Obama administration that detest what activists do. The commercials against Blue Dog Dems, the rising up to challenge the agenda of the White House, the criticism, drives some White House advisers crazy, with Pres. Obama certainly not appreciating that the people who worked long hours to get him elected think he’s not delivering what he promised.

However, let’s get serious. If new media wasn’t a force to be reckoned with there wouldn’t be anonymous Obama “advisers” leaking kindergarten insults to friendly, traditional media sources they know delight in delivering them. I mean “internet left fringe” and “take off their pajamas, get dressed” lines are so retro as to conjure up the old days when establishment pols preferred denial, even as new media took down the political elite by proving their access had hopelessly corrupted their ability to tell the truth.

Harwood’s White House gossip went like this…

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base?

JOHN HARWOOD: As a practical matter Lester I don’t think it’s a serious problem. We’ve seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues — health care, energy, the economy — he’s going to be just fine with this group.

HOLT: But in general when yo look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?

HARWOOD:Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “internet left fringe” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

The Obama White House released the obligatory statement through communications adviser Dan Pheiffer, former communications director for Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, via Greg Sargent:

“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

–insert laugh track here–

You decide what that one means.

But poor John got caught with his anonymous “adviser” hanging out.

Harwood’s bait was served up for one purpose: to separate Pres. Obama from people trying to hold him accountable, because some “adviser” somewhere inside the White House believes it’s still 1994 and that we are a closely divided country even with northeastern Republicans almost extinct, a Democratic majority and the country giving Republicans their worst rating in political history.

Though it’s not surprising in the least to me that a traditional media type like Mr. Harwood would have friends and allies that not only want to push the subject of gay rights back in the closet, whether it’s in the military or marriage, but also turn back to the days where Joe Lieberman could be nominated for vice president on the Democratic ticket.

Serving up conventional political wisdom as we approach 2010 will be the death of Democratic progression, yet people continue to push it, with traditional hacks like Harwood always willing to play the patsy.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Administration Calls Out Fox

By on 12 October 2009

–updated–

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” – Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying

Last week, Michael Scherer wrote a piece for Time magazine about the Obama administration’s new engagement with the news media. Post Sarah Palin’s “death panel” shriek, which put Pres. Obama in a defensive crouch, it was time for a new strategy.

However, when the White House communications director comes out on the front lawn to say “… Fox News often operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” you know that we’re in a different moment in Obama time.

The President is being particularly aggressive ratcheting up his criticism of the one network whose got anchors that never stop the barrage, even claiming a few political scalps. The big difference now is that Fox has Glenn Beck, one cable barker who is even more outrageous than the normal fare.

But will Obama go back on Fox? Of course, said Elizabeth Dunn, he’ll just consider it debating the opposition.

Read full story · Comments are closed

World Newsbites, More Obama Promises Edition

By on 11 October 2009

“The international community will not wait indefinitely for evidence that Iran is prepared to live up to its international obligations,” Clinton said at a news conference. – Haaretz

According to people in the room, Obama’s big HRC speech wasn’t very big at all. Joe Subday says it all in his post:

According to Obama, “we are moving ahead on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Obama said, “I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But, there was no timeline. Nothing even approaching a timeline. No idea of how it will be done. [...] This speech offered less than the cocktail party speech for the A-listers back in June.…

Sullivan had even harsher words for the Human Rights Campaign:

HRC, of course, is putting no pressure on him; Joe Solmonese’s disgraceful email actually took all pressure off him by saying he’d be happy to wait till 2017 for HRC to hold Obama accountable. HRC are putting pressure, as they always have, on gay people to go to the back of the line and be grateful a president attends their fundraising event. The only word for this is a racket. And if gay people do not rise up and demand change from this organization and stop funding a group whose goal has always been to sell the Democrats to gay people rather than secure civil rights, then they will continue to suffer the discrimination they live under day after day.

I can’t speak to HRC pressure one way or the other, but on DADT talking about what he’s going to do is way past getting old. Read “I didn’t Tell. It Didn’t Matter” if you’re not yet convinced.

Looking around the world…

Someone has finally put a number on the bottom troop escalation needed. David Kilcullen says 25,000 troops at a minimum, with Obama needed to get moving on implementation. Again, I’ve said it before, but Obama’s taking too much time with this, with plenty already known and enough in to push forward.

CNN reports that three Iranian protesters have been “tentatively” sentenced to death, though they can appeal.

Three Iranians have been tentatively sentenced to death in connection with post-election protest activities, according to semi-official state media. …

The siege in Pakistan ended.

Recapping on the carnage in Guinea, which I tweeted when it happened, Clinton’s remarks still ring out after the atrocities:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Guinea’s military junta must recognize “they cannot remain in power” after she voiced outrage over killings and rapes. Her comments come as pressure mounts on the regime from both the Guinean opposition and the international community.

“We were appalled and outraged by the recent violence in Guinea,” the chief US diplomat told reporters when she appeared outside her offices in Washington with visiting Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

[...] “The indiscriminate killing and raping that took place under government control by government troops was a vile violation of the rights of the people of that country,” the chief US diplomat said. …

And there was some high drama at what was supposed to be a done deal between the Turks and Armenian, with Secretary Clinton doing her job and getting it done. (Thanks to reader HEP for sending this one my way.)

To round it out, David Milliband in news conference with Clinton:

“I think that Iran’s history of covert, secret programs … explains why the international community does not have confidence in the Iranian regime’s protestations about the purely peaceful aspects or purely peaceful purposes of their nuclear program,” he said.

Having met and spoken with both Milliband and Clinton, of course, seeing these two diplomats speaking strongly about Iran says something very good about the hands the world is in, especially compared to the last crew.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Nobel, Neda, The Gays, and Clinton on Accolades v. Shoes

By on 10 October 2009

“Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.” – Secretary Hillary Clinton

neda

And the hits just keep on comin’. Well said, Madame Secretary.

Though Obama’s Nobel has sparked a lot of conversation, some of it leading to better choices, as well as chances for the President to prove he meant it when he said it was a “call to action.”

Lawrence O’Donnell asked a question on “Morning Joe” yesterday, in the midst of a deplorable exhibition from both Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin, with Chuck Todd playing his usual sidekick role. The question, paraphrased, was put to the group: Who else besides Obama deserved the Nobel Prize for Peace?

The Washington Post editorial today takes up that question and actually answers it: Neda Agha Soltan, the woman murdered in Iran during the “green wave” uprising.

Unfortunately, the international community has a knee jerk reaction even to citizen Iranians, neglecting to imagine what honoring a martyr of the Iranian “green wave”, which was as close to a revolution as we’ve seen in that country since 1979, might have meant to Iran, but also the entire Middle East, including “peace” talks going forward. The Post editorial subheading giving Obama the break he deserves:

Our Laureate: Neda of Iran
President Obama has won the Nobel Prize for Peace — but that’s not his fault.

No, it wasn’t. But Pres. Obama is not near as imaginative and important a choice as Neda would have been. We can now only imagine the message that might have been sent if this quiet heroine had been acknowledged posthumously.

That said, as I said in the comments yesterday, it’s quite possible that this award will rock Obama, since he was clearly embarrassed by the nod; even as he was forced to realize his shortcomings of leadership so far while understanding the Nobel Committee’s purpose, which is to inspire him to do the great things his candidacy once promised. Ironic that the more you think about the Nobel award the more important it becomes to Obama. The Committee reminding him of what Ted Kennedy said often: to much is given much is expected. Serving warning to Pres. Obama, reminding him of his charge of change.

It’s a burden he will carry lightly only if he succeeds.

As proof he gets it, perhaps Pres. Obama will use tonight to begin living up to his Nobel when he speaks at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. Crawling out from underneath his cowardice on DADT, not to mention the Defense of Marriage Act, and live up to what he promised a Democratic constituency who for far too long has had to endure second-class citizenship. The military men and women of this community made to suffer insults and personal hardship through the shame of DADT. As commander in chief, Pres. Obama owes these people even more.

Any bets?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama on Nobel Award: I Didn’t Deserve It

By on 09 October 2009

expanded edition cross-posted at Huffington Post, World Section

–updated–

Pool Report: … shorty before 2 pm POTUS has decided to give the approximately $1.4 million prize accompanying his Nobel Peace prize to charity. No decision yet on which charity or charities that will be.

One word described Barack Obama as he delivered his remarks on receiving the Nobel award: embarrassed.

Proud, humble, but definitely embarrassed by the shock of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which he clearly understood he had not earned.

Starting his remarks talking about Malia and Sasha walking in to give him big news, which wasn’t just about the Nobel: “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday, and then Sasha added, plus we have a three-day weekend coming up.”

“So, it’s good to have kids to keep things in perspective,” President Obama replied, looking down as he delivered the words.

A “call to action” is how Pres. Obama sees it, also using his entire remarks to share the Nobel with people around the world much more deserving, but all of whom share the same values, dreams and hopes.

Let’s hope the embarrassment of riches lights a fire under Pres. Obama. Giving him a renewed sense of urgency, something we haven’t seen so far.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday!” And then Sasha added, “Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.” So it’s good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that’s why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that’s why we’ve begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children — sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities. And that’s why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

We can’t allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another, and that’s why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years, and that effort must include an unwavering commitment that finally realizes that the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can’t accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for — the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won’t have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today. I am the Commander-in-Chief of a country that’s responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I’m also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work. These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it’s recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration — it’s about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

And that’s why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity — for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

That has always been the cause of America. That’s why the world has always looked to America. And that’s why I believe America will continue to lead.

Thank you very much.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Talking Cuba on the USS Sequoia Presidential Yacht

By on 09 October 2009

–bumped–

Sept09_SequoiaPresidentialYacht_8-8-09 014
Steve Clemons, Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation; Publisher, The Washington Note, with honored guest. –more pictures here–

Steve Clemons and the New America Foundation picked quite a venue to discuss and dream about what’s possible in U.S. – Cuba relations. The USS Sequoia Presidential Yacht. Guests included Amb. Jorge Bolaños Suarez, whom I met, as well as Jacob Heilbrunn, senior editor of National Interest and author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.

Steve’s got a post up showing a letter former Former Sec of State George Shultz saying: QUOTE ME: End the US-Cuba Embargo. End the Travel Ban. An older post from the summer quoting Brent Scowcroft saying the same thing emphasizes how ridiculous this policy is today. It’s long overdue.

The event tonight got me to thinking about how easily normalizing relations with Cuba could have been. Something that might have been done already if Obama had the vision. I say this not as an expert on Cuba, but as someone who can see the political winds and only wonder what’s the hold up? It’s a matter of will, which seems to be sorely lacking.

And though the topic was focusing on Cuba, it was also about a broader picture of what we could be doing throughout the world now that Barack Obama is president. Hoping for bold things, yet not seeing near enough so far.

The buzz earlier tonight also had to do with Gov. Bill Richardson’s speech on Cuba, which he’ll deliver tomorrow. Word is that it’s going to be a good one. It just might be the thing to prove Steve Clemons’ point that Richardson should be appointed Special Presidential US-Cuba Envoy.

I can’t begin to tell you all the history on the USS Sequioa. Seeing the bathroom in the presidential cabin that was lowered 3 inches on the request of L.B.J. The dent in the beautiful table put there by an angry, poker playing Harry Truman. Pictures of Bill Clinton, Leonid Brezhnev, F.D.R., John F. Kennedy, even Teddy Kennedy and a story of him blowing out Jack’s birthday candles, because he couldn’t bend over. Bob Hope and pictures of his 80th birthday. Just remarkable moments spent on this beautiful piece of history, beginning with a beautiful sunset on a mild autumn Washington, D.C. evening. Not to mention the wonderful conversations that ranged across the foreign policy spectrum with so many people, including finally meeting and chatting with Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, someone whom I consider an American hero. It was just a grand evening.

Sept09_SequoiaPresidentialYacht_8-8-09 032

Steve Clemons, Jacob Heilbrunn and other guests.
MORE PHOTOS HERE

Sept09_SequoiaPresidentialYacht_8-8-09 008
Sunset off the top deck of the Sequoia

Sept09_SequoiaPresidentialYacht_8-8-09 030
Favored chest and lamp of Pres. John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jackie Kennedy, adorning presidential cabin below deck.

Sept09_SequoiaPresidentialYacht_8-8-09 019
Woven carpet with Presidential Seal

Read full story · Comments are closed

Public Option ‘Opt-Out’ Gaining

By on 09 October 2009

“One problem with the opt-out idea is that Republicans may seize on it in the future and turn it into a general opt-out for states to exempt themselves from the whole bill,” said Paul Starr, health care expert at Princeton University. “Remember there will be four years and two elections before the reforms go into effect. This would be the easiest step for Republicans take during that period to ensure that the whole thing would unravel. And it would unravel because states that adopted the reform would become magnets for migration by the sick from states that opted out.” – Opt-Out Public Option Gains Steam Among Dems, But Questions Remain

Sen. Tom Carper’s last minute idea may lack details when it comes to actual legislation, but it’s the buzz and holds promise of the magic 60 votes in the Senate, so some big progressives are signing on.

On the political side, it seems to offer Democrats cover who need it, while depriving Republicans of the hammer they so hope to have on “socialized medicine.” Yet Opt-Out also offers the naysayers something, a choice, even if we clearly won on policy. If it’s “Opt-Out,” who can complain? It could have been worse, Republicans can say.

Tom Matzzie is on board:

In this new proposal, called the “Opt Out,” individual states would be able to choose whether they want to participate in the Public Option or not. The method of the “Opt Out” isn’t entirely clear but it could take many forms from executive order to state legislation to ballot measures.

… Progressives should see in the “Opt Out” an opportunity to win their policy proposal and create a political bulwark of public support behind the Public Option. Politically, Republicans should be quaking in their boots over the idea of an “Opt Out” or even an “Opt In.” State-by-state political and legislative fights to stay in the Public Option would give Democrats a rallying cry and mobilization tool. If these fights took the form of ballot measures there would even be Election Day opportunities for health care fights. Progressives would have a soft-money vehicle to mobilize voters most supportive of health care reform, namely progressive votes who make up the Democratic base. Republicans would be better off politically accepting a straight-up Public Option than having an “Opt Out.”

Earlier this week, Howard Dean weighed in first and affirmatively, via Sam Stein:

“If I were a member of the U.S Senate I wouldn’t vote for the [Senate Finance Committee] bill but I would vote for this,” Dean said, “not because it is necessarily the right thing to do but because it gets us to a better conversation about what we need to do.”

[...] “I would like to see that come out of the Senate because it is a real public plan,” he said of the opt-out compromise. “Then they can negotiate it [with the House] in conference committee… And if this passes I won’t say it is not reform because it is reform.”

“If this is what it takes to get 60 votes I say go for it,” said Dean

SEIU’s Andy Stern is in too:

“I’m in the fourth way option,” Stern said. “If Alabama doesn’t want a public option, they should consider that question. I don’t think the citizens of Alabama will want out. … I think we need a public option. I don’t think it needs to be triggered. The question is if there are certain state legislators who think it’s not appropriate for their state, they should have a right in some fashion to deal with it.”

So, progressives have convinced people that a public option should be included. But with so many in Congress wary, and the White House and Democrats committed to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, Opt-Out is looking like a way through.

Now, it’s up to Speaker Pelosi to sell it. Question remains if the House Progressive Caucus will buy in.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Barack Obama Wins the Nobel Prize for Peace

By on 09 October 2009

expanded edition cross-posted at Huffington Post

The Nobel Committee announced Friday that the annual peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the committee said. – In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy

obama_sasha-JeffersonMemorial
Barack Obama with Sasha at
Jefferson Memorial.

Robert Gibbs had the common reaction: “wow.” It is a huge surprise. The White House says Pres. Obama wasn’t even aware he’d been nominated.

The Nobel awarded through an international eye on world events, having nothing to do with U.S. domestic affairs. The Nobel committee looking not just at achievements, which clearly was not the measure here because Pres. Obama has just begun, but something more foundational.

Pres. Obama should thank Dick Cheney and his sidekick George W. Bush, because it’s obvious after this announcement that never has an international community looked to America for a change in direction more than they did in last year’s election. Longing for something beyond fear, the “axis of evil,” preemptive foreign policy, smaller yield nuclear weapons, and that all time Bush-Cheney favorite, “war on terror.”

This is going to put Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the conservative townhall brawlers right off their weekend. Cue up the “Yasser Arafat won it too” brigade, which is exactly what the UK Times did; but considering they’re also the outlet that used our soldiers for their own purposes yesterday I’m not surprised. Ignorance is seldom gracious. Mickey Klaus already saying Pres. Obama should turn it down. This insulting right wing post mild compared to what we’ll hear on wingnut radio. Michael Steele being, well, Michael Steele: ‘What has Pres Obama actually accomplished?’

For Pres. Obama’s outreach to the Muslim community, which is nothing less than historic, especially looking through the prism of Bush-Cheney; when you look at his preliminary preparations for Middle East dialogue; when he took the bold step to demand a freeze in Israeli settlements. Barack Obama foreshadows what could be if partners come forth, even if nothing concrete has manifested. In Afghanistan, his determination to help the Afghans help themselves, but particularly the women of that country rise up.

From Foreign Policy, “Dangerous Prize,” an article revealing the mixed blessing of Obama’s award:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize’s very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, “The prize … is not only for past achievement. … The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”

It’s a huge honor of hope and promise given to a man who represents the best of America in his rise to the presidency. But with Nobel Prize for Peace also comes expectations that have not yet been met. I just hope it becomes something Pres. Obama utilizes to push harder and farther, with more energy than he is currently expressing. Because there are enough challenges Pres. Obama is facing that we can all hope this will give him new energy to face them all.

The American jury is still out.

Read full story · Comments are closed

UK Times Uses U.S. Soldiers in Anti War Campaign

By on 08 October 2009
szep_mcchrystal

As Pres. Obama and his administration head into the moment where they’ll announce their Afghanistan – Pakistan strategy going forward, everyone who is against staying is out making their final arguments, some righteously meant, others opportunistically taking advantage of the situation to capitalize on their favorite point, while hitting Pres Obama broadside. Meanwhile, get prepared for a compromise on McChrystal’s request, though we still have to get down to dealing with the Taliban. (See this post.) Anyway…

Today it’s the Times UK with a shameful headline with an obvious agenda: American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains, complete with a devastatingly poignant photo of an American military man in despair. Huffington Post, Drudge Report, with it’s screaming TROOP MORALE FALLING headline, Islam Online and Democratic Underground all blasted the UK story on their homepages this morning. Mission accomplished.

No one is doubting that there are soldiers who are feeling down about Afghanistan. How could they not? George W. Bush didn’t have a strategy in Afghanistan, which included screwing up in Tora Bora where bin Laden was allowed to escape, focusing instead on preemptively invading Iraq. Pres. Obama not turning his attention to the region until now.

But how many service members do you think these army chaplains talked to in the two U.S. battalions that are the focus of this article compiled in the middle of a deadly, forgotten war? What difference would a clear cut mission make? Perhaps a lot, as polls show Americans are divided right now, even as support is softening amidst the open debate, so an effective strategy could make a difference.

Also from the article, though it’s not being mentioned much.

The base is not, it has to be said, obviously downcast, and many troops do not share the chaplains’ assessment. The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can. Re-enlistment rates are surprisingly good for the 2-87, though poor for the 4-25. Several men approached by The Times, however, readily admitted that their morale had slumped.”

The article’s intentions are clear. But it also provides ammunition to the Democratic president’s adversaries at a time when the U.S. commander in chief is making one of his most difficult decisions.

Gateway Pundit’s headline blares: Stunner… Troop Morale Falling Under President Obama. The Jawa Report even worse, as the right tries to sew the narrative of Obama as failed commander in chief, ala Jimmy Carter.

This is a lie. Troop morale in Afghanistan first cratered under George W. Bush, because he left our men and women in Afghanistan ill-equipped, under-resourced, and with no clear mission since the initial bombing, which happened as retaliation for 9/11, let’s not forget.

The intention of the UK Times article may be to further discourage U.S. support for the war, but using U.S. soldiers to do it is unconscionable. And if you think you’re going to find happy face stories in a deadly war zone, let alone one that’s been neglected for 8 years, you are simply too ignorant for the current debate.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Karl Rove Is An Idiot, the Ongoing Saga

By on 08 October 2009
dunce

Unemployed, Karl “Mr. Permanent Republican Majority” Rove is trying his hand at being a comedian. If his column in the Wall Street Journal is evidence of his stand up, he might have a future. Here’s the opener: Passing health-care reform could be harmful to the health of congressional Democrats. If it looks like BaucusCare, without a public option, he may be right, with there no doubt that Democrats are up against it in 2010, but not because of their attempts at health care reform. The problem is the country’s bailout blues.

However, one thing Mr. Rove neglects to analyze is just how bad Republicans suck in the eyes of the American people.

Via Political Wire, Quinnipiac has the full skinny.

* Voters disapprove 64% to 25% of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job, with even 42% of Republican voters disapproving
* Only 29% think Republicans on Capitol Hill are acting in good faith
* Voters trust Obama more than Republicans 47% to 31% to handle health care
* By a 53% to 25% margin, voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party

The numbers are all over the place right now.

But if you want to know why Pres. Obama is working so hard to get Republicans on board, just look at independents in the Quinnipiac poll: Democrats are OK with a one-party bill 63 – 29 percent, but opposition is… and 62 – 32 percent from independent voters.

And about the public option:

“”President Barack Obama’s approval rating has held at 50 percent over the past two months of high-intensity debate on health care and other issues,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. And while the spotlight is on the President, Republicans are taking a public opinion pounding.”

The bottom line is that the finished product matters. It also matters that whatever Democrats pass, and they will pass “something,” it won’t be implemented by mid-terms. Someone tell Mr. Rove.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Fitness for Office, Overweight Edition

By on 08 October 2009

Good bottom line news on BaucusCare, which is going to finally be voted on next Tuesday.

But let’s not kid ourselves. If we’re going to be serious about health, not just health care reform, obesity has to be in the spotlight.

Enter the Corzine campaign, which has gone from politically dead to having a chance to win. Gov. Jon Corzine is being accused of hitting below the belt.

Mr. Corzine’s television commercials and Web videos feature unattractive images of Mr. Christie, sometimes shot from the side or backside, highlighting his heft, jowls and double chin.

Meanwhile, Mr. Corzine, 62, is conspicuously running in 5- and 10-kilometer races almost every weekend, as he did last Saturday and Sunday, underscoring his athleticism and readiness for the physical demands of another term — and raising doubts about Mr. Christie’s.

Jeffrey Goldberg having the most hilarious post of all on the issue, talking to an “obesity guru” about the Corzine tactics. The “obesity guru” quoted as saying: This ad reflects a total lack of understanding, empathy and tolerance. No one should be criticized for being overweight…

That’s part of our problem today. “Tolerance” for obesity has gotten us in the situation we’re in today. The “obesity guru” citing Ted Kennedy, who struggled with his weight. But did you notice once he was in a good marriage he started losing? That as he got older the weight started falling off?

Yglesias joins Goldberg: On the other, it does often seem that prejudice against the overweight is one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. But this really looks to me like a (deserved) backlash waiting to happen…

That “prejudice” just might save someone’s life. Besides, ask anyone who was fat or overweight about how they feel once they start losing weight. Every answer will be the same. It’s a great feeling to be slimmer, even if you’ll never be slim.

It’s not healthy to be obese any more than it’s healthy to be anorexic. So, if this country is going to get serious about health care reform we need to understand that our own habits and lifestyles contribute to how much we’re going to need to call on our health care plans to save us from ourselves.

Now if we could just get Regina Benjamin, Obama’s choice for surgeon general, to launch a public campaign of health weight loss and how to eat, which would help her as well, maybe all this noise about health care reform would have a real foundation. That our personal responsibility to manifest healthy lifestyles is part of the package.

As for Corzine’s campaign, the issues are also on his side. Just look at the video above. All’s fair against a candidate who doesn’t support women’s health.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Just One Reason I Don’t Belong to NOW

By on 07 October 2009

I really didn’t want to write about this, but NOW’s recent statement about David Letterman made it impossible to ignore, though I did try. Could they have sounded more retro, even clueless? When Mary Katharine Ham was opining about Letterman asking where women’s groups were, I let it go. I don’t expect a conservative to understand a woman’s responsibility to herself in the 21st century, even as they ignore real issues that impact women here and across the globe.

After all, Letterman isn’t a case like what Sen. Al Franken was fighting against regarding KBR, where Republicans ducked their responsibilities to women, though no one is surprised. Only 10 Republicans supported Franken’s amendment. Ten.

NOW whines:

“The latest Letterman controversy sheds new light on the widespread objectification of women in the workplace,” NOW said in a statement Tuesday. “Most women can attest to the fact that many workplaces are plagued with inappropriate behavior by men in power.” … “Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees,” NOW said in Tuesday’s statement. …

Oh, grow up.

This is not the 1970s or even the 20th century any longer. Women have recourse if they’re sexually harassed at work, or should which is why Franken wrote his amendment, though there is no evidence so far that this was the case with David Letterman, who, by the way, is not an employee of CBS, for all of you writing that he should be “fired.” Besides, who’d drop someone with these ratings?

There is also such a thing as women going after a relationship that isn’t appropriate and could jeopardize their livelihood. Saying that there may be a “hostile” workplace or they’re afraid of getting fired, especially at the level of David Letterman’s show, is ludicrous. Unless you’re also trying to float that women are too weak to speak up for themselves. At this point in time, if they are they have no business in show business or any high profile job, which includes “The Letterman Show.”

Hey, but I argued via the web back in the 1990s, long before blogging was invented, that even Monica Lewinsky got herself in the fix she landed in. She wasn’t too young to set her sights on the President of the United States, snapping her thong and coming on to him. That is not how a victim acts, no matter how stupid and weak WJC was to fall for it.

Be careful what you wish for, ladies, which includes what you go after, especially when you’re “young.” Though anyone who has ever been around a teenager has seen these young girls twist boys and men around their finger, with the power of youth something most young women are very well aware works in their favor. They use it, especially today. Parents need to be aware of their daughter’s sexuality and get involved, because NOW crying after the fact just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Letterman remains the funniest, most astute comedic voice on TV today, with no one else near his league. If women fell for his charms, well, it says one thing. All the research I did on relationships that revealed women find humor an irresistible aphrodisiac remains true and always will. Couple that with Kissinger’s quote about power and you’ve got a dangerously seductive cocktail where Letterman is concerned.

NOW obviously needs a broader canvas, because bellyaching about Letterman just makes them sound stupid. There are women in lower level positions that are threatened, like the situation Franken is fighting, which no one doubts. Pick better causes.

And women in the workplace beware. It’s the 21st century. Your behavior, including choosing workplace entanglements, is now on you.

Read full story · Comments are closed

GOP on Pelosi: ‘Put Her in Her Place’

By on 07 October 2009

The state of play, put bluntly is as follows… Republicans are gnashing at the bit to get that bitch woman Pelosi, aka Pussy Galore according to the right, back where she belongs. Anywhere but leading.

Gallup polling on generic congressional races has obviously excited the misogynist wing of the RNC, which means the entire Republicans Party. After all, who can forget John McCain being against the Ledbetter Act, with Carly Fiorina backing him on it, which I grilled her on in an interview I was granted during the 2008 fight. NRCC Spokesman Ken Spain not backing down from the quote below, saying Pelosi was “playing out of her league.”

“If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.” – Politico

genericCongressBallot

It’s not hard to ascertain what “her place” is, now is it?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz shot back: “I think the place for a woman is at the top of the House of Representatives.” Is there any woman in Congress with more spine than Ms. Schultz? If you don’t know anything about her use The Google. A remarkable fighter.

I remember when Mrs. Pelosi was sworn in, as I was inside the Capitol to watch it happen. It meant a lot to women everywhere. Nothing would please Republicans more than defeating enough Republicans in 2010 to oust Pelosi from Speaker of the House, with signs pointing to the possibility that it’s heading in that direction.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Rules Out Troop Withdrawal

By on 07 October 2009

–updated–

And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. “I’m the one who hired him,” Mr. Obama said, according to participants. “I put him there to give me a frank assessment.” – Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force


Thank the gods, though I never believed troop withdrawal from Afghanistan was an option. Also believing that McChrystal’s request should not be granted, though Gen. David H. Petraeus, while saying we need “a sustained, substantial commitment,” on which I agree, didn’t say if that meant more troops or how many if so. I’m getting the uneasy feeling that Obama will compromise and send some, while acquiescing to Biden on counterterrorism, while not fully giving up on COIN either, resulting in a strategy with no clear cut purpose. Oh, how I hope I’m wrong.

Today, Obama is meeting with his national security team on Pakistan, with one last meeting on Friday dealing with Afghanistan, which is being reported as the last confab before the President decides.

On a duel track, Laura Rozen puts National Security Adviser James L. Jones’ place in the Obama structure in a strategic light that recently paid big dividends for the President.

David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has also studied the NSC, said the recent McChrystal episode demonstrates “where Jones adds value.”

“In saying, ‘Look, I know the way this works,’ he used very loaded military language, which is that he [McChrystal] is down in the chain of command,” he said. “Jones played it exactly right [and] tried to bring it all under control in a dignified way.”

For you night owls, I don’t know if any of you saw Lara Logan of CBS on “Charlie Rose,” but it was quite enlightening. It also was illustrative of how complex and confusing the obstacles, choices and logistics are on the road ahead. Quotes from Logan, via my tweets last night:

Hearing from Logan about the “US bought into Pakistan’s stories for years” is like hearing history’s judgment. Since Reagan. Infuriating. (link)

“The people that matter are across the border inside Pakistan. …they have to be killed.” (link)

“Taliban on behalf of the Pashtuns want power back. They want to control their country.” (link)

Logan’s assessments on Afghanistan are as good as anyone speaking on the subject. Yet, as true as they are they don’t lead to any clear cut conclusion, which is why the Obama administration is having so much trouble. Her analysis regarding the people that matter are across the border inside Pakistan. …they have to be killed comes as close to the Clinton – Gates view as I’ve heard, Hillary also being partial to McChrystal’s advice as far as reports have offered, though her advice is only going to the President. On the Taliban fighting on “behalf of the Pashtuns,” well, this isn’t new. It’s why Pashtuns were displaced long ago to the north in an effort to unify Afghanistan. You still have to deal with the minorities. And there is no doubt that the U.S. bought into the Pakistanis, going back to when our nightmare began, Ronald Reagan, even if it was Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinksi who tipped the scale and funded the Mujahadeen first. They sure as hell weren’t around long enough to see anything through.

But none of Logan’s analysis aligns with the Afghans aversion to foreigners inside their country telling them what to do, even with the conflicting worry Afghans have that the U.S. are “short timers” in their country, most seeing the need for us to stay to offer security to Afghans, seen through Afghan force training particularly, which is our only way through.

The experts like David Loyn, Peter Bergen, Lara Logan and many others, who have been on the ground, something I’ve not been able to manifest, give us the lay of the land in Afghanistan, with the politics of war inside that country and what it means to our larger mission in Pakistan, which is clearly long term, something else.

But at this point I have a very queasy feeling from what I’m reading and hearing. If we don’t hear something beyond troops, dealing specifically with financial aid, particularly how we get the monies directly to the Afghans, it could lead to a deeper quagmire for the U.S. and more trouble for Barack Obama, which won’t be good for anyone.

It’s also hard to understand any thinking that postulates we can rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. Remembering that the Pakistani Taliban are another thing all together.

“In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn,” Shinkai Karokhail, an Afghan member of Parliament and woman activist, told them. “International troop presence here is a guarantee for my safety.” – Christian Science Monitor

Read full story · Comments are closed

Mr. Deeds Blames Washington

By on 07 October 2009

The White House is stepping back from lending its heft to a bellwether gubernatorial race in Virginia, party strategists say, seeking to conserve its political capital and avoid close association with a candidate who might lose. – White House Steps Back in Virginia Race

The White House hasn’t been shy about butting in to state races, so everyone knows what this means.

I’m a newcomer to the DC area, so I won’t pretend to have historical insights on Virginia, particularly. However, anyone who believes the problems of Creigh Deeds’ candidacy is all about politics in Washington isn’t seeing the whole picture, regardless of what Mr. Deeds says. Via Politico:

“Frankly, a lot of what’s going on in Washington has made it very tough,” Deeds said in a “Battleground Virginia” interview sponsored by ABC 7/WJLA-TV, POLITICO, Google and YouTube. “We had a very tough August because people were just uncomfortable with the spending; they were uncomfortable with a lot of what was going on, a lot of the noise that was coming out of Washington, D.C.”

Shorter Deeds: Don’t blame me because I can’t overtake McDonnell. It’s “Washington’s” fault.

Ah yes, that amorphous blame Washington excuse, as if anything could make up for Deeds’s pathetic campaign, even with the gift of McDonnell’s thesis. Seriously, nothing could have offered a more advantageous opportunity. Remember what Jim Webb did with one George Allen “macaca” moment?

That said, Virginians sure do seem to have bailout blues, representing their biggest beef with Obama so far.

But really, this was all just so predictable. After all, Deeds lost to McDonnell once before. So, I just don’t understand what Virginia Democrats were thinking in the first place.

Even while behind, Deeds refused more debates, then used the old my staff made me do it excuse. According to Creigh Deeds, nothing is his fault.

A loss in Virginia will ricochet through Republican circles, as they take it as foreshadowing for 2010. After all, Virginia went for Obama, so if they’re tiring of his politics already can big wins next year be far behind?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rush’s Racist Patter Bites Back

By on 07 October 2009

“Dave and I are part of a bid to buy the Rams and we are continuing the process. But I can say no more because of a confidentiality clause in our agreement with Goldman Sachs. We cannot and will not talk about our partners. But if we prevail we will be the operators of the team.” – Rush Limbaugh

rams

Mr. Limbaugh’s “Barack the Magic Negro” was the crescendo of his over the top rhetoric over race, but there was much that preceded it. Of course, racism isn’t his only problem. Has he ever given respect to any professional woman on the left? But do either of these issues have anything whatsoever to do with Rush Limbaugh joining Dave Checketts, owner of the NHL St. Louis Blues, to buy the Rams?

No, they don’t.

It also didn’t help when Limbaugh imploded on ESPN for saying Donovan McNabb was overrated, but no one would say so because the league wanted an African American qb to do well in the NFL. It forced a resignation from Rush.

Now, I’m not a fan of Rush, having been one of his harshest critics, long before blogging was the way on the web. His sexism is legendary and nothing for which to be proud. His comments about Hillary Clinton wanting to join the military, with Rush saying her keister was too big to fit into the uniforms, with “feminazis” and “info-babes” regular slurs he uses against women representing Rush’s testosterone Turrets when it comes to his inability to handle strong women equal to him. The concept itself making him uncomfortable.

However, anyone who has listened to Rush over the 20 years he’s been around has heard his passion for football. That doesn’t mean he’d be a good owner of a football team, but should his political commentary matter?

Bryan Burwell, of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, thinks so. But he doesn’t go after Rush on his ability to operate the franchise. Burwell attacks Rush playing the race card.

[...] … So Rush Limbaugh wants to own the Rams. Well good for him. That’s his right as an American. But I just wonder if the NFL has learned its lesson from the last little dance with him. Dancing with Limbaugh is like dancing with a snake. Eventually, the snake will bite you. That’s his nature.

You just might want to consider this while everyone is conveniently forgetting (or perhaps even quietly agreeing with) all the polarizing racial politics that comes along with Limbaugh:

In this modern age of the NFL, where free agents have the right to pick where they play, how many will turn their nose up at the Rams once they get a whiff of Limbaugh’s “Bloods vs. Crips” sensibilities?

I grew up in St. Louis, spending a lot of time watching the St. Louis Cardinals, football and baseball teams, the latter my absolute favorite. I’ve written about Missouri’s tortured legacy on race, including my big bro’s legal work on the matter, as well as my own experiences. Race in St. Louis is not something to take lightly, not even today.

Maybe it’s fair of Burwell considering Rush’s political commentary, especially on Obama. But racism is racism and Mr. Burwell would do well to check himself on this one. (Same with Robert Littal.)

Besides, what all this has to do with Rush’s bid to buy the Rams (who have 5-31 record since 2007) is beyond me.

Unless you actually believe Rush Limbaugh as Rams owner would keep a black player down, vaulting a less talented white player in his place. Something that simply is not believable. As Rams owner, if you really want to factor in his political style, Rush would want to win, likely at all costs. Think Jerry Jones firing Tom Landry.

Read full story · Comments are closed

SecDef Gates Serves Notice on John McCain

By on 06 October 2009

“Most of my career, the secretaries of state and defense weren’t speaking to one another. …and it could get pretty ugly actually. It’s terrific to have the kind of relationship where we can talk together. … .. Well, I don’t think we’re trying to prove anything. It’s just we get along, we work together well. I think it starts with, frankly, based on my experience, the secretary of defense being willing to acknowledge that the secretary of state is the principle spokesperson for United States foreign policy.” … – Secretary Gates

There has been a lot of hand wringing and opining over what may or may not be going on between McChrystal and Obama and beyond, with McCain, comfortable being in the middle. Speaker Pelosi got into it last night on “Charlie Rose,” offering her opinion before she was asked saying, “I think that that’s not where this debate takes place.” That it should go up the chain of command. Sen. Jim Webb being the latest to fire a salvo, saying it was “pretty odd” for General McChrystal to be giving a speech in London as people were debating strategy in the White House.

Back to the video of the CNN event with Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno just before 4:00 minutes in:

Fresno: Are you trying to muzzle McChrystal?
Gates: Absolutely not

That’s the obligatory, with it all being about politics, which is significantly important when the military is involved. This is remnants of the damage done under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Segue to Sen. John McCain and Democrats after the meeting with Pres. Obama today, with McCain being asked afterwards if General McChrystal should testify to Congress. He laughed and said emphatically, “yes.”

On that point Gates was adamant, so it pits John McCain against Secretary of Defense Gates. My money’s with Gates. At the end of the video above:

“…But it would put, I believe, it would put General McChrystal in an impossible situation to go up in a hyper partisan environment to the Hill before the President made his decisions and put the general on the spot. I just think that’s wrong. I think it’s wrong for General McChrystal and it’s wrong for the President. And as far as I’m concerned in this job, I’ll do everything in my power to prevent that until the President has made his decision.”

The key point is until the President has made his decision, then Gates will make McChrystal available to Congress.

George W. Bush put Petraeus in the middle by having the general testify and validate Bush’s strategy, using Petraeus as a shield. It was political cowardice and set a horrific standard for what must always be the civilian leadership of the military in U.S. national security.

Unlike Bush, Obama doesn’t need a general to validate his commander in chief credentials, because as a Democrat he’s fully aware that it’s civilians who decide policy. The military implements them. It’s a concept Republicans tend not to be able to grasp, with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. more comfortable using the military for their own political purposes.

But getting back to the discussion with Gates and Clinton, it’s never happened before. The secretaries of Defense and State sitting together for a joint interview. “Well, we actually spend a lot of time together,” said Clinton at the start and even though it’s in the Situation Room.

Imagine Powell and Rumsfeld doing this? Boxing gloves would have been required, that is if you could have even gotten them on the same stage.

William Rogers and Henry Kissinger? That’s absolutely laughable.

Go back to the last sentence in the Gates’ quote at the top of this post. Neither Rumsfeld nor Kissinger would ever have subjugated their egos to anyone, woman or man.

As for John McCain making a scene that he wants to get to the general before Pres. Obama makes his decision, well, too bad. Senators don’t tell Presidents what they want from generals. When Obama is ready, Senator McCain, he’ll let you know.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Ratigan’s Smackdown with Betsy McCaughey

By on 06 October 2009

“My opinion is not the issue here, but to distort the facts in order to pursue some political agenda that is to the detriment of this country is borderline treasonous, if you ask me.” – Dylan Ratigan

Dylan Ratigan, who can be as rude as anyone in cable, which was witnessed yesterday when he went over the top on Mark McKinnon, is proving to be an interesting host with serious potential, provided his instincts for the jugular are honed. As off the mark as he was yesterday, today he found a perfect target in Betsy McCaughey’s blathering and blew it to smithereens.

Michelle Cottle has a profile of Ms. McCaughey (pronounced McCoy) whose sub-header reads: The never-ending lunacy of Betsy McCaughey. Cottle links to McCaughey’s take down of Hillarycare back in 1994, a piece that gives you an idea of her irrationality.

[...] … While not everything she says is off the mark, says Gail Wilensky, one of McCaughey’s conservative critics, “It’s very frustrating to see somebody who makes outrageous statements that bear no relationship to reality receive so much attention.” Yes, McCaughey professes to have read the legislation currently circulating, and, as in 1994, she brandishes that fact like a talisman that can dispel any conflicting viewpoint. But, also as in 1994, she spins out an indefensibly sinister, apocalyptic translation of the text that no amount of countervailing evidence can shake. Thus, health care adviser Emanuel’s theoretical writings about how to allocate scarce resources, such as human organs, morph into McCaughey’s conviction that Obama’s “deadly doctor” advocates denying treatment to the elderly and infirm on cost-benefit grounds. Likewise, a database to coordinate information on which treatments work best for which patients–an initiative supported by wonks across the political spectrum–is seen by McCaughey as the first step toward government-programmed computers ordering doctors how to do their jobs. Within the self-styled empiricist resides the mind of a pathological alarmist. …

The woman who was instrumental in helping bring down Clinton’s healthcare plan in the 1990s is enjoying her current reprise on the same subject, but this time there is cable news and new media to make sure her lies and distortions don’t go unchecked. However, it’s a full time job as we all saw this summer, when McCaughey’s “death panels” hijacked the health care debate and put Obama and the Democrats on the defensive until fall, because they didn’t see it coming. She may be wacky (read: pathological right wing liar), but she’s loud, knows how to craft a soundbite that sticks, with her aim at perception pinpoint, which often wins where political debate is concerned, regardless that facts and reality lie well beyond.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Gibbs: No Option to Leave Afghanistan

By on 06 October 2009

SecDef Gates has put his foot down.

Yesterday in the press briefing Robert Gibbs made another thing clear.

MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, the President was — the President was exceedingly clear that no part of the conversation on — no part of the conversation involved was leaving Afghanistan. That’s not something that has ever been entertained, despite the fact that people still get asked what happens if we leave Afghanistan. That’s not a decision that’s on the table to make. [...] … I don’t think we have the option to leave. I think that’s quite clear.

This morning, CNN was talking about a “resurgence” of the Taliban, with a clip of SecDef Robert Gates saying that because of a lack of troops the Taliban now has the momentum. Even Barbara Starr was surprised by his statement. I wonder why?

sheehan

Clinton and Gates will do a special edition of Christiane Amanpour’s new show today at 3 p.m. eastern, which should be interesting. But listening to them in the CNN clip talk about the Taliban as if they can or should be vanquished seemed surreal. On this one point there are great similarities to what Lyndon Johnson tried to do in Vietnam. Thinking we’ll ever drive out the Taliban is ludicrous, because they’ll just wait us out. If that sounds familiar it should. The Taliban are part of the Afghanistan consciousness, according to most of the experts I’ve heard or read. We have to talk to them and realize we have to find some way to make them part of a solution. Strategy that includes a plan to eradicate the Taliban is simply nuts. Surely Pres. Obama knows this or someone will disabuse him of this notion.

On another front, and unfortunately for the righteous progressives pushing for a withdrawal to get out of Afghanistan, someone who may have heartfelt sentiments about it, but who isn’t the best public image has re-emerged. Cindy Sheehan is most certainly sincere, but I’m not sure she’s who you want out front.

Read full story · Comments are closed