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 | November, 2009

Michael Moore’s Letter

No one can say Michael Moore doesn’t deliver a heartfelt plea to Pres. Obama. However, it’s not Barack Obama’s fault if Moore and a multitude of others thought Barack Obama was someone he isn’t. When we hit Afghanistan it was because of 9/11. Anyone who forgets that is just rewriting history, which I assure you Pres. Obama is not doing. He always believed in this war, but has had to adjust to the harsh realities of Pres. Karzai’s re-election in the midst of overwhelming evidence that corruption got him there. Anyone knowing anything about Afghanistan shouldn’t be shocked by this, unfortunately, we’re not a world savvy society. But the fog of people who expected something different from Obama is now costing our President, especially when people make pronouncements that are politically tone deaf, not to mention impossible to pull off.

Moore reveals the problem throughout his letter, buy here’s one snippet:

When we elected you we didn’t expect miracles. We didn’t even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn’t even function as a nation and never, ever has.

When Moore says that people didn’t expect “miracles,” not even “much change,” but then goes on to pronounce that after what’s happened in Afghanistan since 9/11 Obama should “stop the killing,” he’s revealing a lack of understanding about what Obama faces.

There is no palatable political way out for Pres. Obama on Afghanistan. None. Zip. Zero. Deal with it.

The notion that withdrawal from Afghanistan is possible at this point is ludicrous. Given our investment, as well as that of NATO and our allies, such a rash move would lead to bedlam. It’s preposterous to posit. As for the troop escalation, I’m against it, as I’ve learned from talking to many experts that 30-40,000 troops won’t make a bit of difference. (Though I believe strongly in aiding Afghanistan on the civilian side, supporting Obama wholeheartedly on believing this country is in our strategic interest to aid.) On the other side, if Obama sends 30,000 he’s not only not giving McChrystal what he said was needed, but he’s picked an arbitrary number for his own purposes. Additionally, with regard to Obama saying he intends to “finish the job,” as he said last week in his press conference with PM Singh, which I attended, he’s not going to be able to lay out a point-by-point strategy to get out, because this is a one step at a time situation he’s inherited.

Unfortunately, the mood of the audience that awaits Obama tomorrow night is not a happy one and they’re sick of hearing promises.

Couple all of this with the back drop of West Point, which will enrage the President’s base and others who want out of Afghanistan, like Moore, including many readers here and beyond, and you’ve got a very toxic mix.

Pres. Obama likely doesn’t care, as he could see all this turmoil on the left as a good sign for him. The right will be equally dissatisfied if Obama gives a bit less than McChrystal wants, but also talks about an end at some fictional place in some fantasy war scenario. Landing Pres. Obama in the middle of the mayhem. He admitted long ago he wasn’t an ideologue, so no one should be surprised he’s not acting like one.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Is Freedom Only for Men?

homer_marge

That’s the first question I’d ask the right. After all, they’re the ones that dragged us into this mess in the first place.

…and by “right,” I mean both Republicans and Democrats, because women have clearly got enemies on our side these days.

If the answer is no, then I’d say that ends it for Stupak-Pitts and any language close to it becoming law.

…and we haven’t even gotten to the part about the Senate bill not covering basic gynecological exams like pap smears. Want to bet Viagra is still covered? That prostate exams are covered? From Nancy Folbre:

Neither of the bills currently before either the House or Senate mandates coverage of contraceptive services, pelvic exams or counseling for sexually transmitted diseases.

You hear a lot about freedom from the right, people like Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. But they need to explain to me if a woman doesn’t have 100% control over her body what freedom actually exists for her.

More from Nancy Folbre of the New York Times:

What Professor Levine terms “minor restrictions” on abortion keep piling up. The Hyde amendment, passed by Congress in 1976, prohibited expenditures of federal funds spent by Health and Human Services on abortions. The prohibition has since been extended to health insurance covering federal employees, patients of the Indian Health Service and women in the military.

Twenty-four states require a waiting period of 24 hours between counseling and the procedure, which is especially onerous if a woman must travel a long way to find a clinic. In 2005, abortion services were not available in 87 percent of counties in the United States.

Currently, five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma) restrict private insurance coverage for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.

I can already hear the “abortion on demand” health care debate gear up, an insult for any woman, because it assumes we’re all irresponsible cretins that don’t understand our responsibilities. Yes, there are a very tiny few who abuse rights, including irresponsible men, but they aren’t the average. Like every U.S. citizens in this country, the freedom women have won through the courts to have control over our own bodies comes with serious responsibilities, which includes men as well where sex is concerned. No one is suggesting that women’s freedoms and civil rights excludes following reasonable laws. But anything that impedes our ability to have control over our bodies is trampling on our freedoms.

The next question I’d ask the right is whether poor women should be allowed the same freedoms as women of means. Because once you make money the bargaining chip for full freedoms, civil rights have been denied. So, what happens when a poor woman can’t pay for an abortion herself, but is denied insurance for this procedure because the new insurance exchanges set up deny coverage, because of Stupak-Pitts, and Hyde?

We’ve got a serious problem that has wormed it’s way into the debate, because Democrats have abandoned the fight for women’s civil rights, which includes access and means to exercise our rights as provided by the law.

As the health care debate heats up, this is the bottom line question: Is freedom only for men?

What’s the answer? You hear from many that the issue of women’s civil rights, otherwise known as the abortion debate, is just a “distraction.” That it’s silly to talk about full reproductive health care access for women when health care reform is at stake.

The question I have for Democrats on the right willing to sell women out is why are you making us refight battles we’ve won in the courts? The most stunning chapter added by the first female Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who bet that women’s rights could be saved “down the line,” as long as she was able to get this “win” on health care reform. That Democrats in the House allowed it to happen shows the naivete on our side, as the right continues their assault on women’s rights.

Don’t worry about tomorrow for the sacrifices you make today. However, if Hyde has taught us anything it’s that Stupak-Pitts was coming, it was just a matter of time. Speaker Pelosi became the wind beneath the right’s wings.

To get past the never ending seesaw over abortion Democrats have to lead, beginning with the argument that the law is clear and women have the right to have 100% control over our bodies, within guidelines already set down by law, which many states have already taken too far. Limiting access is ignoring the rights we’ve won, forcing us into a situation where these rights have been obliterated.

Why isn’t anyone daring to argue that the Hyde Amendment should be repealed, because it assaults women’s rights, especially poor women? Because the poor don’t vote or vote in very small numbers. Catholic Bishops and right-wing groups have more power, because they have more money, buying off the rights of women with the aid of spineless legislators.

What good is a right if you have no access to exercise it? If women have the right to have an abortion, but cannot pay for it, don’t have access to insurance to help, or can’t find doctors to counsel on full reproductive and sexual disease counseling and treatment, what do the victories for privacy and through Roe v. Wade actually mean?

Would men ever bargain their own personal freedoms away?

Why are we asking women to do just that, sacrificing themselves and generations of women who came before us and fought for the rights gradually dying?

Megan McArdle of the Atlantic is painfully and predictably nonchalant, not even bothering to realize that she wrote the following: The women who genuinely can’t afford $500 bucks for an abortion are the women closest to the poverty line. Those women will be covered by Medicare, and they won’t get abortion coverage anyway in most states. … um… I make mistakes too, but thinking about a Medicare recipient and abortion shouldn’t be one of them, especially from someone that writes regularly on this subject. The whole narrative of a woman who “genuinely can’t afford $500 bucks” dripping in elitism. But Megan isn’t worried; no one in her comfy Atlantic audience will be impacted. Ms. McArdle is an example of why we’ve gone from Griswold to Roe to Hyde to Stupak-Pitts, with reproductive services to be harder and harder to get. I doubt it would phase her if abortion coverage couldn’t be found in the exchanges either, even as she ignores there’s hardly a built in market for a procedure that is purely unexpected.

No one should be willing to give up women’s freedoms already won and laid down in U.S. law, let alone women. But today, from our cozy liberated seats, some are doing just that. The Hyde Amendment was the beginning and Stupak-Pitts is further denial of the right’s ultimate goal, now aided by the left. To do through congressional amendments what they can’t do through the courts: deny women 100% control over their own body, with full access to whatever we need to protect our civil rights.

That the Senate bill doesn’t even cover basic women’s health reproductive issues shouldn’t shock anyone, least of all people like Megan McArdle. Women are used to sacrificing ourselves to the greater good, even expected to do it, so what’s a little more, right?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Talking Women, Health Care and Civil Rights with Rosie O’Donnell

updated

Rosie read “In Pelosi’s House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out” over at Huffington Post, enjoying it very much, which was the jumping off point for the interview with Rosie on health care.

As an aside, Wednesday, December 2nd, is going to be a lobby and national action day in D.C. on the issue of women’s civil rights. I’ll write more about that later today, but will talk in depth about it on Rosie’s show.

As for getting involved, start by emailing and calling your senators and representatives. Let them know that if they don’t support women’s civil rights, you won’t be supporting them.

From Center for Reproductive Rights:

Three key facts:

* A majority of private health insurance plans now provide coverage for abortion services.
* One in 3 women will have an abortion within her lifetime.
* Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures.

Under the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban, which passed the House in the health reform bill, women would not be covered for abortions in the new health insurance market despite spending their own money to purchase coverage.

And women who opt into the more affordable public option would be banned from getting coverage for abortion services, even if their own money was used to buy insurance.

With Stupak-Pitts, it would be much harder—and perhaps impossible—for private insurance companies to offer abortion coverage for plans under health reform

The same politicians who oppose healthcare reform because it is “big government” now want to dictate the terms of women’s healthcare coverage.

Obviously, a very important subject for us all.

I don’t do radio interviews much anymore, having overdosed on them over the last 15 years. And even though I wish I could successfully land back on radio, podcasts remain an enjoyable part of my work, with interviews important to me.

Here’s where you can contact me if you have further questions or comments.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Happy Hanukkah, Mr. Netanyahu

Okay, so it’s not December 11th yet, but the news that Ahmadinejad is puffing up his presidential feathers is bound to make Bibi Netanyahu feel he’s got leverage that he didn’t when Iran’s president first said he’d accept to enrich his nuclear material elsewhere. From the Washington Post:

Iran’s government will build 10 new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country’s nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that construction of at least five nuclear facilities is to begin within two months.

The surprise announcement came two days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic’s refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. The 35-member board of the agency also criticized Iran’s construction of a second enrichment plant in Qom, southwest of Tehran.

Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary had a terse response:

“If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran’s clear obligations under multiple UN security council resolutions, and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself. The international community has made clear that Iran has rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. As the overwhelming IAEA board of governors vote made clear, time is running out for Iran to address the international community’s growing concerns about its nuclear program.”

Considering Ahmadinejad’s move comes shortly after new admonishments, I’d say this nuclear tantrum is begging for more. But it still puts Obama in a tough spot, as Iran doesn’t seem to pay much attention to any threats. When you think about it, what exactly is it that Pres. Obama can actually do? Threats aren’t exactly working, which is why Netanyahu might being feeling a little more control shifting his way.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jon Meacham Turns Newsweek into The Onion

In the quest to sell magazines, evidently Mr. Meacham thinks train wreck journalism is the way to go. So, he’s turning Newsweek into The Onion, with no offense intended to the far superior latter named, whose mission is actually purposefully on point. The title tells it all: Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012.

But I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama’s unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

Where to begin?

How about “bracing referendum on competing visions,” with Meacham evidently forgetting all about the 2008 race. Oh right, John McCain isn’t a conservative, so there was never a real fight about “competing visions,” right?

And never mind Dick’s denials, starting in 2005, which aren’t enough for Meacham, who after his mind blowing Sarah Palin sexpot cover is certainly on a roll… straight down hill.

Now, when Mr. Cheney’s daughter Liz first floated that her dad was her candidate, it was an unremarkable moment that was only worth ignoring. Not because it couldn’t happen or that Dick Cheney denies it, but that this stuff is just so predictable. Just like David Broder’s whining.

In Meacham’s mind, Barack Obama losing to Dick Cheney would prove something that Obama seemingly didn’t prove to these people by beating McCain-Palin; running a campaign that was basically the anti-Bush platform, promising the opposite of everything his Administration and Dick Cheney stood for and represented. To Meacham, these milestones only count when it’s the conservative doing it. You know, someone from The Establishment, never mind the never ending resume of mistakes dragged along.

Liz is more likely to run than her dad (which I’ve already written). But Meacham’s misogyny won’t allow him to think about that horror.

Let’s also not forget that this isn’t the era of J.F.K. and multitudinous ailments hidden in plain sight, with Dick Cheney… Oh no you didn’t. Now I’m even arguing in the negative, taking on this preposterous notion offered from a man who would be fired for his incompetence or laughed out of the business if he wore a bra.

A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.

Denied us, really? Meacham is hopeless.

Besides, that’s the job of Congress, unfortunately Democrats don’t have the spine.

p.s. Skip Newsweek. Read this instead. It’s about Afghanistan and one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush-Cheney era. Maybe somebody will send it to Meacham.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Holiday Slackin’

Glenn Beck disses Sarah Palin. Seriously, could politics on the right get any lower? When asked about the whole Palin-Beck, Beck-Palin ticket, Glenn revealed his inner fundamentalism. No on around here is shocked. Via Think Progress:

She’d be yapping or something, and I’d say, “I’m sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I’m not in the kitchen.”

There are a lot of devoutly religious people who still believe this is a woman’s primary role, the kitchen and taking crap from cretins. Sarah Palin isn’t one of them. You’d think a network like Fox, who actually understands that Mrs. Palin has tapped into a world of woe out there, would get a clue about Beck, who belongs in the Richard Land genuflection club.

On a more serious note, the IAEA voted to censure Iran. Russia and China joined in. Here’s the document (h/t Laura Rozen). One sticking point:

(g) Also noting with serious concern that Iran has constructed an enrichment facility at Qom in breach of its obligation to suspend all enrichment related activities and that Iran’s failure to notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 is inconsistent with its obligations under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement,

And as Christians, pagans and party hounds across America begin our most festive and for some, reverent, holiday season, Eid is being celebrated by Muslims around the world. as Ramadan ends. (Apologies for referring to Ramadan instead of Hajj, though it certainly did prove the “slackin” part of this post.)

Oh, and about that couple who crashed the State Dinner… it doesn’t get much more embarrassing. Reality show wannabes. Seriously?

Now, back to slackin’.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Thanksgiving, the Soldiers, and that Eleanor Roosevelt Quote

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google. – Google

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 026

If you want to know what powerful women are up against, this photo gives you an example. I’m thankful that Michelle Obama can rise above, even as Google has seen fit to apologize for the image rising to high rank on its search. It would leave me speechless, except that I remember well what Hillary Clinton had to go through during her reign as first lady (and well beyond, let me add). The images weren’t racist, but the misogyny and sexist slaps were equally insulting. Powerful women get this all the time. Judge Sotomayor knows all about it. But you can’t keep strong women down. We are undaunted by the deluge.

“Every woman in public life needs to develop skin as tough as rhinoceros hide.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

The reason I find myself in Washington, D.C. this Thanksgiving is because of the man pictured here, who one year ago this coming week said it was time we moved to the nation’s capital. I’m frequently asked why I moved here, the answer obvious to anyone who knows me, especially my husband. They don’t make feminist men any better.

The shot was taken of Mark standing on the top of the hill, above J.F.K.’s grave at Arlington, wearing a very special 9/11 – PAPD hat that was a gift from a good friend, WB. I’ve seen countless ceremonies, wreath laying services, and the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and you never forget the sacrifices of those who stand watch for this country. Thank God for these brave souls, who choose to go into harm’s way to make the world a better place. Because today, it’s not just about U.S. national security within our own borders or the idea that is America, in a world where borders and boundaries, oceans and miles don’t keep us safe any longer, it’s about joining with the world to craft a better planet.

That’s one reason I’m grateful for President Barack Obama, someone who understands the world in a way his predecessor did not. I’ve many critiques on Mr. Obama, but I’m grateful he’s in office, because I don’t even won’t to contemplate the mess McCain-Palin would have made with what Bush-Cheney left in their wake. I never forget this, even as I remain mystified at the year past, which hasn’t come close to living up to the potential promised, with Obama coming into office with the wind at his back and the world at his feet. There is always time to turn it around, as Pres. Obama has more talent than all of the Republicans standing against him combined.

Thanks to all of you who make this place a stop on your day. Blessings to you and yours, to this country, as well as those who stand on the line, whose sole purpose is to give others in the world a chance to manifest our country’s promise in a land of their own. Even as we all know so very well we have a lot more work today in our own back yards.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Right Wing Frenzy on UK Climate Scandal Begins

updated

climategate

The latest is a UK report saying the scientist at the center of “climategate” has been told to quit. That likely won’t make a dent on the right, if Rush Limbaugh’s show yesterday is any indication. With Obama’s decision today to attend Copenhagen surely to ignite a wider furor (update to original post).

Driving home from covering the White House press conference with Obama and Singh, I turned on Rush. It was not the first of his show, but he was on a roll claiming that the climate scandal out of Britain, which I didn’t hear him mention, was as big as when scientists found that the earth was round. Rush then made an unprecedented apology for focusing so much on one subject, for being a “one-noter,” if you will. Oh yeah, the right’s in the feeding phase. Then on he ranted about what is absolutely a scandal at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. CRU is a critical group in their community, vaunted in its research and respect. That’s kaput, giving wingnuts like Sen. David “diapers” Vitter’s legislative aide, Bryan Zumwalt, a chance to toll the bell and claim this is the “greatest scientific fraud in history,” which you can bet will be used to beat climate change to death prior to Copenhagen.

The story from CBS News is excerpted below:

[...] The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week’s leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field’s most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data (“have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots”), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. …

Using this current drama, the right has begun to target all research on climate change, using CRU as the backdrop and foundation. The buzzards are circling. And by buzzard I mean James Inhofe, vice president of the Black Helicopter Crowd (John Bolton is president). He’s going to begin a “climategate” investigation. Mr. Inhofe is the same guy who railed against the Law of the Sea Treaty, officially known as United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which provided loads of fun for people like me a couple of years ago.

Now, I’m no climate change expert, but getting back to Sen. David Vitter, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Vitter’s ties to Louisiana’s oil and gas industry might be driving his office’s delusions. Though the misreading and manipulation by Zumalt, Vitter’s aide, is about as creative as the disgraced UK scientists involved in this scandal.

Because I think we can all agree that what has been leaked out of England was bad, very bad. But no one should allow the wingnuts to paint a broad brush across the entire scientific community because of it. However, that’s what the right does best, so they’re going to have a field day with this one. Copenhagen provides the perfect tee up.

In fact, if you want to have some fun, via the Wonk Room, search “Hadley, hacked, global warming, email, fraud” to see what you get. It’s a wingnutapalooza.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama on Afghanistan: ‘It is my intention to finish the job.’

Reported live from the White House.

“Our core goal is to achieve peace and security for all peoples of the region.” – Pres. Obama

The most important thing Pres. Obama said about Afghanistan is that “It is my intention to finish the job.”

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 040

For more see Jake Tapper, with ABC News having video.

When Mark Knoller asked his question on Afghanistan, he attempted levity by talking about the leakers: “I suspect you don’t want my colleagues and I to rely on leaks until next week.” Obama smiled, then said, “Why stop now?”

Leaks have been a sore subject with the Administration. Obama went into how deliberative the process has been. When he said that what he’s about to decide isn’t just important to the U.S., but is also critical to the whole region, P.M. Singh nodded. It seemed clear throughout the presser that in their talks, which yielded concrete agreements on U.S. – Indian “cooperation, a connection was made between the two leaders. But, of course, Knoller did not get a definitive answer, which Obama said will come “after Thanksgiving,” with the current rumor targeting next Tuesday, but that’s pure speculation, when Obama may address the nation on his decision. After sidestepping a direct answer, Pres. Obama said that this should give “sufficient preview until after Thanksgiving.” The quote at the top is foreshadowing, with Pres. Obama’s decision likely not to make anyone happy on either side.

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 056

Beyond Afghanistan, Obama also addressed Pakistan, saying it’s not the place of the U.S. to solve the issues between these two countries. Further stating that there were times when the U.S. was solely focused on the military aspects of our relationship with Pakistan, with strategy ignoring what lies beyond. This is when Obama specifically called Clinton out giving her a nod, though he wasn’t sure where she was seated in the room, saying she had “done an excellent job to focus our State Dept. on that front,” meaning beyond the military aspects.

Nuclear issues, civilian and military, were also stressed, with both leaders agreeing on joint commitments to denuclearize. Copenhagen and climate change was up front as well.

Obama also acknowledged Mumbai attacks, which happened one year ago come the 26, November, but also terrorism and national security threats, which impact the entire region, as well as the U.S. Tapper has full quotes as well:

“It is in our strategic interests, in our national security interests, to make sure that Al Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively… We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks.”

The pictures below are mostly self-explanatory: 1) White House from the walk to the press briefing room; 2) Pres. Obama and P.M. Singh, the view from my seat; 3) Stunning chandeliers in the East Room; 4) White House, with press briefing room and walk way where we enter. 5) Thought you’d like to see where the traditional networks situate themselves for reports from the White House.

Oh, and the latest from the State Dept., where Clinton hosted a lunch for PM Singh. Here’s the menu and the wine served, remembering that the Prime Minister is a strict vegetarian.

The menu at the lunch included Butternut squash soup, Arugula, endive and roasted pear salad (with St. Pete’s Blue Cheese and Walnut Oil Vinaigrette) for the first course. The main course included sun-dried tomato crusted sea bass, toasted couscous (with grilled zucchini, red onion and fennel) and haricots verts for the main course. And for dessert: Apple Croustade with caramel and toasted pecans and vanilla ice cream.

The meal was served with Conundrum 2007 and Ravines Pinot Noir 2007.

Below is the live Twitter feed from the event earlier this morning (with this post originally posted in the 9:00 a.m. hour), though it got a bit slow once it all started, as many in the room were tweeting like mad.

9:56:09 AM: Pres Obama hosts PM Singh today with State Visit, official State Dinner this evening.

9:58:46 AM: In earlier remarks, which I watched via press briefing room, Singh said US and India must work to make world free of nuclear weapons.

11:22:45 AM: Inside the East Room White House, jammed w press, including very large Indian delegation. Presser set to start @ 11:35 am

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 054

11:29:59 AM: The chandeliers are spectacular, with large rectangular mirrors on the long walls. Maybe 250 press, cameras 2 rows deep, US press separate

11:50:07 AM: Waiting for Obama and Singh, the East Room gets chatty, as the kids get restless.

11:58:51 AM: For those of you reading this is http://www.taylormarsh.com this is a LIVE TWITTER REPORT.

12:08:09 PM: Obama: India is one of our “defining partnerships.” Hillary Clinton is also present. Obama to visit India in 2010

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 044

12:11:08 PM: Obama recommits to US civil nuclear commitment; clean energy partnership; phase our subsidies for fossil fuels. Men

12:11:13 PM: Obama recommits to US civil nuclear commitment; clean energy partnership; phase our subsidies for fossil fuels.

12:17:32 PM: Singh: “values of democracy, pluralism” celebrated today. ..We admire the leadership” of 0bama. Defense cooperation strengthening.

12:20:40 PM: Both Obama + Singh stressed importance of Copenhagen, reaching strong agreement on climate change. Nuclear security stressed.

12:22:20 PM: Mark Knoller: Kidded of leaks, asked about Afghanistan.

WhiteHouse_Obama-India 042

12:23:37 PM: It is in our strategic interest to destroy al Qaeda. After 8 years, “It is my intention to finish the job.”

12:32:08 PM: “Sect Clinton has done an excellent job to focus our State Dept. on that front,” talking abour Pakistan, beyond military.

12:35:20 PM: Clear it seemed that Obama and Singh were in sync, signaling a stronger relationship going forward. My analysis, anyway.

UPDATE II (11.25): Robin Givhan on last night’s festivities. Being fortunate enough to get pool reports, I prefer them and thank those who wrote up the evening’s fun. Sounds like the Obama’s know how to throw a party.

UPDATE: The list of expected attendees to tonight’s State Dinner has finally been released.

This post has been updated with further analysis, links and photos beyond what was first published early this morning.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Howard Dean: Dems will ‘Rue the Day They Didn’t Go To Budget Reconciliation to Pass This Bill’

Howard Dean this morning with Dylan Ratigan.

It makes me think back to when this all began.

Pres. Obama didn’t want to go down the Clinton road, understandably, to write the bill out of the White House. The first time ended horribly. So, he stayed out of it, letting Congress do its thing, committee by committee, month by month, ending in a torturous path that led to Sarah Palin’s “death panels.” Then the tea party activists rose up, with the outcome that Democrats lost out on messaging.

Come fall, Obama was compelled to step in. Now he owns health care.

Guess what? Pres. Obama was always going to own it, but he naively thought that he could charm Republicans into bipartisan action, which proved to be a near fatal mistake. The result was Stupak-Pitts passing the House, bringing Obama out to say, “…this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. … And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

The moral of this story is that even though Barack Obama didn’t want to coerce the health care debate he’s had to do just that. It was always going to be this way. Someone inside Obamaland should have figured that out from the start.

Read full story · Comments are closed

All Out of Love

Coming after China “jammed” Pres. Obama with the “press conference” anything but a press conference, no questions, just monologues, James Fallows offers his continuing rebuttal of Obama’s “manufactured failure,” which is now in part 5. Meanwhile, Afghanistan questions continue, with a 9th meeting on AfPak scheduled for tonight in the Situation Room.

Pres. Obama is under more pressure now than he has been since taking office. Political pressure on the left, with others working hard to concoct a “Carteresque” theme on the right, as one of his most ardent fans, Chris Matthews, predictably loses that tingle even before the Christmas jingles in Obama’s first year have begun. For Pres. Obama, winter’s already here.

Rep. Obey fires the first serious shot from a friendly. From ABC News:

“There ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it.”

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he’ll demand a new tax — what he calls a “war surtax” — to pay for it.

Politically, this is going to get very tough for Obama, as the right takes advantage of the optics, to use the word of the moment, where Obama and leading as commander in chief are concerned.

Enter Liz Cheney on “This Week” yesterday, someone who touts her former State Department creds, but obviously has not one clue that Afghanistan and Iraq are completely different situations. Yesterday she went on about how McChrystal can do the same thing for Afghanistan he did in Iraq, if we but give him what he needs. This is patently absurd. First, Iraq has always had a functioning centralized government, while Afghanistan has not. The terrain is also completely different, with Afghanistan relying on tribal leaders and jirgas to keep order and hold their people together. The country has never had a centralized government, so because we want to make it so doesn’t mean it can be, should be, or can hold together if that’s what we concoct. It goes with the other nonsensical notion that we can “defeat the Taliban,” an indigenous group that is part of Afghanistan’s consciousness, as experts like Peter Bergen, David Loyn and many others have stated. Don’t try telling that to Ms. Cheney, or giving her numbers on al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Cheney lets ideology be her guide. In politics that’s fine, but it’s a disaster where foreign policy is concerned. See Iraq, or for that matter anything having to do with Iran or Israel where the right is concerned.

And I say this as someone who believes in what our involvement in Afghanistan can ultimately manifest, though right now it’s clear we’re at cross-purposes with no strategy and too many casualties to show for no progress. Couple that with the civilian aid corruption, and you’ve got a recipe for failure. In that, waiting for Pres. Obama’s decision is indeed torturous.

However, I think Pres. Obama is getting undo blame on Afghanistan from Democrats pushing a sur-tax or withdrawal from the left, just as he is from his critics on the right. I also think it’s unfair to think the President should not be allowed to alter his thinking from this past spring after the Afghanistan election where it was clear Karzai had help manipulating the election. A “good war” can turn bad quickly when the people have their country hijacked by a leader they don’t trust.

Are people actually positing that a president shouldn’t reverse himself if he sees something that requires rethinking strategy, including the need to redraw expectations and goals? That would simply render us all in the third term of George W. Bush.

But Obama’s deliberations are clearly now hurting him politically, if only temporarily, even if people like Liz Cheney don’t understand winter’s come to Afghanistan so the President has time to be sure about what he wants to do. In today’s political pace, however, thinking and contemplation are not seen as positive signs of leadership. There are many facets to presidential effectiveness, not the least of which is perception, with Pres. Obama now suffering from an expectations gap, where so much was promised, but little has yet been manifested.

Of course, this can all change back as fast as Chris Matthews’ lost tingle. A win on health care would help, though there is rising doubt if what will finally pass has been worth a whole year’s work. Another problem amassing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Tough Out There

The reviews on Pres. Obama’s Asia tour have been very mixed. But none were as harsh as Saturday Night Live, which channeled the feeling of many of us when it comes to where the White House has been on economics, particularly when juxtaposed against how people are experiencing the financial straights of this year. But in China, bailout blues has a different meaning, especially when comedy is applied to the debt we owe. But who’s actually laughing?

Read full story · Comments are closed

MSNBC this Afternoon

bumped

I’ll be on after 3:30 pm today, subject is 9/11 and the trials A.G. Holder just announced. Will it be real or propaganda tool for the extremists?

Nov. 23: Addressing reporters after a White House Cabinet meeting, President Obama says, “I will not rest until business are investing again, and businesses are hiring again.” – MSNBC

UPDATE: Pres. Obama’s session with reporters on the economy, as quoted above, bumped the segment I was to do. But at least I got to talk briefly with Norah O’Donnell about Sarah Palin. It was make-up room chat, so what she said will stay there. What I said to her was basically what I’ve written. That her analysis about Palin’s fans was dead on. O’Donnell took incoming from the right for it, but that doesn’t make her wrong. …and to add, I also told O’Donnell I really enjoyed covering Palin, because I do and will continue to follow her, whether liberals and others like it or not.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Murder at Dealey Plaza

DealyPlaza

The first time I saw Dealey Plaza was this past summer. It’s remarkable how unremarkable the area is after all of these years. You can visit the place of John F. Kennedy’s murder, which happened 46 years ago today, seeing it as close to what it was so long ago, with little but time having changed the surroundings.

DealeyPlaza

The most stunning thing that struck me after seeing the two “X” marks at the exact spots where Pres. Kennedy was hit, is the hard turn on to Elm that the motorcade made. In one of the pictures here you can see that it’s beyond 90 degrees. That turn would never have been part of a modern era motorcade.

DealeyPlaza

Every year a bit more comes out about the Kennedy assassination, recalling history, rehashing horror during what Jackie called the cruelest month.

AMC’s “Mad Men” the best depiction of the impact and aftermath of J.F.K.’s assassination that has ever been done through a TV series. Fitting that Kennedy was made through that same medium. Lives explode. Normal obliterated.

Steven M. Gillon, “resident historian of the History Channel,” has written a new book on the event. On Friday, he was a guest on “Hardball,” with Chris Matthews, who considers himself the only one eligible to render analysis on the continuing confusion surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Both Matthews and Gillon scoffed at the “Grassy Knoll theory,” as it’s called, which many people do not accept and which Gerald Posner analyzes in Case Closed.

DealeyPlaza

Robert F. Kennedy never believed the Warren Commission’s report. While Jackie Kennedy came to believe Oswald had acted alone.

This case will never be closed.

In Vanity Fair this year, the story in The Death of Lancer, the name Kennedy’s Secret Service handle, by William Manchester (aka The Death of a President), likely wouldn’t have shed light on the assassination, but I would have loved to have read it. Adding to the dozens and dozens of books I’ve read about John F. Kennedy. From Vanity Fair on the battle between Manchester and the Kennedys over his book, which they picked him to write:

Certain revelations in the four installments took the public by surprise: Manchester questioned why two middle-aged Secret Service agents with “slowing reflexes” were assigned to President Kennedy, and wondered why they were not routinely tested; the driver of the limousine was 54, and the agent sitting beside the driver was 48. “They were in a position,” Manchester wrote, “to take evasive action after the first shot, but for five terrible seconds they were immobilized.” Readers also learned how Mrs. Kennedy “struggled with a nurse who tried to bar her from the operating room.” And how the president, after being in a crowd the night before their arrival in Dallas, had said to her, “Suppose a man had a pistol in a briefcase.”

DealeyPlaza

From Gillon’s post on Huffington Post recently (who has also written about new revelations on the transfer of power after Kennedy’s death):

McHugh, like most members of the Kennedy entourage, did not know that Johnson was onboard. They believed that the new president was on his own plane flying back to Washington. If LBJ was on the plane, McHugh wanted to see for himself. Since he had not seen Johnson in the aisle — and at 6’4″ Johnson would be tough to miss — McHugh assumed that he must then be in the bedroom. When he checked there Johnson was nowhere to be seen. The only place on the plane he had not inspected was the bathroom in the presidential bedroom.

What McHugh claimed to have witnessed next was shocking. “I walked in the toilet, in the powder room, and there he was hiding, with the curtain closed,” McHugh recalled. He claimed that LBJ was crying, “They’re going to get us all. It’s a plot. It’s a plot. It’s going to get us all.’” According to the General, Johnson “was hysterical, sitting down on the john there alone in this thing.”

DealeyPlaza

As the 21st century dawns, so many people don’t remember what it was like.

Back in J.F.K.’s day, nuclear was the nightmare. It was the urgent danger, the imminent threat little kids grew up dreading. Maybe that’s why the Bush administration used the words, the phrases, the images they did. They knew how it would work. And that’s been the people’s problem ever since those dreadful days in Dallas. Long before color coded dangers of unreality substituted for government communication.

DealeyPlaza

We had yellow and black fallout signs signifying where the nearest shelter was located, the nearest fall out shelter, as in nuclear disaster.

That was our reality, the one J.F.K. was intent on keeping us from living. That Ronald Reagan hoped he could help end, which the tea party activists would never have allowed today. The issue on which Barack Obama has led since he came into office.

There never seemed to be enough of them, fall out shelters, that is. I hunted for them whenever we were away from the house, working out my escape in my head. That was when I actually believed the government was there to protect, could protect us from anything.

At school, we did drills where we hid under our desks, or walked quickly and orderly in mock emergency sessions, staying close to the school building walls until we reached the auditorium, as if nuclear wouldn’t reach that far in. Once assembled, there we would sit, the entire school, until the all clear siren was sounded. The drills were deadly serious in a deathly dangerous time.

That’s why some of us took the fabricated Iraqi threat so personally. We remembered our history, back when the American tide turned forever, making everything between citizen and government ultimately intimate.

It’s also when television became the universe and elected one man president.

In strode John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a man who made Democrats out of Republicans, at least in our house – for one election – and turned television into a movement right in the middle of our living room.

But it wasn’t the assassination we saw on TV. What most people saw instead was the murder of his murderer. Amidst more cops than many of us had ever seen in one place at one time, outside of a parade, the man that supposedly murdered President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed before our eyes, the action caught live, on television, on a bright November Sunday morn.

Leave it to Beaver was obliterated.

It was the event that would change the American world and launch television on its journey to where it is today, 24/7, network, cable and beyond.

Birthing perennial questions for posterity: how could this have happened; followed by, what exactly did happen?

The memorial came on Monday. The riderless horse was evocative of America’s emotions, as I was left to wonder what makes a man’s impact so immense that strangers cry at his passing?

In that moment, politics became personal. What kind of president makes people feel like that? That moment in my history spawned my one woman show, “Weeping for J.F.K.,” and changed my life forever. I still have the exact replica of J.F.K.’s favorite rocking chair, which I used in my show, in my office and when I sit in it I still remember the dream.

The unfolding 60’s making matters even worse. Bobby. Martin. Insanity.

Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission became the traitors of a generation. The dueling “magic bullet” and quick assessments of our government seemingly meant as pabulum to soothe the public’s aching heart, sparing us the pain it takes to find the truth.

But were they actually right?

We’ll never know for sure and it has nothing to do with Oliver Stone’s film.

Today, while websites compile data and links, forensics, photo enhancements, and technology can unwind the serendipitous Zapruder film, which shows the assassination of the American president, that when seen in slow motion, as it is always shown, displays graphic detail that inspires grown adults to scream for justice.

Jack Ruby robbed us of that.

And Lee Harvey Oswald robbed of us of everything else.

Like many young couples, Oswald and Marina were obsessed with the Kennedys. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, in her fascinating 1977 account of the Oswalds, Marina and Lee, reports that Marina’s schoolgirl crush on the chestnut-haired president—her mooning over magazine photographs of Kennedy strolling on the beach in his khaki pants, her insisting that Oswald translate for her any articles about the Kennedys—was becoming a sore point in their already troubled marriage. “He is very attractive,” Marina Oswald told her husband. “I can’t say what he is as president, but I mean, as a man.” McMillan writes, “It got so that she would flip through the pages of every magazine she could lay her hands on asking, ‘Where’s Kennedy? Where’s Kennedy?’” – Vanity Fair

Could simple male jealousy really have been the thing that ended an American era?

We will never know for sure. Leaving only questions and mistrust of all we held certain in the days before Dallas that was foreshadowing of a decade long nightmare to come.

Everything was different after President Kennedy died.

The American world that won WWII came apart.

The unraveling led to 50,000 dead in Vietnam, a war begun before J.F.K. that he escalated, but would likely have finished if he’d lived. The illegal bombings of Cambodia and Nixon’s perversion of secret leadership that would be the catapult for Rumsfeld and Cheney’s design on the presidency. The coming out of American culture, to Reaganism, Allende, Iran-contra and the secret coups, and the casualties of the culture war: two generations of gay men dead; leading to the stalking of a Democrat president whose supposed crimes paled in comparison to Republicans who came before, to the attack on 9.11 that led to the further crumbling that we can trust our government, though in the end we must… which led us back to foreign dangers of “urgent” threat and “mushroom clouds,” harking back to that time, only this time we were led by lies, warnings and threat levels that led us into a preemptive war in which we lost our national soul in a split second.

Photobucket

The memory of the way we were embodied in the image of a youthful, vigorous and valiant J.F.K. who, even though we now know was merely a mortal, someone deathly ill, with addictions and predilections, we still long to find again. Because he was a leader with passion, persistence and purpose, who when he spoke inspired us to close our eyes and imagine the impossible. Vision. A man who guided this nation at a time in history when war was the easy way out, but who instead found a way to preserve the peace.

Nothing was ever the same after J.F.K. died.

I am a Democrat forever changed by John F. Kennedy’s death by watching what he meant to American through my siblings’ eyes. I voted for WJC twice, Hillary in the primaries, and proudly Obama, looking for the 21st century Democrats to take us out of the wilderness and beyond the madness of man made miseries that a country led by smarter leaders intuitively knew would be our undoing.

Yet here we sit today mired by caution, stalled, time whittling away the power to do it all.

As we all still long to find again that place a wounded wife claimed as Camelot, but which, amidst the tales and the truth and the pain and the unanswered questions, is simply known as our country, that will forever be John F. Kennedy’s America, a place where we still endeavor to manifest our dreams.


Sources: The New York Times, Tom Wicker’s “Introduction to ‘Four Days in November’”; Washington Post; PBS’s Frontline; ABC News Special on the J.F.K. Assassination, with Peter Jennings; The Warren Commission Report; History Channel documentaries on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”; “An Unfinished Life,” by Robert Dallek; among others, including Oliver Stone’s “J.F.K.” and Mark Lane’s work on the assassination of J.F.K., from so long ago, and Salon.com’s David Talbot; and “Weeping for J.F.K.,” by Taylor Marsh (based on decades of study, research and a life lived in the aftermath of J.F.K.’s murder.).

Adaptation and expansion of a previously printed article.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Saddle Up, Here Comes Trigger

In the process of getting health care to move forward, truth broke out and so did a little nastiness between two seniors at the seat of power. One in the Senate, the other at the top of the elite Washington traditional press. We’ll get to that in a minute. First, the news that we get to hear more talk about health care on our way to hitting a giant wall.

Mary and Blanche are on board. Neither woman having any resemblance to the Christmas story or Miss Dubois, though “Streetcar Named Desire” could be invoked if you replace “desire” with “disaster.” But I digress. From Politico:

But Lincoln and fellow moderate Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) also laid down strong objections to the public health insurance plan included in the Senate bill – saying they couldn’t support the bill if it came to the floor in that form.

“I am opposed to a new government administered public health care plan as a part of comprehensive health care reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by Leader Reid as it is written,” Lincoln said.

If these two ladies are “moderates,” I’d really like to know what a conservative Democrat looks like. But onward we go.

Now for the dish. It’s between Sen. Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, and David Broder, the “dean” of the Washington traditional media elite. Broder’s column for tomorrow rips Dems on health care. Reid aimed squarely and hit his target point black, rhetorically speaking, of course:

“To focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be.” – Sen. Harry Reid

It’s not that Mr. Broder writes bi-weekly columns from his deck chair at the Washington Post. It’s that the columns he writes are sounding more and more like what we see in the troubled Washington Times or even Newsmax.

Broder countered Reid with a right hook, saying he was “an embarrassment” and had “bungled” the Democratic case.

Meanwhile, the reality of moving the debate forward is that it seems Reid had to promise something pretty shiny to keep health care moving. It’s what has been coming for a very long time, with Sen. Schumer in the middle trying to get all sides to agree. Via Brian Beutler:

After announcing her intent to support a health care debate this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill.

Ah yes, triggers. Because Reconciliation has been taken off the table.

The debate rages on, even if we all know where this is heading, though Schumer’s office says no compromises are in the mix yet.

“Since Leader Reid announced the opt-out public option would be included in the Senate bill, Senator Schumer has not approached anyone about compromises,” Fallon said in a statement to TPMDC. “He is fully behind the level playing field opt-out, which he himself helped advance.”

Crap shoot, anyone?

Read full story · Comments are closed

Palin Going Rogue Planning Alert

Norah O’Donnell’s reporting of Sarah’s Going Rogue tour as it hit Michigan has created news. First, for what she said about the crowd, which I wrote about earlier this week. It was foreshadowing:

“This is a line that stretches all the way back… another 1,000 people to see Sarah… It’s 9:00 o’clock in the morning and she’s not here until 6:00 pm tonight…. [...] You know what it is? It’s a connection. … Palin says she’s treated unfairly, treated unfairly by the media, by Newsweek magazine …and the people in middle America feel treated.. unfairly.” – Norah O’Donnell, MSNBC

Next, when O’Donnell asked a young, 17-year-old Palin fan about her anti-bailout t-shirt. Did the young woman know Sarah supported the bailout? All hell broke loose from here, with the Weekly Standard attacking O’Donnell, and the young woman hitting back at “the liberal media and their crafty schemes.” Everyone else piled on from there, with progressives going to town on the boos you can hear in the video, but also some of the angry comments on Sarah’s Facebook page.

There’s another angle no one wants to acknowledge. The reason this happened in the first place. Bookstores aren’t prepared for Palinmania. There hasn’t been such a fuss at bookstores since Jacqueline Susann concocted her Valley of the Dolls selling scheme.

When you look through the over 1,200 comments, Palin still comes out ahead, way ahead. And again, Palin’s fans don’t care about details, they’re attached to the woman. They relate.

One thing is for sure, Palin and her people need to coordinate with the book stores where she’s going to land. It’s not a stampede, but there are expectations.

I’ve captured just a few of the comments, trying to take a little of each, though I did have to search for the complaints, as they’re well outnumbered.

ScreenHunter_03 Nov. 20 16.23


ScreenHunter_04 Nov. 20 16.24


ScreenHunter_05 Nov. 20 16.25


ScreenHunter_06 Nov. 20 16.26


ScreenHunter_08 Nov. 20 16.28


ScreenHunter_09 Nov. 20 16.28


ScreenHunter_10 Nov. 20 16.29


ScreenHunter_11 Nov. 20 16.30


ScreenHunter_12 Nov. 20 16.31


ScreenHunter_13 Nov. 20 16.32

Read full story · Comments are closed

Justice American Style

TM NOTE: I interviewed Kristen Breitweiser back in Sept. 2006 when she wrote her book, the podcast still available among the “best of” section. So I was very interested to get her reaction to the news about A.G. Holder bringing the terrorists to justice. She wrote about it in the post below. No doubt an emotional moment for Kristen, who lost her husband on 9/11. I so pray she and the other families are one step closer to closure. It’s important to add that Holder’s decision has been controversial, see Patterico and Greenwald, as was his appearance recently before the Senate. However, I agree it’s the right thing to do. Kristen’s post on Holder’s decision is below.

BY KRISTEN BREITWEISER
Originally posted on Huffington Post

Even after witnessing the horrors of 9/11 that included me helplessly watching the murder of my husband on live television, I still believe that we are a civilized nation of laws. And like the Nuremberg trials that brought the murderers of millions to justice, now more than ever, Americans need to trust our own judicial system to fully and openly prosecute the mass murderers of 9/11 while the rest of the world bears witness.

Because while the terrorists were successful in bringing down the Twin Towers and hijacking airplanes on 9/11, our Constitution should never be hijacked or brought down as a result of anything–let alone the potential adversity faced in prosecuting modern day monsters like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Indeed, in the fight against Islamist extremism, we should never bow to the terrorists by compromising, manipulating, re-writing or flat-out ignoring the core, bedrock principles of our Constitution that speak to the very heart of who we are as a nation–a democracy.

Yet, quite alarmingly, Republicans seem to be exhibiting just this sort of crisis of confidence in our Constitution’s ability to prosecute these horrible men. Republicans argue that men like KSM are war criminals who can only be convicted in military commissions where they won’t receive the protections of our laws. Republicans seem to lack a certain faith in our Constitution’s ability and adaptability in meting out the demands of modern day justice.

So the once-brazen, chest-thumping Republicans who preemptively started a war in Iraq, claimed mission accomplished, and ordained that they wanted Osama Bin Laden’s head on a platter, are now off crying in a corner lost in their own feigned anger and fear. Complaining that it will be too dangerous. Worried that it will make New York City a target.

First, I’ve got news for anyone who didn’t already know this: New York has been, is, and will always be a terrorist target. That’s why many of us wanted millions spent on hardening domestic soft targets like NYC (and mass transportation systems, chemical plants, nuclear plants, borders, etc). But after 9/11, the Bush Administration chose instead to spend billions on starting a war in Iraq.

Indeed, in the quantitative analysis of what truly makes us a terrorist target, holding a trial in the Southern District of New York does not top the list. The war in Iraq wins that contest hands down. And the Bush Administration’s illegal torture policies come in at a close second. These are the things that have fomented the most hatred towards Americans and placed us at the highest risk from terrorist attack.

To be clear, the only danger posed by prosecuting men like KSM in an open court in New York is the red alert it poses to the Republican Party’s faltering reputation in fighting their “war on terror.”

And that is the real reason why Republicans are supporting the use of military
commissions instead of Article III courts. Because military commissions are held in secret. Republicans want the dirty, damning truth about their failed torture policies to remain hidden away from public view. And they’ll use every lame excuse in the book to get their way.

God forbid, the truth came out about torture. Imagine the worst–that KSM, one of the world’s most heinous terrorists, is set free after the evidence needed to convict him is thrown out because it was illegally obtained through torture. Imagine further that KSM’s torture bore no fruit at all–in other words, it provided no information that prevented any attacks or saved any lives. In essence, KSM’s torture proved useless and counter-productive. Talk about a public relations nightmare for the party who once with grand cowboy swagger announced that they’d bring ‘em all to justice.

But will KSM ever walk free? Absolutely not. First, haven’t we all seen enough Law & Order re-runs to know that prosecutors don’t proceed with cases unless they know they’ve got the goods to convict? Not to mention that KSM also made a self-admission about planning the 9/11 attacks on al-Jazeera long before he was captured and tortured by our government. So I’m confident that even taking into account all the mishandling and mistakes made by the Bush Administration, KSM will not be set free.

However, remain cognizant that were such an acquittal even remotely possible, it would not be due to any shortcomings of our nation’s 200-year-old, well-established legal process. Nor would it be a result of some wily terrorist making a “mockery of our rule of law.” Rather, responsibility for such a ghastly acquittal would fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales–those who in a panic after 9/11, breathlessly ordered the illegal use of torture because they didn’t know what else to do. And that, folks, is the big dark dirty secret that Republicans don’t want any of us to find out.

But, the prosecutors in the Southern District of NY do know what their doing–especially when it comes to winning terrorist convictions. Moreover, long established safeguards will be in place to protect sources, methods and any other classified information from leaking to the public. In fact, because we are a democracy, KSM will be given a fair trial, in an open courtroom facing certain and swift justice just steps from Ground Zero. And once convicted, he will receive the maximum penalty–death.

When that happens, 8 years after 9/11, justice will have finally prevailed.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The $2.7 Billion Woman

bumped

The long, slow good-bye begins.

So long show, hello OWN, aka the Oprah Winfrey Network.

Phil Donahue came first, then Oprah took it to another level.

Her exit, however, creates a network, syndication and daytime talk gulf that will allow all sorts of new voices to ring out. But you bet her exit also had executives running for the Scotch, while modern Mad Men got ready to get busy.

Watching her orchestrate the exit should be interesting. She’s a model for what making it means.

Read full story · Comments are closed

ATTENTION: $500 Matching Fundraising Offer

500-dollars

As you know, I’ve been doing a fundraiser this week. Well, this is really something, but I’ve just received an amazing offer…

If we can raise $500, this person will match it, dollar for dollar.

Let’s do it!

MONEY MATCH-SUPPORT TAYLOR!

TM NOTE: I know we started this on Tuesday, so many have already given. This is a wonderful offer that came in just today, so thanks for jumping in. I know it’s tough out there.

Read full story · Comments are closed

A Health Care Anecdote

updated below

Calvin-bad-mood

Honest to Christ, forgive me mother, but today I heard Rush Limbaugh making a more impassioned plea for women on the latest assault on women’s health care than I’ve heard from Democrats. That’s how bad this has gotten.

Rush went on and on about this all being about “self defense” and “peace of mind,” just like a security system. You may never need it, but you feel better that you’ve got it and it’s your right to have it. After all, nothing is more fundamental to us all than fighting for our lives, he continued, adding that the feds will have a fight on their hands if they try to stop anyone from saving their own lives.

Then Rush played a clip of Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius where she actually had the unmitigated gall to say, and now I have to paraphrase because I was driving at the time, something to the affect that she’d trust insurance companies to cover mammograms, basically ignoring the new Task Force guidelines, because she’d hope insurance companies would follow doctors.

The Task Force came out defending their recommendations today:

Dr. Timothy Wilt, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, defended the recommendation that most women don’t need to get mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at age 50. That recommendation runs counter to the American Cancer Society’s long-held stance that women should get a yearly mammogram starting at age 40.

The task force’s recommendations “were based on the most rigorous peer review of up-to-date, accurate information about the evidence about the harms and benefits of treatment,” Wilt said on ABC’s Good Morning America, the Associated Press reported. …

Sebelius responded in this same article saying women should keep doing what they’ve been doing, offering this warm comfort:

She also said she’d be “very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”

Who else out there would be “very surprised” if private insurance companies went rogue on mammography coverage? Anyone?

On top of that, in their eminent wisdom, Democrats have now decided to add a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Perfect. You wouldn’t want to take a guess who gets more plastic surgeries? You got it, the gals, not all of whom are rich either. But I guess if you choose to enhance your looks it’s only fair you get an extra tax for your vanity. Feeling the love yet?

…and I still haven’t heard anyone mention Viagra.


UPDATE (11.20): The White House put out a clear message today: Under health insurance reform, this research cannot be used to dictate coverage.

Read full story · Comments are closed