The exchange came on the same day as what’s being billed as a big Republican debate before the ridiculously overrated Ames straw poll. Now that Romney’s being defined as a “fragile” or “tentative” frontrunner, he’s going to have to take his campaign out of coast.
As he did so he ran headlong into a tree of the activist variety. They’re the Citizens for Community Improvement and they made Romney’s day a lot more complicated than he wanted it to be.
Democrats are rightly jumping all over Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, which illustrates why the establishment hasn’t backed him yet. It’s not just tone deaf but an offensive thing to say with 10+ double-digit real unemployment. Anyone thinking sticking up for corporations in the current atmosphere is a winner is hopeless.
For any Democrat or progressive, what Romney said is red meat. It’s also fodder for the Obama campaign if Romney’s the nominee, but he isn’t yet.
However, if you’re a Republican who hasn’t quite warmed to Romney, I’m not so sure this clip is bad for slick Mitt.
It’s the first relaxed, un-weird and unscripted moment that comes with a pretty good punch line for Republican primary voters. He doesn’t come off as afraid to mix it up and commits himself strongly, even if he’s wrong about, well, just about every policy issue, unless you include his move to raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts to lure S&P to raise his state’s credit rating.
However, all of this is a great set up for Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance.
Still, Romney actually showed some life and real humanness today amidst it all, moments that have been very few for him.
I’m starting to think that what was missing from Romney’s campaign was a little healthy competition.
Rick Perry getting in the race may be the best thing that ever happened to Mitt Romney, because he clearly can’t be as nonchalant with Perry poised to enter. But all the hoopla with Perry is reminiscent of what Fred Thompson engendered before he jumped in and landed on his face. Perry’s not Thompson, but he’s also not Chris Christie, who fits the times much better.
Though why anyone would think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney is beyond me, though the “cowboy” thing in the era of Obama could seduce the neocons.
For Republicans outside the Perryverse, his approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive… all of the traits Republicans see as lacking in the Obama’s foreign policy.
“He’s a cowboy,” said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain’s presidential campaign. “You have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later — which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy.”
Pres. Obama has already telegraphed that he’s ready to work with Republicans, as the Administration prepares to privatize education, while changing the public school system under the mantel of “reform.”
Matt Damon played offense recently and he effusively heaped praise on the teachers who don’t get paid enough and take way too much grief for what they are paid.
But this is when Austerity’s grip, the need for more and better schools, and partnerships with businesses wanting to help offer more options tend to make some people simply ask Why not?
It’s not about qualified teachers with experience getting a living wage and some control over the task they’ve been asked to do.
I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.
William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:
“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”
Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:
“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”
Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:
…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.
“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.
“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”
Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.
“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”
[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.
Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.
There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:
The entire debate reflected a total disregard of the need for the State Department and other civil departments to play a major role in consolidating our victory in Iraq, supporting a transition to Afghan control in 2014, and preparing for the United States to play a major role in supporting democracy and political change in the Middle East.
This pressure comes at a time when the Defense Department has had years of growth in real spending, does little or no realistic long-term force planning, cannot control its manpower and procurement costs, and was already seeking cuts in programs between $78 billion and $400 billion. Even before the president added the goal of cutting the budget by $400 million over the next 12 years (long before the present debate), the Defense Department had planned to eliminate all real growth in defense spending after FY2013—which would reduce the total defense budget from $708 billion in FY2011 to $661 billion in FY2016—even if one assumes that the United States will still be spending $50 billion a year on its wars.
Not one word of the debate addressed the rise in the total interagency homeland defense budget to over $70 billion a year, a massive new effort that has grown with minimal efficiency and without adult supervision.
The new legislation layers a whole new set of cuts over the existing cuts forced on the defense secretary in preparing the FY2012 budget submission, which means massive new short-term pressure to find cuts—any cuts—in defense spending.
The debate that led up to the legislation produced a totally dishonest proposal for cuts in wartime spending amounting to $1 trillion dollars. This was matched by an equally dishonest Future Year Defense Program submission for FY2012 from the Defense Department, which claimed that the total cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism would suddenly drop from $159 billion in FY2011 and $118 billion in FY2012 to a constant level of $50 billion in FY2013–2016. The real cost of our wars has to be over $75 billion in FY2013, and no one knows the out-year costs. As for the $1 trillion in savings, it would take 20 years to achieve a $1-trillion savings at a rate of $50 billion a year, and that would mean two decades in which the United States could not spend a dime on any overseas contingency.
But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.
First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.
Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.
Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.
Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.
Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.
Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:
”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”
“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”
On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.
…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules(n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).
The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.
The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”
Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.
*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.
“Tell your henchman to stop saying nice things about me,” McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told Reid earlier this week, according to people familiar with the conversation. “It hurts me.” Even as he’s sought to project immovable unity with House Speaker John Boehner, the prospects for an eleventh-hour deal rest largely on McConnell’s shoulders. For weeks, he’s kept an open line of communication with Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he struck a deal with in December to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and he heard from President Barack Obama on Saturday, too. In the meantime, he’s been trying to keep anxious Republican senators at bay. – Mitch McConnell’s moment: Debt ceiling deal maker or deal breaker?
All eyes are on Sen. Mitch McConnell, since he “conceded” the point that no deal can happen without Pres. Obama, who is now fully engaged in the final stage. McConnell is also Speaker Boehner’s lifeline, with the letter signed by 43 Republican senators saying Reid’s bill is dead quid pro quo for Reid’s letter on the Boehner bill.
The details of what’s going on between McConnell and Boehner are being kept among a select few. Let’s face it though, McConnell cannot be trusted by Democrats or the White House, a point that is close to irrelevant at this late moment, which is exactly why McConnell waited so long to get involved. He wants to force Pres. Obama into a situation where he feels he has no choice but to make deals no Democrat should make.
So, McConnell and Biden are talking, while anyone watching this spectacle can see Reid and McConnell are not.
Sen. Mitch McConnell’s original plan is now part of the Reid bill, with the triggers at issue on how to force a second round of budget cuts if the bicameral congressional committee being concocted to work on the austerity plan can’t come to an agreement. As Politico and other outlets are reporting, many Democrats believe McConnell is pushing for the second round as a set up for the inevitable and planned breakdown of any committee, so he can get more cuts upon failure. Republicans also want to make Social Security part of their triggers, which went over with a thud, with Chuck Todd reporting there are other triggers beyond entitlements.
Democrats want the trigger to include tax increases, but that’s a line House Republicans won’t cross, so it all depends on finding moderate Republic—, yeah right. Only four senators refused to sign McConnell’s letter stating Republicans intend to vote down Reid’s bill, a vote which was scheduled for 1:00 a.m. Sunday, but that was moved because Sen. Reid was told the White House talks are progressing.
God only knows what that means.
The target is $1.6 – $1.8 million in cuts before year’s end.
[...] The Democrats bigger worry is Boehner, who shows signs of simply running-out-the-clock, playing hard-to-get with Obama and hoping the White House will give into his demands. The speaker and McConnell are in regular contact, but having pushed the fight this far, the GOP has reason to fear it will lose support from its traditional business allies if there isn’t more progress before markets open Monday, one day before the threat of default. – GOP leaders ‘fully engaged’ with W.H., but Dems skeptical on debt deal
No doubt you’re sick to death of reading this from me, but the 14th Amendment remains a shot for Pres. Obama, regardless of the legal imbroglio that would follow. Because what people keep forgetting in all their prognostications is that Pres. Obama simply cannot allow the U.S. to default. One can only guess the fight that would ensue over which House Republican would serve up impeachment if it happened.
With the tension building and the last moment approaching, as McConnell bet on all along, which is why he offered up his devious plan in the first place, the bigger worry for Democrats is that Pres. Obama will offer any number of compromises to stave off a dismal Monday on Wall Street.
So, the question is how much further to the right will the McConnell-Boehner-Reid bill have to go before the White House cries “uncle”? …and will House Democrats balk for the first time and channel their own inner Tea Party rage if what comes back to the House is political poison on entitlements?
The painful negotiations to resolve the crisis have caught the attention of troops in Afghanistan, where Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quizzed repeatedly on Saturday by soldiers and Marines worried about their paychecks. In Kandahar and Helmand Provinces, Admiral Mullen said it remained uncertain where money would be found if the government defaulted. Regardless of budget talks in Washington, the mission for American troops in Afghanistan would not halt, he said. – New York Times
… Lincoln saw an unresolvable tension between the Constitution of a democratic republic and the policies of aggrandizement and intemperate self-interest that lead from the manners of freedom to the slavish love of power. He spoke of the difference between the work of establishing a constitutional republic and the longer task of maintaining it. But maintaining it against what? Lincoln’s answer was always the same: against the internal pressure of greed, and the external pressure of war. The predicament of the country in 1861, he said, “forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’”
We are now ten years into a policy shared by two successive administrations to plant a new understanding of the spirit of the laws in America. That policy has pretended there is a “trade-off” between liberty and security, and that in a time of crisis, security ought to have the upper hand. The Cheney-Bush and Obama administrations have accustomed us to laws and language concerned above all with the “protection” of citizens — as if there were something higher or more worth protecting than the liberty that is guaranteed by our laws and the framework of laws, the Constitution. [...]
When Sec. Clinton was first chosen for her job at State some were skeptical she’d have Pres. Obama’s back when it was needed. There was never a doubt in my mind, however, that she would not only be a team player, but one of Pres. Obama’s strongest advocates. It’s who she is, because she knows what a president needs and expects from those inside his administration, especially when he gets himself in trouble.
The rhetorical tactic Clinton uses to make her case on Libya while in Jamaica during a question and answer period, which the State Dept. chose to highlight in a video clip that can’t be embedded, is unbefitting a person of her stature, as she suggests those in Congress questioning Obama on Libya check his or her loyalties.
So I know we live in a hyper-information-centric world right now, and March seems like it’s a decade ago, but by my calendar, it’s only months. And in those months, we have seen an international coalition come together unprecedented between not only NATO, but Arab nations, the Arab League, and the United Nations. This is something that I don’t think anyone could have predicted, but it is a very strong signal as to what the world expects to have happen, and I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I’m sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.
But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.
This is the type of reprehensible rhetoric that Sen. Clinton abhorred when she was criticizing Pres. George W. Bush. But now that it’s a Democratic president, she hypocritically chooses the cowards way out by challenging critics in a way that she wouldn’t if Obama was a Republican.
It’s always been clear to me that Libya could come back to haunt Pres. Obama and those who helped him make this disastrous decision, which includes Sec. Hillary Clinton, along with Samantha Power and U.N. ambassador Dr. Susan Rice, among others. So, it’s circle the wagons time. People are obviously getting nervous, with TIME magazine showing the dangers as the Libya misadventure drags on.
Even if NATO can accomplish its objective or drives Gadhaffi out, it still doesn’t make Pres. Obama’s decision right or legal.
Originally envisaged as lasting a matter of weeks, the air campaign is now into its fourth month. It has seen NATO conduct nearly 12,000 air missions over Libya, about one-third of them involving strikes by bombs or missiles, some of them seemingly intended to kill the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
The airstrikes have virtually obliterated Colonel Qaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya command compound in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and reduced the fighting capacity of the Libyan forces by about 50 percent, according to Pentagon estimates. But there has been no sign that the Qaddafi government is at risk of crumbling under the pressure, at least not soon.
Much of the pressure NATO is facing over the Libyan operation comes from the dissent within NATO itself, with some member nations saying the campaign has gone beyond the mandate given by a United Nations Security Council resolution in mid-March that approved NATO action to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to undertake other missions to protect the country’s civilian population from the Qaddafi forces.
As Clinton’s bookend and to illustrate the political gamesmanship going on from all quarters, let’s also look at Sen. Mitch McConnell’s remarks:
MCCONNELL: The only thing I can tell you at this point is that there are differences. I’m not sure that these kind of differences might not have been there in a more latent form when you had a Republican president. But I do think there is more of a tendency to pull together when the guy in the White House is on your side. So I think some of these views were probably held by some of my members even in the previous administration, but party loyalty tended to mute them. So yeah, I think there are clearly differences and I think a lot of our members, not having a Republican in the White House, feel more free to express their reservations which might have been somewhat muted during the previous administration.
Now you know why Congress and the Executive Branch don’t work like the founders intended, which is why this country is so profoundly screwed up. It’s all petty politics depending on if your side is being hit and is in power or not. Sec. Clinton and Sen. McConnell openly representing the worst of this example in their comments, proving the juvenile leadership being affllicted on foreign policy decisions, among others.
Sec. Clinton is obliged to make her case for Libya however she wants, but diplomatically it’s sheer amateurism to set your sights on critics who expect the Executive Branch to inform Congress when embroiling this country in a military misadventure that isn’t of strategic importance to the United States.
This is what cost her the nomination, as she deferred to George W. Bush, then tried to make up for her vote on Iraq by criticizing him.
Whose side are you on? Sec. Clinton’s got a lot of nerve asking this question to Americans who expect more transparency from the Executive Branch.
To put a finer point on it, Sec. Clinton is wrong.
If Condoleezza Rice had tried this tactic she’d have been flayed in the media and deservedly so.
Sec. Clinton is too smart not to know how this sounds as she sits in Jamaica pontificating about congressional loyalties. Suggesting critics are on the side of Gadhaffi if we believe Pres. Obama operated in an unwise and possibly illegal manner in his decision on Libya is a low for Sec. Clinton.
I’m sure the boss appreciates it and her critics can finally see what I said from the start, which is when Clinton joins a team she’ll defend it against all manner of wrong and embarrassment, even if it costs her credibility. She’s as loyal as they come, sometimes to her own detriment, which is certainly the case here.
Foreign policy became a political football a long time ago. It’s wrong no matter who’s doing it and dangerous to U.S. interests, with both Clinton and McConnell offering examples of amateur statesmanship from the Democratic and Republican benches.
Here’s the latest installment from Jon Huntsman, Jr. I wasn’t sure about posting it, but then the second installment dropped, which is the first video below.
Let’s just say Mr. Huntsman is going to do it his way and dare the media and everyone else to characterize it. Jason Linkins at Huffington Post takes the bait, calling him the “Mike Gravel of the 2012 GOP primary. That doesn’t apply to Huntsman on style and certainly not by resume.
“We inject less libido… We don’t necessarily inject our own egos…” – Christiane Lagrande, French Foreign Minister (possible IMF replacement for Strauss-Kahn)
Foreign policy studies find that when women are included in a nation’s national dialogue that country has not only a better chance of stability, but it’s the only way developing nations can thrive. There are now studies that women make companies more economically successful when they’re in the lead. On ABC’s “This Week” yesterday, Christiane Amanpour teed up the topic with Cecilia Attias (ex-wife to Pres. Sarkozy), Torie Clarke, Claire Shipman.
Rush Limbaugh was even more unhinged than usual today because of this subject. Limbaugh talked about the “chick-i-fi-cation” of the U.S. One female caller said that women today having affairs with politicians are “greedy,” because in the old days they’d keep their mouth shut. Classic example of Rush’s female audience. This same caller opined that men should run the household, while Rush blamed liberal women for the fate of a bullies, Weiner and everything that ails the male populace.
After all these years of tuning in to Rush, however briefly when I can. I’m still amazed that his criteria for a successful woman includes marriage, children, heterosexualism, but especially beauty.
But while countries and corporations need women to thrive and succeed, there are other examples where women haven’t made any difference at all.
Where foreign policy, diplomacy and militarism meet, women still fail as miserably as men, because they’re intent on channeling what any man would do or say. Sometimes, of course, foreign policy answers aren’t gender based, with the obvious answer showing itself no matter the gender. But in tough geopolitical situations, so far women still have not found their own way.
Let’s remember who was at the forefront of Obama’s decision to get involved in Libya, which began with Samantha Power and Dr. Susan Rice, but also Sec. Clinton, who was convinced bombing Libya was the right move. It wasn’t.
There is no evidence whatsoever of women being more restrained, thoughtful or less militaristic. See Liz Cheney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, but also women like Anne-Marie Slaughter, who wrote an op-ed entitled “Fiddling While Libya Burns.” You could also add Sec. Madeleine Albright’s comment that Colin Powell recalled in his memoir: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?” It blew his mind.
The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force. [...] In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” said a military official. – Cyber Combat: Act of War Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
In the modern 21st century, this shouldn’t surprised anyone. It gets down to definitions and retaliation.
One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of “equivalence.” If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a “use of force” consideration, which could merit retaliation.
Somewhere in the Beltway Richard Clarke is shaking his head. The man who tried to warn the Bush administration, but was demoted below cabinet rank instead, has been writing books about it for a very long time.
Back in 2008, the Russians successfully launched a cyberattack against US Central Command, sending shock waves through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mullen, who was alarmed enough to brief Bush and SecDef Gates. “This one was significant, this one got our attention,” said one anonymous official.
Cyberwarfare, just imagine how Congress will deal with it. How many of you believe members of Congress are even qualified to make judgments about cybersecurity or attacks of this nature? If the authorization for the Iraq war taught us anything it’s that getting briefed isn’t the same as really knowing the material over which you have jurisdiction.
“Even you know, Obama, who I think knows better about this issue, has to kind of choke out the term ‘clean coal’ occasionally. And I think you know that because he’s got a broader agenda. He’s got health care and he’s got two wars and he’s got saving the automobile companies and he needs the 11 coal state senators, 22 senators, more than half of them Democratic, to vote for his agenda and they’re not going to do it unless he supports big coal.” (via transcript
Scarborough tried to blame it on a history of problems going back to Pres Nixon and the 1973 oil embargo OPEC imposed against the United States. Kennedy would have none of it, saying Ford and Carter were trying to go in the right direction, but it was all derailed by Ronald Reagan.
“Carter, as ineffective as Jimmy Carter is thought to be on many issues, he actually did have a good energy policy. When Reagan came in, the first thing he did was to rip the solar panels off the roof of White House to basically announce we’re handing the economy back over to Big Oil and Big Coal and we’re living with the effects of that decision today. You know, we — actually, they, Gerald Ford, who is Republican and Jimmy Carter passed fuel economy standards in this country, were designed to get us completely off of foreign oil by 1986 and they were on their way to doing that, we wouldn’t have had to import a single drop of foreign oil if we had followed their fuel economy standards, but they were rolled back by [former Reagan Budget Director] David Stockman in 1981 and here are the results of that addiction, including two wars that were unnecessary.”
As Al Gore has said before, there is no such thing as “clean coal.”
Sources tell ABC News that President Obama will nominate CIA director Leon Panetta to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The president will nominate Gen. David Petraeus to serve as director of the CIA. The president will also nominate Marine General John Allen to replace Petraeus as ISAF commander in Afghanistan, and Ryan Crocker as US Ambassador to Afghanistan, replacing Karl Eikenberry. – Jake Tapper, ABC News
Well, at least I’ll quit getting emails that Sec. Clinton is going to Defense, which was never going to happen.
Remember when Bob Woodward was hawking his book and he floated all sorts of baloney to push it?
Panetta as SecDef sets up a continuing confrontation about cuts in the Pentagon that Gates has championed, with loyalist Panetta a good pick if you’re judging on Pres. Obama having his own man at Defense. The choice of CIA Director Panetta going to Defense was in the air for a while.
SecDef Gates, a former CIA director himself, has been strong at Defense, with his leadership well respected. I just wish Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton, Samantha Power and Ambassador Rice would have listened to him on Libya. Gates had said there would be no boots on the ground in that country as long as he was SecDef; we’ll see if that will shift under Panetta. Gates will be missed.
General David Petraeus, who saved the day after McCrystal’s Rolling Stone implosion moves to CIA, something that was also rumored recently.
Speaking of Libya, Sarah Palin chimes in on the subject, showing more proof she may yet be a presidential candidate. The title of her Facebook post is “America Deserves Libya Explanation.” Whoever ghost wrote this post deserves extra credit. She actually sounds like a sane conservative.
At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.
We hadn’t heard much from Palin until Donald Trump started getting all the coverage. With her polls in the crapper, someone obviously told her that it was now or she’d never get another chance.
One reaction among liberals to the Bush years and to Iraq was to retreat from “idealism” toward “realism,” in which the United States would act cautiously and, above all, according to national interests rather than moral imperatives. The debate is rooted in the country’s early history. America, John Quincy Adams argued, “does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all,” but the “champion and vindicator only of her own. In 1966, Adams’s words were repeated by George Kennan, perhaps the most articulate realist of the twentieth century, in opposing the Vietnam War. …The use of force to stop human-rights abuses or to promote democracy, they argue, usually ends poorly.” – Ryan Lizza
Philosophically speaking, Lizza contends that whether a decision by a president is moral or right depends on the consequences of that action, which he concludes makes Pres. Obama’s evolving doctrine “consequentialist.” By that theory isn’t every president’s doctrine consequentialist by nature?
Oy, some experts…
Read it anyway, at least then you’ll understand Libya.
If there is such a thing in foreign policy as a “consequentialist” doctrine, Harry Truman might agree, though his interpretation of Lizza’s theory would be far different from Obama’s, because Truman believed the buck stopped in the White House. John F. Kennedy, a president who doesn’t resemble our current one at all, wouldn’t agree at all with Lizza, because imagining Kennedy bombing Libya requires enormous feats of mental acrobatics, regardless of the consequences.
Interesting premise pulled out of thin air to try to unwind whatever it is Pres. Obama is attempting to do on foreign policy, which is hardly clear at this point. Unfortunately, Obama’s actions also reveal timidity to declare U.S. intent, because admitting an altered U.S. policy based on Lizza’s “consequentialist” theory would cause political havoc for Obama in 2012.
From Lizza’s article:
Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.” – The Consequentialist – How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.
Ah, China, but first America has to wean itself off of our Middle East obsession, which includes that we can create an outcome by anything we do. But the take away on this one is “leading from behind,” with the notion of a “humanitarian hawk” haunting U.S. foreign policy in a very real way, the latest in Libya, neoconservative unilateralism replaced with righteous certainty of America the savior in countries that are not of strategic interest, meanwhile we can do nothing in Bahrain, with sanctions on Syria coming in 3… 2… … .. 10… 9… 8… Oh, and just try to do anything in the Middle East by pissing off the Saudis.
On the structure – despite Lizza’s 9,000 words, and despite Obama’s stated intention to reorient American foreign policy to be less Middle East-focused, the essay…. is totally focused on the Middle East. I’m not saying that the Middle East is unimportant, but I’d have liked to have read something about how the Obama administration is dealing with the rest of the world. Indeed, Lizzaa notes that Obama visited South America during the opening days of the Libya operation precisely “to show that America has interests in the rest of the world.” Despite this effort, the thrust of the article demonstrates its futility during the start of a war. New military conflicts crowd out attention that should be paid to other arenas of foreign policy. It would have been nice to see how the administration’s strategy is playing/affecting the rest of the world.
The inside elite from Pontificate Hill, of which Ryan Lizza is certainly one on foreign policy, lays down that Obama is a consequentialist, which is really just shorthand for making stuff up as he goes along, moving from crisis to crisis with no guiding light, except outcome. Good God.
Brzezinski, too, has become disillusioned with the President. “I greatly admire his insights and understanding. I don’t think he really has a policy that’s implementing those insights and understandings. The rhetoric is always terribly imperative and categorical: ‘You must do this,’ ‘He must do that,’ ‘This is unacceptable.’ ” Brzezinski added, “He doesn’t strategize. He sermonizes.”
Then Mike Allen says Lizza’s is “West Wing Must Read,” which sends the message.
All it means to me is that if Lizza and Allen are correct we’re in bigger trouble than I thought we were and I didn’t think that was possible.
Sarah Palin, whose powerful platform of 2010 has been reduced to a sideline perch while she contemplates the presidency, is still hiding out at Fox refusing to take any challenging media scrutiny.
In contrast, Rep. Michele Bachmann is everywhere, even as she’s still trying to live down her Lexington and Concord gaffe in New Hampshire. She was on safe ground with Bill O’Reilly last night saying she’s more than ready for the “vicious” campaign on 2012. The irony is that Bachmann and her Tea Party allies have been providing most of that climate. She was scheduled to be on an actual news show, “Daily Rundown” with Chuck Todd and Samantha Guthrie, today. She’s not afraid of the “lamestream media.”
Frankly, I care less about her politics, because she’ll never get my vote. I do, however, care about seeing women running for political office and bearing the gauntlet of the media circuit, instead of doing what Sarah Palin has done for months, which is hide out at Fox or in her bunker studio up in Alaska. If she can’t handle the “lamestream media” then she would be a disaster up against the dictators of the world. Isn’t that how the Right would describe any progressive Democrat using Sarah’s timid tactics?
Palin looks like a wimp compared to Michele Bachmann.
I’d pay for a front row seat to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Michele Bachmann debate their political views, because both women would represent their sides well. Sarah would be reduced to rubble by Debbie and it wouldn’t take long for her to do it.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, will extend her upcoming South Carolina trip to speak at a tax day Tea Party rally in Columbia alongside Gov. Nikki Haley, according to a Republican familiar with her plans. The April 18 event on the steps of the South Carolina State House is being organized by the Columbia Tea Party. State Sen. Tom Davis and Treasurer Curtis Loftis, two rising stars in the state’s Republican ranks, are also slated to speak. Bachmann is the first potential GOP presidential candidate to join the rally, expected to be one of the biggest Tea Party events of the year in the state. – Bachmann to appear with Haley at South Carolina Tea Party rally
The reason this is an interesting move is because Bachmann has already moved into Iowa, her home state, securing a place where Mitt Romney can’t participate. South Carolina, which was once thought to be Palin country because of her early endorsement of Nikki Haley, is another critical state for any GOP hopeful.
On the wings of first quarter fundraising that beat Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann continues to court the Tea Party faction, which has softened on the queen of 2010, Sarah Palin, because she’s been lying low. But also because Palin’s blood-libel video after Tucson was enough to make anyone ashamed of her.
There’s also the factor of the quiet before the storm, with Sarah Palin and her team betting that if she jumps into the presidential race the spotlight would be hers and anyone near the stage would be quickly forgotten. They’ve also got to know that 2012 is it for Palin. If she doesn’t jump now it’s never.
But Michele Bachmann’s growing prowess has got to be worrying to Palin’s people, if she wants to run. Of course, Palin’s fan club will say Bachmann actually helps Sarah Palin. I’m not buying that anymore. Bachmann’s determined style, coupled with her hard work and House resume, which includes Intelligence and Finance Services committees, are notches Palin doesn’t have.
Rep. Bachmann is gaffe-prone just like Palin, but she’s not stupid. The presidency is still a far reach, but she can cause a lot of indigestion for the establishment types. But if Sarah Palin can reach the vice presidency, Bachmann is obviously betting she can too. At the very least she can have a seat at the Republican Boys’ Club power table.
Love them or hate them, one thing you can say about both Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin is that at least they have the guts to take on their own political establishment. There’s no woman in Democratic or progressive politics close to having their power or fortitude. However, the power they have is still second tier. But if you’re watching and waiting for more women in power to take the national scene by storm they’re all we’ve got.
I have absolutely no idea the purpose of these remarks on ABC from Sec. Clinton, beyond covering for a commander in chief making his way home as a crisis escalates, this time politically. They make absolutely no sense to me at all at this point, but nothing the Obama administration is doing or saying on Libya makes sense, which now includes Sec. Clinton.
Not only does she admit she’s not aware “personally” of what she went on to tell Diane Sawyer, but she goes on to say some of what she’s imparting is “theater,” while throwing out the possibility that one of Col. Gadhafi’s sons was killed as she simultaneously admits the “evidence is not sufficient” for her to confirm the information she just imparted.
It’s like the world edition of As Libya Turns, with Clinton offering up sound bites that sound like a foreign policy soap opera, as she in the next breath proclaimed to be “very relaxed about it” all in an effort to obviously shore up Pres. Obama, as criticism at home escalated exponentially.
“We’ve heard about other people close to him reaching out to people that they know around the world — Africa, the Middle East, Europe, North America, beyond — saying what do we do? How do we get out of this? What happens next?” Clinton said in an exclusive interview. “I’m not aware that he personally has reached out, but I do know that people allegedly on his behalf have been reaching out.”
“Some of it is theater. Some of it is, you know, kind of, shall we say game playing, to try to do one message to one group, another message to somebody else,” she added. “A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It’s somewhat unpredictable. But some of it, we think, is exploring. You know, what are my options, where could I go, what could I do. And we would encourage that.”
Clinton said she’s also heard reports that one of Gadhafi’s sons may have been killed in the air strikes. But she added that the “evidence is not sufficient” to confirm.
Fox reports Obama has canceled public events for Wednesday, with the White House press corp coming home before the President, his own plans reportedly to include cutting his trip short by “hours.” However, no other outlet has offered a similar report, though this is not all that surprising to hear at this point.
Then there is Pres. Obama finally coming to grips that Gadhafi is very likely to stay in power, something that was clear from the top for anyone whose studied foreign policy.
“As long as Qadhafi remains in power — unless he changes his approach provides the Libyan people the opportunity to express themselves freely and there are significant reforms by the Libyan government, and he steps down — there’s still going to be a potential threat to the Libyan people,” Obama told reporters at a news conference here, his final stop on a five-day tour of Latin America. “We will continue to support the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be in the lead.” – Barack Obama: Libyan air campaign could last
It must be very ugly in our President’s brain right now as he tries to reconcile what he wants to happen with the realities of war and the U.S.’s role in it, which cannot be changed simply because Obama has deemed it must.
Pres. Obama is operating his Libya policy, such as there is one, under the assumption that because his plan is to remove the United States from the narrative of the no-fly action by handing over duties to the coalition or NATO immediately, that this is as easy as it sounds and can be done on his word. What this ignores is U.S. history, our role as leader of the free world and in taking the helm on every military intervention in modern times, not to mention what is expected of the American President at home.
The good news so far is that the American public haven’t caught up with the reality the Obama administration is facing and all the President and his team can hope is that they’ll get lucky or something will break, it may take both, before the public gets wind of the facts, which are ugly all around.
Obama’s policy also ignores what happened under Bush, as well as what Obama’s done in the region since becoming president. Pres. Obama believes his Cairo speech wiped out what has happened in Pakistan, but especially in Afghanistan, including the multitude of drone attacks, civilian deaths, and troops deployed, while his Administration has failed utterly on any coherent (there’s that word again) Middle East policy that deals effectively with the Palestinian and Israeli challenge.
Rachel Maddow once again tried to make the argument for Obama on her show last night, pressing her narrative of the President’s reluctance and also his willingness to change the U.S. interventionist narrative, this time emphasizing Obama’s Cairo speech, and once again, as with last night, her guests, Al Jazeera English’s Ayman Mohyeldin and Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs, quickly blew her theory out of the water. Obama wanting to turn the page from what came before is simply not enough given the history of the U.S. in the region, which now includes Pres. Obama’s own presidential footprint.
No matter what his intentions, humanitarian and that “Gadhafi must go,” the fact remains Pres. Obama has started a war in Libya and nothing he can say can change this reality or his role in initiating Operation Odyssey Dawn. The fact that Obama did this “on the fly,” to quote Sec. Gates, without thinking through the consequences of military action and the ramification of war becomes more apparent by the day.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Tuesday that plan to transfer command of the mission in Libya to coalition forces is “complicated.” “We haven’t done something like this on the fly before,” Gates, who is currently overseas on a diplomatic trip to Russia, said. Added Gates, “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.” – Talk Radio News
Other than that, not much happy news to report, so I’ve included some uplifting words from Seuss at the end of my Saturday picks below. Also, see photo to the right for reason to keep hoping against hope.
The number of dead and missing from Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami has now topped 16,000. It is the deadliest natural disaster to hit Japan in nearly a century.
For example, here’s a little line-up of TEPCO lies:
In 2002, Michael Zilenzieger reported that top officals TEPCO were forced to resign “after admitting that the company had covered up safety violations and falsified records at three of its largest nuclear power plants”.
In 2006, the government demanded that TEPCO “check past data after it reported that it had found falsification of coolant water temperatures at its Fukushima Daiichi plant in 1985 and 1988, and that the tweaked data was used in mandatory inspections at the plant, which were completed in October 2005.”
And in 2007, TEPCO reported that it “had found more past data falsifications, though this time it did not have to close any of its plants.”
Then there were some minor matters of building on fault lines that they claim not to have known about and releasing radiation into the atmosphere. And so on.
Brad Plumer, via TNR, asks,Atomic Anxiety: Is there any cure for our outsized fear of nuclear catastrophe? I think this paragraph from the second page gets at the heart of the matter — a fundamental erosion of trust in our public and private institutions to put the safety and general welfare of us all first and to not cut corners:
Distrust of government has also helped nurture anti-nuclear sentiment. As Flynn’s study found, the yawning gap between expert and public views on nuclear risk owes largely to a lack of trust in government and industry officials to manage the hazards safely. In the United States, the old Atomic Energy Commission was widely viewed as secretive and deceptive before its dissolution in 1974. Perhaps this explains why the two industrialized countries that have had the most success in allaying nuclear fears are France and Japan, cultures that are largely comfortable with leaving the task of governing to technocrats. (Though, admittedly, in Japan, confidence in the government and nuclear utilities had come under strain even before Fukushima.)
Why are we playing Russian roulette with the American people for nuclear plants whose principal objective is simply to boil water and produce steam? This is technological insanity. It presents national security problems, for every nuclear plant is a prime target. It affects our civil liberties. It endangers our workers. It is an industry that cannot be financed by Wall Street because it’s too risky. Wall Street demands 100 percent taxpayer guarantees for any nuclear plant.
So I suggest that people listening and watching this program to pick up the phone and dial the White House comment number, which is (202) 456-1111, (202) 456-1111, and demand the following: that there be public hearings in every area where there’s a nuclear plant, so the people can see for themselves what the hazards are, what the risks are, how farcical the evacuation plans are, how costly nuclear power is, and how it can be replaced by energy efficiency, by solar energy, different kinds of solar energy, by cogeneration, as Amory Lovins and many others, Peter Bradford, have pointed out.
We must no longer license any new nuclear plants. We should shut down the ones like Indian Point. How many people know that Hillary Clinton, as senator, and Andrew Cuomo, as attorney general, demanded that Indian Point be shut down? That doesn’t matter to the monetized minds in Washington, D.C. We also should prepare a plan where, apart from the aging plants, which should be shut down, and apart from the earthquake-risk plants—should be shut down—for the phase-out of the entire industry. We’re going to be left with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, for which there is no permanent repository. This is institutional insanity, and I urge the people in this country to wake up before they experience what is now going on in northern Japan: uninhabitable territory, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands at risk of cancer, enormous economic loss. And for what?
P.J. Crowley, spokesperson for the State Dept., has been shit-canned by the White House after honestly stating that PFC Bradley Manning’s treatment “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”
P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.
Crowley will step down as early as Sunday afternoon, the officials said, because White House officials are furious about his suggestion that the Obama administration is mistreating Manning…
[...] But Crowley has told friends that he is deeply concerned that mistreatment of Manning could undermine the legitimate prosecution of the young private. Crowley has also made clear he has the Obama administration’s best interests at heart because he thinks any mistreatment of Manning could be damaging around the world to President Obama, who has tried to end the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners.
This is Pres. Obama’s decision, but the White House’s lack of trust in Mr. Crowley was telegraphed when Obama’s NSC spokesperson, Mike Hammer, was sent over to State.
Obama’s claims that the Pentagon has “assured” him that Manning is being treated under basic standards is laughable and insulting to our intelligence.
The move to silence Crowley is being done to deflect from the torturous treatment Manley has reportedly been under.
Manning’s lawyer also says the young private recently had to sleep in the nude because defense officials thought there was a suicide threat and decided to take away his boxer shorts.
PJ Crowley served as National Security Council spokesman for Pres. Bill Clinton.
Matt Stoller said it perfectly via Twitter: The WH thinks governing means a mix of PR and enforcing petty corrupt social norms. That’s it. That’s really it.
IWAKI, Japan AP (Mar 12, 10:42 PM EST) — A partial meltdown was likely under way at a second nuclear reactor, a top Japanese official said Sunday, as authorities frantically tried to prevent a similar threat from nearby unit following a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami. Some 170,000 people have been ordered to evacuate the area covering a radius of 12 miles (20 kilometers) around the plant in Fukushima near Iwaki.
At this point, events in Japan bear many similarities to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Reports indicate that up to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) of the reactor fuel was exposed. The reactor fuel appears to have at least partially melted, and the subsequent explosion has shattered the walls and roof of the containment vessel — and likely the remaining useful parts of the control and coolant systems.
We simply do not know the full story yet, because it’s still playing out.
I was living in New York City when the Three Mile Island catastrophe occurred. It was harrowing to hear the news reports, which resulted in demonstrations and a public outcry. It’s a good time to remember it now.
Pres. Clinton said that he remains skeptical about nuclear power(at the same time making inappropriate and wrong statements about oil drilling). Plants are expensive to build and also take a long time. Clinton didn’t address the saftey issue, which we’re seeing play out in Japan.
An explosion at a crippled nuclear power plant in northern Japan on Saturday blew the roof off one building and caused a radiation leak of unspecified proportions, escalating the emergency confronting Japan’s government a day after an earthquake and tsunami devastated parts of the country’s northeastern coast.
Japanese television showed a cloud of white-gray smoke from the explosion billowing up from a stricken reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Saturday afternoon, and officials said leaks of radiation from the plant prompted them to expand the evacuation area around the facility to a 12-mile radius.
We still don’t have a solution for nuclear waste either. The Right doesn’t care, with Pres. Obama being too nonchalant about nuclear energy and a friend to that industry for some time. Nevadans came very close to having to live with the unknowns of Yucca Mountain, because ignoramuses in Congress wanted a dumping site. That many were content to have trucks filled with contaminated waste drive through poorer areas to get it to Nevada revealed the bankruptcy of the safety plan, with Yucca itself a disaster waiting to happen, which thankfully didn’t.
There are many aspects to making nuclear power safe, but there is also the argument that in the 21st century renewable energy and environmental sound energy policy is a better way to go, because a nuclear disaster is something from which there is no full recovery.
UPDATE (11:25 EST): A site called World Nuclear News has some interesting details what’s happened with Japan’s nuclear facilities that were damaged in the earthquake.
Ahead of his controversial hearing Thursday on the “radicalization” of American Muslims, Rep. Peter King is revealing that he has been under police protection for months because of an overseas threat against him. The New York Republican has since December had around-the-clock security provided by the New York Police Department and Nassau County police, he confirmed to POLITICO Thursday morning. – Politico
If this country still had leaders of courage, Rep. King would have begun his Muslim McCarthyism today without a single member of the House beside him. In announcing the hearings it’s as if Mr. King got what he wanted, with threats against himself rising, as if to prove his point.
As Rep. Keith Ellison hinted today, this hearing could potentially put America in more danger and inspire more suicide bombers, and in a passionately emotional statement(seen at the end of the video above), Mr. Ellison proved the insanity and prejudice of Mr. King.
Rep. King also denied requests for members to make opening statements, shutting down any discourse that takes his McCarthyism on. Then King allowed a conservative Republican from Virginia to speak instead. As did King, Rep. Frank Wolf was defensive about those Muslims who were law abiding, good Americans, then went on to reveal the fishing expedition King is on, suggesting that people don’t think extremism and “homegrown terrorism” could happen in the U.S.
In his opening statement, Islamic radicalism was intoned just before Rep. Peter King invoked the coming ten-year anniversary of 9/11. However, he never once mentioned that the men involved were from Saudi Arabia, hatching their plot partially in Germany.
McCarthyism in the face of no evidence of a specific Islamist terrorist plot is no virtue.
Speaking second, after King said the trouble wasn’t neo-Nazism or any other group, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi reminded him that a white man was just charged yesterday in the attempted bombing during a parade on Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
Kevin William Harpham, who reportedly has links to a neo-Nazi group, was arrested by FBI agents and local law enforcement Wednesday morning at his home near Addy, a community of about 1,400 people roughly 55 miles northwest of Spokane. – Seattle Times
Peter King has shamed the House of Representatives and this country.
Would Mr. King look into the radically fanatical Right who hunt doctors providing women with legal reproductive services?
Would he dare investigate militias and the over 1,000 hate groups arming because of some dread of doom dancing in their heads?
It’s also as if the domestic terrorism tragedy of Tucson didn’t happen.
Using the same tactics as McCarthy, with our representatives’ defensiveness revealing their shame, King’s witchhunt reveals the ugly American that lives in fear of their own shadow.
Rep. King’s open history of association with the I.R.A., a terrorist organization, reveals what today is really about. Unconcerned about neo-Nazis or white supremacists, even Christian radicals who hunt doctors and put women in danger, King makes it clear that Christians aren’t the same as Muslims and that we need to be on alert, watching what Muslims do.
As the Middle East discovers freedom, King can only see fear. In the shadows of what is going on in the Mideast, Rep. King’s McCarthyism reveals a horribly paranoid and bigoted turn on to a dangerous path for this country.
That it’s being allowed to happen in what is traditionally called the people’s House reveals what Republican leadership represents today. Rep. King represents the worst of America, but unfortunately has too many people behind him from the Republican Party supporting his Muslim McCarthyism, so that he can preen self-righteous duty in the face of his driving prejudice.
UPDATE 4: Sheila Jackson Lee, who was denied by King to make an opening statement, just eviscerated him and the gratuitous posters, including the one in my column above. She also stated that King’s Muslim McCarthyism is playing into Al Qaeda’s hands, while also insulting soldiers who are Muslim. It was a contentious back and forth, with Lee’s disdain for King obvious.
UPDATE 3: Carl Bernstein nails it by calling King’s hearings a “coliseum-like atmosphere of cultural warfare.” Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks calls King “un-American” and says he rejects the hearing, also stating his family is Muslim.
UPDATE: Rep. Lundgren now drawing parallel to Nazism in German and today’s hearing, which reveals more absurdity, as the Nazis had already been proven criminals.
Last Sunday at 2 p.m., a blue-and-white Air Force jet left Andrews Air Force Base bound for Cairo. On board was Frank G. Wisner, an adroit ex-diplomat whom President Obama had asked hours before to undertake a supremely delicate mission: nudging President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt out of power. – A Diplomatic Scramble as an Ally Is Pushed to the Exit
When you’re up against it and a hint of daylight breaks through it’s time to rally your allies. Start at the top.
Give points to the military.
… I want to commend the Egyptian military for the professionalism and patriotism that it has shown thus far in allowing peaceful protests while protecting the Egyptian people.
Announce what the hell your foreign policy is.
And going forward, the United States will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve, in Egypt and around the world.
Remind everyone that leaders are glorified temps who serve at the pleasure of the people.
Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people.
What is clear — and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak — is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.
That basic fairness and belief in the future is foundational.
And it should result in a government that’s not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.
Give credit where credit is due to the Egyptian people who are providing an astounding example to the entire world.
Over the last few days, the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people of Egypt has been an inspiration to people around the world, including here in the United States, and to all those who believe in the inevitability of human freedom.
Always be talking to the next generations, because it’s through them we will win the future.
To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices.
When presented with a great community of people who have found common purpose to change the world in which they live salute it.
… That truth can be seen in the sense of community in the streets. It can be seen in the mothers and fathers embracing soldiers. And it can be seen in the Egyptians who linked arms to protect the national museum — a new generation protecting the treasures of antiquity; a human chain connecting a great and ancient civilization to the promise of a new day.
It’s been a rough week and a historic one to get Pres. Obama to this moment late yesterday. And as it should be, it wasn’t the President who was the face of the gaffes and 20th century rhetoric even if the words originated in the White House. Staying out of the glare enabled him to get his policy straight while displaying no fingerprints on what eventually happened. Pres. Obama could then walk to the podium and drive home the message that Sen. John Kerry laid the foundation for yesterday in his op-ed, which followed behind the scenes work that will make another great book for Bob Woodward.
The American President is a job that rewards gravitas, humility and the magic political art of transmitting your power without showing your hand.
It’s not over in Egypt, but no one can say that Pres. Obama didn’t do what needed to be done last night.
This has been an extraordinary week. What follows is a remarkable story I’ve done my best to unpack and requires a lot of investment on your part. I don’t claim this is perfectly packaged, but I’ve done the very best I can on a story I think is historic, including news late last night that Egypt had left the Internet, as well as flummoxing for U.S. leaders.
The cables, which cover the first year of the Obama presidency, leave little doubt about how valuable an ally Mr. Mubarak has been, detailing how he backed the United States in its confrontation with Iran, played mediator between Israel and the Palestinians and supported Iraq’s fledgling government, despite his opposition to the American-led war. Privately, Ambassador Scobey pressed Egypt’s interior minister to free three bloggers, as well as a Coptic priest who performed a wedding for a Christian convert, according to one of her cables to Washington. She also asked that three American pro-democracy groups be granted formal permission to operate in the country, a request the Egyptians rejected. – Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt’s Leaders
The Obama administration needs to up its game. Al Jazeera is watching and broadcasting to a region that is convulsing with freedom pangs in the era of transformative media access through Wikileaks, Twitter and Facebook that empowers people held in bondage by brutal regimes, which we often bankroll, including $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt yearly.
When Al Jazeera English became available in parts of the U.S., like the Beltway, it was a seminal event as far as I am concerned. It’s the most important channel not enough people are watching, a tiny part of that because it’s not available everywhere. It’s the first successful channel to connect the Arab world while blasting what is happening into America, which the U.S. media ignores at our peril and they do so because it doesn’t pay and we’re such a navel gazing country most don’t understand the repercussions of our own ignorance. It’s also why too many Americans accept Beck-Palin-Rush stereotypes of the people whose countries we are occupying and the regimes we continue to bolster, even against what the people want.
The first post I did on the beginnings of the Arab eruptions this week, on Monday, was centered around Al Jazeera’s prominent role in the Palestine Papers. This story revealed Sect. Clinton allegedly saying the Palestinians are “always in a chapter of a Greek tragedy,” with Al Jazeera reporting the U.S. as anything but an honest broker. Watching the Palestine Papers unfold on Al Jazeera English, as well as on Twitter, was stunning, all of which came on the wave of what happened in Tunisia.
Today, Friday, the New York Times writes in more detail what I began covering on Monday, which is that Al Jazeera is at the center this story as much as anything else. (My tweet below mirrors what others tweeting that day were also witnessing on Al Jazeera English, which the New York Times confirms today, the “finally” meaning they finally woke up.)
On Tuesday afternoon, as the street protests in Egypt were heating up, Al Jazeera was uncharacteristically slow to report them, airing a culture documentary, a sports show and more of its “Palestine Papers” coverage of the leaked documents.
Many Egyptians felt betrayed, and Facebook and Twitter were full of rumors about a deal between Qatar — the Persian Gulf emirate whose emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, founded Al Jazeera in 1996 — and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who visited the emir in Doha last month. Within a day, Al Jazeera was reporting from the streets in Cairo in its usual manic style.
Al Jazeera’s freewheeling broadcasts have long made it the bête noire of Arab governments, and in some earlier instances they have succeeded in reining it in.
In 2007, the channel received orders to soften its blunt coverage of Saudi Arabia after Qatar and the Saudis mended a smoldering political feud. That remains a weak point for Al Jazeera — as for most of the pan-Arab press, which is largely owned by Saudi Arabia.
Yet for all its flaws, Al Jazeera still operates with less constraint than almost any other Arab outlet, and remains the most popular channel in the region. To many Arabs, Al Jazeera’s recent exposé on the Palestinian Authority documents — sometimes called “Pali-leaks” — is of a piece with its reporting on protests against autocratic Arab regimes.
The story continues to widen with Vice Pres. Joe Biden’s unhelpful statements to PBS last night, the latest foreign policy fodder to be subject to Twitter and Facebook responses and relays that ricochet.
JIM LEHRER: Has the time come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go, to stand aside?
JOE BIDEN: No, I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that — to be more responsive to some of the needs of the people out there. These are — a lot of the people out there protesting are middle-class folks who are looking for a little more access and a little more opportunity.
And the two things we have been saying here, Jim, is that violence isn’t appropriate and people have a right to protest. And so — and we think that — I hope Mubarak, President Mubarak, will — is going to respond to some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised.
JIM LEHRER: You know President Mubarak.
JOE BIDEN: I know him fairly well.
JIM LEHRER: Have you talked to him about this?
JOE BIDEN: I haven’t talked to him in the last three days.
I — last time I — actually, I haven’t talked to him in about a month. But I speak to him fairly regularly. And I think that, you know, there’s a lot going on across that part of the continent, from Tunisia into — all the way to Pakistan, actually. And there’s — a lot of these countries are beginning to sort of take stock of where they are and what they have to do. [...] [...]
JIM LEHRER: The word — the word to describe the leadership of Mubarak and Egypt and also in Tunisia before was dictator. Should Mubarak be seen as a dictator?
JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.
And I think that it would be — I would not refer to him as a dictator.
When asked about Pres. Mubarak being a “dictator,” Biden’s first response even in the face of what has been covered on Al Jazeera just this week, was to talk in terms of our “geopolitical” relationship that in the 20th century was the way people talked about foreign policy, before it became as multidimensional as it is today.
I also cannot figure out why, considering Biden knows Mubarak “fairly well” and speaks to him “fairly regularly,” he hasn’t spoken to him “the last three days.”
The State Dept.’s spokesman P.J. Crowley went down a similar road on Al Jazeera, as I wrote about yesterday and it was ugly.
Others may disagree with me, but all of this combined with the Wikileaks cables on Egypt that has us saying one thing privately about human rights, then in public making statements that might aid Mubarak while Al Jazeera is broadcasting reality, add in the Palestine Papers revelations, makes for potentially vulnerable geopolitical ramifications Biden seems not to have considered.
There is no way we can survive humiliation through our current 20th century thinking in a world now connected via Twitter and Facebook and with Al Jazeera beaming into homes across the Arab world, especially now that we can also see what the Arab world is seeing.
The contagion since Tunisia is proof, regardless of whether “governments topple,” something Biden at least had the humility to admit he could be misjudging.
I have no opinion on this, because I don’t think anyone knows what the new media platforms working in synchronicity with the people driving them at once can achieve today.
But it’s simply none of the U.S.’s business to declare whether Mubarak is a “dictator,” a nice word for what he’s leveled on his own people, or say he should or should not step down. Not even our financial investment or geopolitical alliance gives us this right and that we still think it does is one of the problems of our foreign policy in this converging new media century.
After Sect. Clinton’s very first meeting with Pres. Mubarak at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik, March 2009, which the cables at the top of this post reference, Clinton was reported to have said something much more tuned in than what she initially said this week. Back in 2009, on a question on Egypt’s human rights, Hillary responded as follows, emphasis added.
“We hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all have room for improvement,” Mrs. Clinton said, adding that Mr. Mubarak and his wife, Suzanne, were friends of her family, and that it was up to the Egyptian people to decide the president’s future.
Yet her first response on Tuesday, like Biden ridiculously stating Mubarak wasn’t a “dictator,” however his splitting hairs definition defines it, was to bolster the Egyptian government and describe it as “stable.”
Clinton’s first statement looked even worse when ElBaradei landed in Cairo yesterday, with CNN’s Ben Wedeman tweeting his message from Cairo: ElBaradei at airport says the point of no return has been reached must be peaceful change govt must stop using violence.
Much earlier Thursday, so it was leaked on Wednesday at some point, it was reported that an anonymous administration official was saying Pres. Obama was “poised to intensity U.S. criticism of Egypt’s Mubarak.”
So what to make of V.P. Joe Biden’s interview on PBS Thursday night? From where I sit it was a serious and embarrassing misstep from a foreign policy veteran, but also the Administration, who hasn’t caught up with how world events are zipping around the globe on multiple and converging media platforms that everyone can see.
Pres. Obama didn’t address what’s been happening in Egypt publicly until yesterday. That may have been good for his time table, but it was woefully late considering Tunisia and what happened this week.
Once upon a time not so long ago, in a century that now seems so far away where communication, media and social platforms are concerned, the Obama administration might have caught a break.
It’s been the week that Al Jazeera has been waiting for, coming on the heels of Wikileaks, as Twitter and Facebook continue to rock the globe, with Pres. Obama and his administration still not quite getting what they’re up against, the most challenging of which may yet be to come.
Pres. Obama talked about the people first, stressing the importance that there be no violence. He stressed the important relationship with Egypt, stating reforms must be made, which he relayed to Mubarak. Backs Mubarak, but strongly leans towards the people and once again reiterated that it’s up to the people of Egypt. Importantly, Pres. Obama finished by saying we’ll know more in the morning. It clearly stated to me that after the Egyptian people digest what Mubarak said we’ll see if the protests continue and what the govt. does about opening up the communication gateway. Pres. Obama transmitting the real dangers in the situation and walking very, very carefully, as he should. This is a long play not a one act. It will be developing for a while.
UPDATE 6:30 pm: Waiting for Pres. Obama to speak. Via Chuck Todd he finally spoke to Pres. Mubarak and the conversation reportedly lasted 30 minutes.
UPDATE 5:19 pm: Mubarak saying demonstrations representative of “freedoms” offered by Egypt through his presidency. Will “always adhere to the right of freedom…” Mubarak then sacks his whole government, but he continues on. Outside the protesters continued to yell “Down, down with Mubarak.” Via CNN’s Nic Robertson, chants “We don’t want him” rising. Mubarak obviously has gotten assurances from Egyptian military. We’ll see what develops when the Internet and communications are switched on again. Nothing in Egypt will ever be the same.
UPDATE 3:15 pm: Gibbs after being challenged about his words (3:54 pm): “I’m not tempering one word or one syllable of one word. .. we’ve reached a point where grievances have to be addressed.” Robert Gibbs: “We will be reviewing our assistance posture based on events now and in the coming days.” Chip Reid: Has he tried to reach Mubarak? Gibbs: “Not that I’m aware of.” MESSAGE SENT TO EGYPT. Why isn’t the President standing where you’re standing? Not much to say on that one, so Gibbs vamps. At top, Gibbs invoked “legitimate grievances” people have must be addressed by Egyptian gov. “immediately,” emphasizes it, including communication. Gibbs rightly points story back to the Egyptian people, “this will be solved by the Egyptian people.” Again stresses “grievances” re Mubarak. Never been a fan of Gibbs, but this is one of his best moments and it comes at a critical time for Pres. Obama & the US govt. Chuck Todd: Has anyone condemned house arrest of ElBaradei? Gibbs: “a Nobel Laureate… type of activities gov has responsibility to change.”
UPDATE 2:55 pm: picture via Mike Memoli.
UPDATE 12:56 pm: STILL WAITING FOR MUBARACK TO SPEAK. Marc Lynch on Twitter: Mubarak’s silence is increasingly becoming the story. Egyptians continue to defy curfew.
UPDATE 12:14 pm: Sect. Hillary Clinton just spoke condemning internet shutdown and urging govt to address “grievances” of people. She made a shift towards people (finally), putting them before government. The trouble is that though the US is powerless here, our govt. props up Mubarak against the people’s will. A very sobering moment for the US.
Picture above is the NDP in flames. Egyptian’s National Museum is near.
UPDATE 11:26 pm: Pictures from AJE… Iconic imagery now. Huge plumes of deep black smoke rising from NDP (National Democratic Party) headquarters & complex of buildings, which is the ruling establishment of Mubarak, going back to ’80s.
BREAKING… MUBARAK TO SPEAK SOON. CURFEW NOW IN EFFECT… loud cries still being heard. People are not leaving the streets. Egyptian state media says Pres. Mubarak has ordered the Egyptian State Army on to the streets.
UPDATE 10:27 a.m.: Curfew now imposed in Egypt, which is 30 min. away.
UPDATE III: A very important point by media expert on Al Jazeera, Kevin Anderson, correctly reporting that in Egypt the “overlap betweeen internet activists and activists is almost complete. The activists in Egypt have long been using the internet.” Primarily from blogging, with Egyptian political bloggers well known.
“Egypt has enjoyed a long history of internet activism,” Kevin Anderson continues. “Now they have a very sophisticated way of not just using FB & Twitter… but also SMS and mobile networks, which have also been effective in this clampdown.”
ElBaradei has already criticised the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for describing the Egyptian government as stable and he stepped up his calls for the rest of the world to explicitly condemn Mubarak, who is a close ally of the US.
“The international community must understand we are being denied every human right day by day,” he said. “Egypt today is one big prison. If the international community does not speak out it will have a lot of implications. We are fighting for universal values here. If the west is not going to speak out now, then when?”
It’s Not News that Romney Can Win MITT ROMNEY’S LUCKY the Republican primaries unmasked his warts long before anyone started paying attention. Sure America saw the clown [...]
The Choice for Romney is Liz Cheney Why not the best for President Obama and the Democratic party? And how much more will victory be worth having [...]
Oh Donna, How We Danced DONNA SUMMER was writing “Love to Love You Baby”; I was Miss Missouri. “Last Dance” came out in 1978, the [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet **UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama **Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
