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.

Tag Archives | 9/11

Pak-US on the Rocks

By on 27 May 2011

‘Intelligence fusion’ cells, some that help us in Afghanistan, have been ordered shut down by Pakistan, with a demand that U.S. reduce troops in that country as well. From the LA Times:

In a clear sign of Pakistan’s deepening mistrust of the United States, Islamabad has told the Obama administration to reduce the number of U.S. troops in the country and has moved to close three military intelligence liaison centers, setting back American efforts to eliminate insurgent sanctuaries in largely lawless areas bordering Afghanistan, U.S. officials said.

The liaison centers, also known as intelligence fusion cells, in Quetta and Peshawar are the main conduits for the United States to share satellite imagery, target data and other intelligence with Pakistani ground forces conducting operations against militants, including Taliban fighters who slip into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and allied forces.

Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who was only freed through “blood money,” had the Pakistanis upset anyone, but Seal Team 6 invading Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden has really set things off.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Tax Increases Mixed with Death Blow for Progressives

By on 11 April 2011



Coming off a scene reminiscent of Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday (see video above), Pres. Obama has made some momentous decisions that will take us where we’ve never gone before. Inspired by the traditional media fanfare of Paul Ryan’s “brave” budget proposal, Pres. Obama has accepted the challenge to step out on the coming economic battles for 2012 to offer his own ideas to the mix. Knowing how Obama abhors the vision thing, because sticking his neck out just isn’t his thing, this will be a defining moment. Pres. Obama will be swinging for the fences of history, with no eye whatsoever on Democratic Party foundation, its roots or traditions, taking the party away from liberalism forever.

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes to Social Security. – Obama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt

It’s easy to predict the usual traditional media response, especially on cable, which will be positive on raising the retirement age. The rationale is that we’re living longer, it won’t hit anyone over 50 and it must be done. Talking heads will scoff that someone 35 shouldn’t have to work until they’re 68 or 69, keeping it just below 70, because it’s longevity reality. What it will mean is that what’s already happened to the Democratic Party message will be solidified in something far away from what it meant in the 20th century, with the principles that guide liberals and progressives not only irrelevant, but seen as too expensive for 21st century America.

Pres. Obama is betting there are still plenty of Democrats who will support him no matter what he does, especially seen against the alternative, while being certain that his plan to take on entitlements, including “unspecified” changes to Social Security, will solidify Independents securely, because of the midterm message he heard and intends to heed. That’s a bet his entire reelection team will take, because it’s a very good wager.

The reported tax increases mentioned in the Wall Street Journal today are what he should have done in December and is good news, though like everything Pres. Obama does, he just can’t ask too much of the wealthy. From “Obama puts taxes on the table”:

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

Couple the budget compromise with “unspecified” Social Security changes, add in serving up poor women’s freedoms in D.C. that goes along with making women jump through hoops in the health care bill fro reproductive services, and what you’ve got is a Democratic President making his final moves away from the traditions of party and recalibrating the Democratic Party into something different.

Outside the budget but very much part of this whole shift, making matters worse as well, is Obama’s war in Libya, with a stalemate that could morph into something much larger with SecDef Gates poised to leave soon. Because with Obama committed he can’t be seen to lose the war, so boots on the ground to keep this from happening is a very real possibility.

Pres. Obama’s already committed himself to an imperial presidency, with actions on military tribunals closely tied to that of his predecessor George W. Bush, and the treatment of Bradley Manning now widely seen as “inhumane.” Not even criticism of the policy from esteemed lawyers like Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School, Yochai Benkler of Harvard Law School, Lawrence Tribe and many, many others has made a dent.

With Republican power entrenched in the Tea Party extremes it makes what Pres. Obama is about to do more possible while seeming smart and moderately centrist, because what they want is so “draconian,” one of the Democratic talking points no doubt decided in the elite chambers of power.

The outcome is the country and our politics will move another rightward step, putting helping people further into the private sector column, with progressives and liberals needing a completely different political party. They won’t have any less success than if they stay attached to the Democratic Party, which no longer has a place for liberals, doesn’t speak for the working class anymore, and has no idea or interest on how to create jobs, which is actually hurt by starving the economy.

Now Democrats will have to decide if they’d rather see Democratic ideals cut away by someone who runs as a Democrat, and support him doing so, or by Republicans if they win in 2012, assuming they’ll have a decent candidate, which is still anything but certain.

Triangulation has a big brother, but this one is on chewable steroids.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

What Obama Caving on KSM Trial Says About Us All

By on 05 April 2011

In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn’t just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It’s about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others. – Dahlia Lithwick

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“You cannot say that a man is ‘evil’ and ‘anti-American’ in effect and then adopt his policies.” – Joe Scarborough

After a rousing discussion, Joe Scarborough agreed with the decision to keep the trial of KSM at Gitmo. His main concern was that candidate Obama had pronounced these policies of Bush-Cheney “evil” and “un-American.” Meanwhile, Mika Brzezinski and John Heilemann made the ludicrous argument that Obama’s moral compass remains on course while taking issue with Scarborough over whether Obama ever said anything close to what Joe was claiming. Evidently it’s not enough to adopt the very Bush-Cheney policies you railed against and said you’d change.

Being as aware as anymore who covered the ’08 election cycle, including the “Game Change” author(s) John Heilemann, there is no doubt that candidate Obama implied that Bush-Cheney policies on Gitmo were in fact “evil” and “un-American.” It was the wink and nod between Obama and his die hard fans, as well as skeptical progressives who voted for him, including myself, as Obama pledged that he’d have a different type of presidency.

Mika then turned the subject away from Obama’s responsibility to do better by asking whether Obama would have opened Gitmo in the first place. It reveals the bankruptcy of his apologists on KSM’s trial, because this has absolutely nothing to do with the cowardice of the Obama administration to rubber stamp Bush-Cheney policies where the rule of law is concerned.

Of course, Joe Scarborough has no problem in theory with these same policies, mind you, he just wants Obama supporters to eat it and admit what Obama channeling Bush means looking backward.

There you have it, folks. In a nutshell, this is why we don’t do the brave thing, the right thing, the moral thing and stand up for what this country represents. But we sure are good at paying lip service to American principles when we don’t have anything to lose, like when a candidate for president runs for office. Just don’t let the test of the meaning of American values come inside your own neighborhood.

We are only as strong as our most fearful link. That link was exposed on “Morning Joe” today, but they have a lot of company.

A.G. Eric Holder whined that Congress made him cancel civilian trial plans for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The Obama administration says they had no choice, when in fact Pres. Obama simply wouldn’t make the case and take on Congress, with the President’s loyalists sticking up for him.

The New York Times whines about Senators Chuck Schumer and Joe Lieberman, also saying “the final blow came from Mayor Michael Bloomberg” on why the public trial of KSM had to finally be moved.

America is now a pass the buck society.

It’s always the fault of someone else when we choose to do the un-American thing.

We don’t have anyone willing to stand up and do what’s right regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us or the expense of doing it.

That is not a leading quality of the American spirit, but it has become our driving force.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Stepping on Your Message, Blowing Off Your Base

By on 04 April 2011

Morning headline and story: Obama launches reelection campaign.

Afternoon headline headline and story: In a Reversal, Military Trials for 9/11 Case:

The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as it once planned. –

I’m still trying to figure out why in the world Pres. Obama would launch his reelection, then allow A.G. Eric Holder to step all over it by announcing the Administration is flip-flopping on Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, with his trial now to be a military tribunal.

If these two contrary moves weren’t colossally clumsy they would have to be seen as a giant tell. It’s one or the other.

Obama isn’t worried about anyone’s reaction to his flipping on his decision about KSM’s trial, because he doesn’t care what progressive Democrats think. This isn’t news, but seen in these two colliding moments today they presented a stark political picture.

For a man who’s running for reelection the naked ambivalence he has for his political base would be truly stunning if we weren’t talking about Barack Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Get Military Commission

By on 04 April 2011

Oh, the irony.

Few things are more representative of the Obama presidency than on the same day Obama announces his reelection campaign Attorney General Eric Holder is reportedly going to also announce the Administration’s wholesale cave on civil liberties, as well as their pledge to try KSM in civilian court.

From CBS:

Attorney General Eric Holder today will announce that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in a military commission, the CBS News Investigative Unit has learned. A source says the commission will be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Holder is expected to announce the decision in a news conference today at 2 p.m.

Trying Mohammed in a civilian court and closing the Guantanamo prison were once some of the Obama administration’s top priorities, but political realities have hamstrung both goals.

I’m just a political analyst out here trying to make sense of this mess of a Democratic message, but I sure don’t envy the job of movement progressives who have to dress up Pres. Obama’s latest move as something other than a monumental cave on principles Democrats used to cherish.

The move illustrated Mr. Obama’s acknowledgment that he will not be able to fulfill his promise to close the prison any time soon — Mr. Obama said on the 2008 campaign trail that he would close Guantanamo within his first year in office. Still, Mr. Obama said last month that he remained committed to trying terror suspects in federal courts.

This is really something.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

No Longer the People’s House

By on 10 March 2011

**UPDATED**

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.

Hearings livestreaming here.

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 2: Politico writes today about King’s Muslim McCarthyism is “not first” and “not historic,” but forgets that neither Collins or Harman ever talked against Muslims the way Rep. King has done, which is why his prejudice on parade today, while hiding behind a hearing he pretends has no agenda, is so despicable.

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.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Rep. Peter King Praises Obama on Gitmo Order

By on 09 March 2011

“I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order. The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities. This is clearly another step in the right direction.” – Rep. Peter King

Pres. Obama and his Administration must be thrilled. Bipartisanship rules, even on anti-American policies. Maybe the Right will finally quit calling Barack Obama a secret Muslim.



Obama Bolsters Gitmo… was TIME magazine’s headline.

ACLU blasts: President Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite Detention.

In a statement accompanying the order, Obama said he remained committed to closing the prison, a pledge he made on his first full day in office. That pledge, enshrined in his first executive order, was widely seen as a repudiation of the detention system his predecessor built. But the new order suggests that Obama’s original pledge was more about dismantling a facility than a system. – ProPublica

I don’t play a lawyer when I write, but I do have a highly keen interest in all things surrounding the law, especially where the Executive Branch is involved. Many legal eagles and political writers have weighed in, with opinions varying. The bottom line in Pres. Obama’s Executive Order is that we’ve known this was coming and nothing in it is remotely surprising.

It’s highly embarrassing, as far as I’m concerned, when Democratic apologists pen cover stories for the Administration on the thinly veiled excuse arguing that Obama has not channeled George W. Bush in his Executive Order. Adam Sewer occupies this perch:

The new policies don’t amount to a “reversal” on the issue of whether Gitmo should be closed. Republicans are eager to portray Gitmo staying open as a “vindication” of the prison’s usefulness, but the fact that the indefinite detention order is limited to detainees currently at Gitmo means that the administration won’t be reopening the facility to new detainees, as Bush apologists have suggested doing.

Gitmo isn’t open because the administration doesn’t want to close it, although its efforts in this area are ripe for criticism. It’s still open because Republicans in Congress successfully frightened Democrats in Congress out of giving the administration the necessary funds to close it when they had control of Congress.

Deborah Perlstein over at Balkinization stands on the Sewer side of the argument:

Probably most unfortunate about the reporting so far is that it obscures (in lower paragraphs at best) what has been and remains the single greatest obstacle to the closure, or even amelioration of the situation, at Guantanamo: Congress. In 2008, both presidential candidates and their parties embraced the need to move toward closing the detention facility. In 2008, efforts by Congress even to conduct hearings into detention-related matters were still met with the criticism by some that Congress was interfering in matters properly left to the executive branch. Since then, Congress has become engaged up to its eyeballs in micromanaging the executive’s handling of a handful of detainees, and is otherwise devoting its Guantanamo-related energy to preventing the President from bringing criminal charges in our own courts against men who the President and Congress believe have committed crimes. We are through the looking glass.

Segue to Glenn Greenwald:

President Obama yesterday signed an Executive Order which, as The Washington Post described it, “will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay” and “all but cements Guantanamo Bay’s continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.” The Order — which codifies a system of charge-free indefinite detention and military commissions once ostensibly scorned by Democrats — was captured perfectly by this headline from Time… None of this is the slightest bit unexpected. The new Executive Order has been previewed for months and merely codifies what has long been Obama’s policy: “long” in the sense of “since he’s inaugurated” — not, of course, “when he was a Senator and presidential candidate.” I’m writing about this merely to address the excuse from the White House and its loyalists that the fault for this policy, this inability to “close Guantanamo,” lies with Congress, which forced the President to abandon his oft-stated campaign pledge. That excuse is pure fiction.

It is absolutely pure fiction.

The spirit of Gitmo was never going to be squashed, even if the off shore detention facility was closed. Housing detainees in the United States, something that should have been done a long time ago, wouldn’t have changed Obama’s military commission, indefinite detention, holding people without charging them policy.

It was Barack Obama’s position — not that of Congress — that detainees could and should be denied trials, that our court system was inadequate and inappropriate to try them, and that he possessed the unilateral, unrestrained power under the “laws of war” to order them imprisoned for years, even indefinitely, without bothering to charge them with a crime and without any review by the judiciary, in some cases without even the right of habeas review… – Glenn Greenwald

Once again, Pres. Obama quenches his thirst for bipartisanship, but this time embraces the Bush-Cheney era with both arms.

Rush Limbaugh said gleefully yesterday on his show that with this Executive Order on Gitmo he could no longer tell the difference between Dick Cheney and Pres. Obama. There’s little evidence to argue otherwise, though Obama loyalists and Democratic sycophants will try.

In the short run, and within US politics, there is little choice but to support Obama and the Dems as the lesser evil, at least as regards domestic policy. – from Crooked Timber

We’ve gone from “Change we can believe in” to “Vote Obama-Biden – The Lesser Evil.”

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Alex Jones Takes Over ‘The View’

By on 28 February 2011

When your guest cites Col. Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now” you know it’s about to hit the fan.

It was meant as a segment to have the “radio talk show host” who had interviewed Charlie Sheen on “The View” to tell the story. What happened was quite different. A filibuster started the unraveling.

There’s more at Entertainment Weekly, with Newsbusters blaming Barbara Walters for letting Jones unwind.

Alex Jones went on a rant that ranged from defending his good friend Charlie Sheen, talking about how clean he is, then segued to “Torture! Secret arrests! America is turning into a police state!,” but also that Sheen isn’t the devil. Next he hoisted Charlie above George W. Bush while citing “a million dead in Iraq,” which freaked Elisabeth Hasselbeck out: “If you’re going to come here and go there, we’re asking you about your friend! Let’s stick to the topic!”

[Charlie Sheen is] tired of being judged and him being held up as the ultimate demon in this world. He didn’t kill a million people in Iraq. He wasn’t involved with the takedown of Building Seven here in New York. He thinks there’s bigger devils out there than himself. – Alex Jones, on “The View”

Then Jones went off on his favorite tangent about mind wars and economic disaster that caught Whoopie Goldberg and Barbara Walters flatfooted and left their mouths agape.

“Charlie says you have a right to kill him, but not judge him, as Colonel Kurtz.”

Someone on the staff of “The View” didn’t do their job. Screening guests is easy, especially when they come with a trail like Mr. Jones. But somebody was asleep, which allowed Jones to take center stage then run away with the show, leaving veteran Walters looking foolish.

The short clip above gives you some of the story, but watching it today I couldn’t help but wonder how Ms. Walters and her staff allowed Jones to take over their show and spout insanity. This is a man who has a record for crazy a search engine deep.

One thing you can bet, Charlie Sheen got the biggest laugh and for good reason. Alex Jones made a fool out of the ladies of “The View,” but also Walters and her entire staff.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

ARMY TAKES OVER – MUBARAK STEPS DOWN

By on 11 February 2011




The Supreme Council for the Armed Forces has taken power from the Egyptian President. The Pharaoh has been toppled.

From Al Jazeera, who played such an essential role in this story. Watch it live, it’s really chilling. The lump in my throat is keeping back the tears. What an incredible moment for the Egyptian people, but also for Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East.

The world is rocked. Nothing will ever be the same again and that’s a very good thing.

Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces.

Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address that the president was “waiving” his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the armed forces.

Suleiman’s short statement was received with a roar of approval and by celebratory chanting and flag-waving from a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, as well by pro-democracy campaigners who attended protests across the country on Friday.

The crowd in Tahrir chanted “We have brought down the regime”, while many were seen crying, cheering and embracing one another.

Mohamed ElBaradei, an opposition leader, hailed the moment as being the “greatest day of my life”, in comments to the Associated Press news agency.

“The country has been liberated after decades of repression,” he said.

It’s a great day for Egypt, which has been the leader in the Arab world and now is the first to claim a new day has come. Much work lies ahead, but if the Egyptian people can topple the pharaoh they can do anything.

And to paraphrase Shibley Telhami from last night on Rachel Maddow’s show. Bin Laden’s worst nightmare just came true: A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION IN EGYPT.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Realpolitik Versus Egyptian Idealism

By on 09 February 2011

Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman warned Tuesday that “we can’t put up with” continued protests in Tahrir for a long time, saying the crisis must be ended as soon as possible in a sharply worded sign of increasing regime impatience with 16 days of mass demonstrations. — AP

Realpolitik has prevailed so far, but Egyptians are not giving up. V.P. Omar Suleiman isn’t getting the message and thinks he can change minds through threats.

No one said the transition from the Mubarak regime and their emergency rule would be easy, but to accept a military dictatorship or Mubarak 2.0, because it’s more comfortable for the regime or the West isn’t what Egyptians have in mind. From the Washington Post:

For many demonstrators, however, the legalistic and logistical questions of how to transform Egypt into a full-fledged democracy are premature. As long as Mubarak remains, they said, it cannot happen.

“Either we have a full revolution or no revolution. There is no such thing as a half revolution,” said Mustafa Munir, 23, a medical student. “We are not scared of the future. We are sure there will be freedom and respect and justice, regardless of the details.”

The protesters aren’t playing from the same script as Egypt’s Suleiman, Pres. Obama and world politicians, all of whom have been caught flatfooted by the power of the crowds.

Protesters thronged Cairo’s Tahrir Square Tuesday in one of Egypt’s largest anti-government demonstrations to date, energized by a televised interview given by a 30-year-old Google executive who for two weeks had been detained by Egyptian security officials. [...] Appearing briefly in Tahrir Square on Tuesday, he said, “We will not abandon our demand, and that is the departure of the regime.” – Protesters surge into Tahrir Square as tens of thousands return to Tahrir Square

What leaders in Egypt, America, Israel, Britain and beyond aren’t getting is that this isn’t a matter of what’s best for the world or how inconvenient the Egyptian people’s cry for freedom is to other countries or their own elite.

The protest yesterday was the largest since January 25th. So Friday’s call for people to come out again, which Richard Engel reports is being energized by the Muslim Brotherhood getting the word out, could reach beyond what we’ve yet seen. Blake Hounshell said yesterday that there’s even a split among the MB, because younger members “fear senior leaders will sell them out.”

The long-term obstacle that could damage the Obama administration is in the way Arabs and Egyptians see America’s role in Mubarak not stepping down, which NBC’s Ron Allen said today on MSNBC has Pres. Obama already taking a hit. That Republicans are applauding Obama’s realpolitik is not something he should take comfort in. Egyptians see Pres. Obama as aiding the regime’s ability to stay in power, because the Administration has backed off their demands for an “orderly transition” to being “now.” What is left in Mubarak’s wake matters.

In the age of asymmetrical warfare and lone bombers, this is the type of foreign policy legacy that can come back to bite another American President. It can also come back to haunt everything we do in the Middle East and our reputation in the Arab and Muslim world.

Of course, in the alternate universe of Dick Cheney and Tony Blair, the U.S. shouldn’t be concerned with the Egyptian people, because serving American interests is more important. Back the Thug, He’s our Friend sloganeering used in place of a foreign policy. It’s thinking like this that brought on 9/11.

I say this not as someone who is for “spreading democracy,” because we all have seen what preemption has wrought. I say this as a believer in standing out of the way of a proud populace standing up to corruption and tyranny, while we absolutely must not aid the people’s known oppressors.

It’s just as easy for a president to state this case, “the Egyptians have spoken and it’s not up to the U.S. to stand in their way,” than the 20th century realpolitik being practiced by the Obama administration, which ignores that few moves can be hidden in today’s wide open media world and to be on the right side of history you must stand with the people.

Pres. Obama is reportedly pushing for more tangible results and reforms, likely because experts are telling him that if concrete gains don’t continue, though Egypt won’t slip back to Mubarak, it could miss the real chance to lurch forward. A strong military dictatorship taking control after Mubarak is obviously not what Egyptians want.

While all the media focused on Clinton’s supposed pro-Suleiman message in Munich, her overall message was very strong on reform. President Obama and Robert Gibbs have repeatedly and consistently demanded in public that a meaningful transition begin immediately. When Suleiman dismissed the call to repeal Egypt’s Emergency Law, Gibbs quickly called his statement “unacceptable.” The question is now how the administration can best exercise its limited influence in order to ensure that the coming months see a real and meaningful transition to a more democratic, pluralistic, transparent and accountable Egyptian government. [...] The Egyptian military seems to have a winning game plan, and it doesn’t include the fundamental reforms for which Egyptian protestors or the Obama administration have called. — Marc Lynch

Right now Israel is relieved, because they have their preferred military man directing things at this point. From Wikileaks, via UK Telegraph:

5. (S) In terms of atmospherics, Hacham said the Israeli delegation was “shocked” by Mubarak’s aged appearance and slurred speech. Hacham was full of praise for Soliman, however, and noted that a “hot line” set up between the MOD and Egyptian General Intelligence Service is now in daily use. Hacham said he sometimes speaks to Soliman’s deputy Mohammed Ibrahim several times a day. Hacham noted that the Israelis believe Soliman is likely to serve as at least an interim President if Mubarak dies or is incapacitated. (Note: We defer to Embassy Cairo for analysis of Egyptian succession scenarios, but there is no question that Israel is most comfortable with the prospect of Omar Soliman.)

Read Marc Lynch for more, as well as this post on the Islamists and change in Egypt. Someone should email it to Glenn Beck.

First challenge is getting Mubarak’s emergency law lifted. The only way to make it happen is if the protesters keep up the pressure.

Then what will V.P. Suleiman do?

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Egypt Envoy Embarrasses Obama, Channels Dick Cheney

By on 06 February 2011

“The President must stay in office in order to steer those changes through. I therefore believe President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical. It’s his opportunity to write his own legacy. He has given 60 years of his life to the service of his country and this is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward.” — Frank Wisner, Pres. Obama’s U.S. Special Envoy to Egypt.

Well, wasn’t that helpful. There are so many ironies in this story today it will take the entire Super Bowl to decipher them all.

Pres. Obama might as well have sent former Vice President Dick Cheney to see Mubarak. It would have had the same results. Tony Blair’s playbook has become the consensus.

“He’s been a good man, a good friend and ally to the United States,” Cheney said. “We need to remember that.”

But when you’re choosing someone to represent you in Egypt it might behoove you to actually pick someone you can trust, but who also isn’t moored in 20th century thinking. Of course, the other side of this “special envoy” business is that Mr. Wisner is a free agent, so he’s not bound to say what the boss wants and clearly doesn’t respect the Administration’s line. But it was certainly highly predictable that someone like Mr. Wisner would deliver rhetoric sounding more like Dick Cheney than Barack Obama. It’s the same talking points handed down since before Ronald Reagan.

The Obama administration has disavowed Wisner’s remarks, but the damage is already done. When you have your special envoy contradicting you it makes Pres. Obama look out of control on his own foreign policy, but when it’s done in the Middle East it makes him look like weak and foolish, which is dangerous for the U.S.

And I understand the enthusiasm of the Huffington Post blaring “PROTESTERS WIN MAJOR CONCESSIONS,” which was Richard Engel’s line on “Meet the Press” as well, but I think a little caution is in order. Do promises to people mean anything coming from Mubarak?

The Administration now has the same problem on Egypt as they did on stopping Israeli settlements. They got out in front of the settlement issue, but didn’t exert any leverage, which led to Biden being humiliated when he landed on Israeli soil. The U.S. wants an “orderly transition” to begin “now,” but what leverage are they willing to apply?

As an aside, Arabs will never take us seriously if leading journalists like David Gregory don’t become more balanced. Talking to El Baradei about the Israeli peace agreement with Egypt, Gregory delivered AIPAC’s question for them on “Meet the Press.” He said if Egypt’s next government equivocates on the peace deal with Israel it makes everyone nervous. That is no doubt true, but 80 million Egyptians wanting a government that represents them is well apart from Israel right now in the land of the Pharaohs. Gregory was mindlessly ignorant about the Egyptian people in his broadcast today, which should have been an embarrassment to NBC News.

Now that Obama’s own special envoy has directly confronted the Administration’s policy in public, this further greases the launch pad for what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and many Tea Party activists began some time ago, further delegitimizing Pres. Obama.

However, the Republican campaign against Obama “losing Egypt” comes at a particularly ironic moment, all of this happening on Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday.

Mr. Reagan “cut and run” on Lebanon, sending an early signal to our adversaries, some of whom became Al Qaeda, after 241 Marines were murdered by a suicide bomber in Beirut. He was instrumental in creating what Pakistan is today through his friendship with Zia to help the U.S. in Afghanistan, building on Pres. Carter approving initial funding, all part of the Reagan Doctrine. The Gipper called Afghanistan’s mujahideen “freedom fighters,” one of whom was Osama bin Laden. Reagan’s C.I.A. Director William Casey cultivated his own little war that crossed the Afghanistan border into the former Soviet Union, right under Reagan’s nose, which was recounted in Bob Woodward’s book, “Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987.” If Iran-Contra had happened in his first term Reagan would have been the second Republican president in two decades to deserve impeachment proceedings. But Reagan’s “nuclear zero” was important and among a long list of Republicans no-nos that would have gotten him a Tea Party challenger today. If nothing shows Sarah Palin’s foreign policy ignorance it’s her chirpy genuflections of Ronald Reagan that don’t come close to representing the man. There is Mr. Reagan’s moral abdication in leading a fight against HIV-AIDS; that he opened the amnesty door without a solution for people; implemented a payroll tax hike; then another tax hike to hide the disaster of his first tax cut; and the whopping deficit he left behind, which didn’t get cleaned up until William Jefferson Clinton came into office.

If Reagan taught us anything it’s that brilliant “Mad Men” marketing to sell a product pitch man to the public may work, but it does not make a good president, which takes a lot more than acting the part.

From an old Newsweek article no longer available online recalling reality, not the Peggy Noonan – Sean Hannity – Rush Limbaugh – Sarah Palin myth of a very mortal man beaten by the weight of the presidency.

The podium was shorter than usual, but even so, Ronald Reagan seemed diminished as he stood behind it — “smaller and frailer,” one friend thought, with lines of strain around the eyes and mouth. Sounding tentative, he stumbled twice over his lines as he thanked the three-man panel he had asked to pass judgment on his handling of the Iran scandal; whatever the commission found, he promised to “enact the proper reforms.” Then, in a din of shouted questions, he was ushered protectively to the door of the briefing room on the arm of the diminutive chief judge, former Texas Sen. John Tower. Reagan’s stricken look was fully justified: he had already heard the verdict.

The Tower commission’s report was devastating — a calm, searing appraisal of Reagan’s presidency that threatened to shrink him to irrelevance for the rest of his lame-duck term. The only good news was that Tower and his colleagues, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and former national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft, believed the president’s story that he genuinely wanted the truth to be told about the Iran-contra affair and that he hadn’t intentionally misled the nation. For the rest, he emerged as a careless, remote and forgetful leader, too indifferent to supervise the reckless swashbuckling of his aides. His Iran policy was found to be foolish and counterproductive, and it was carried out unprofessionally and perhaps illegally. None of the officials involved in the dealings escaped criticism; in Tower’s words, the president “was poorly advised and poorly served.” But Reagan himself “clearly didn’t understand” what was going on: he let his emotions rule him, never ordered a critical review and allowed his aides to manipulate him and make their own foreign policy as they lied, diverted arms profits and tried to cover up the scandal.

Part of Reagan’s legacy is he “clearly didn’t understand” what was going on at times. It now collides with his son Ron’s recounting his own personal experiences watching his father during his second term, after he was shot. Real questions now part of history about the very real possibility that Pres. Reagan had Alzheimer’s while he was president.

Pres. Obama continues to struggle with breaking with the past and the old guard ways that created this foreign policy mess in the first place, which the choice of Mr. Wisner proves. It’s the same things he’s dealing with in Afghanistan and Israel, but also Pakistan. I don’t know when we’ll get 21st century leaders in Washington ready to turn the page on the past, but it won’t be until leading Democrats, starting with Barack Obama, demonstrably distance themselves from the legacy of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Israel Calls on Leaders to ‘Curb’ Mubarak Criticism

By on 31 January 2011

Israel called on the United States and a number of European countries over the weekend to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability in the region. – Haaretz

Al Jazeera is reporting that “Opposition movement calls for “march of millions” on Tuesday in a bid to topple president Hosni Mubarak.”

While the people of Egypt rise up to reclaim their country, Israel pleads leaders to support the unsustainable status quo.

After Pres. Obama called for Mubarak to restore communication, not only was Al Jazeera’s Cairo bureau shuttered, but journalists from the network were detained, their equipment confiscated. No statement by Pres. Obama on Mubarak’s flouting U.S. urgings.

In the Middle East, actions have consequences. What remains a feckless part of our foreign policy is that our leaders don’t follow through when challenged.

As one of the first to point to Al Jazeera’s importance in this story, it’s being widely reported now, though some cable yakkers are still in denial about the world media awakening that’s been unfolding since the Green revolution.

The Daily Beast reports the obvious today, but which is worth highlighting anyway, that Sect. Clinton’s “stable” comment last Tuesday “had been carefully calibrated.” That’s what alarmed me, because of course Clinton wouldn’t say a word that wasn’t vetted at the White House. It revealed canned panic from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It was made worse yesterday when Sect. Clinton was on “Meet the Press” with David Gregory:

We have urged for 30 years that there be a vice president, and finally a vice president was announced just a day or two ago.

It gives you a window into the bankruptcy of establishment foreign policy types, including Pres. Obama and his administration officials, who have been behind on this story from “stable.”

It also doesn’t help when Sect. Clinton talks about the looting then links it to the protesters without mentioning, however diplomatically, that Mubarak’s thugs are at the root of most of it, something she surely knows.

It’s why Martin Indyk’s criticism of the Obama administration has been so important. An insider of the first order, he’s learned from the inside how badly our Middle East policy needs a tune up. He was one of several, invited to the White House for a confab.

Let’s hope they don’t get the access vapors.

On “Morning Joe,” the shutdown of Al Jazeera’s cable bureau was no big deal, competitive ratings or some other lunacy muzzling a story that is huge, especially in light of the Obama administration’s further proddings of Mubarak to restore internet and other basic services. There was no conversation about any of the multi-media platforms that the protesters were using to rise up.

Joe Scarborough and Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, offered analysis this morning rooted in 20th century thinking that also revealed collective amnesia on what’s been America’s problem in the Middle East for a very long time, leading up to 9/11.

Scarborough: Is it safe to say, at least on the margins, while people may just mindlessly see what’s going on and see the corruption and see the fact that this has been a very oppressive leader, undemocratic, doing things that we hate as Americans. .. Isn’t it safe to say that on the margins Mubarak has made Americans safer at home when it comes to the war against terrorists.

Haas: Absolutely, and this has been a policy that has worked.

By all accounts Haas is wrong, especially if we dare to include the Egyptian people into the equation, which is why he later added it had worked “short-term.” I know that’s bothersome for the Right, but the people’s welfare is a progressive notion worth considering.

Then on Haas went complaining that there hadn’t been “reform,” even after asking for it for 30 years. There’s a reason the 20th century arguments Mr. Haas is espousing was taken apart yesterday on Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS.”

Pres. Obama ignoring Mubarak’s media crackdown, Sect. Clinton laughing about the 30 years of being continually ignored.. and yet on the American money spigot flows.

This is what’s been going on for 30 years.

Mubarak made peace with Israel, has been an ally, but you can’t have successful Middle East policy that depends on one man at the expense of 80 million Egyptians.

Is there any wonder there’s no peace in the Middle East, with Egypt’s precarious present now threatening Israel and the entire region’s stability?

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

9/11 Responders Squeezed, SALT Treaty Ratified

By on 22 December 2010

The bill passed after Senate Democrats struck a deal Wednesday with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who agreed to drop his objections when the cost of the bill was reduced by about $2 billion. The Oklahoma Republican had come under withering criticism for opposing the bill on the grounds that it provided “overly generous funding” and included “unnecessary and duplicative compensation funds.” – Oklahoma Senator Allows Vote After Bill To Care For Responders Is Cut to $4.2 Billion

At a time when Pres. Obama didn’t pay attention to the people, instead caving to Republicans on economics, it’s fitting that Sen. Coburn won, too. Yes, he gave in finally, but that’s because he got the 9/11 heroes and responders bill cut by $1.5 in benefits and $2.7 in compensation. This schmuck voted yes for the mill-billionaires tax cuts, exempting them from the estate tax, as well as capital gains goodies, but it’s wasteful to give 9/11 responders their due. The fund will also extinguish after five years. So all you 9/11 heroes, get sick now and get well quick, because your benefits and compensation turn into a pumpkin in five.

Indecision Forever, has the perfect headline: Senate Republicans Reluctantly Agree to Maybe Throw a Few Coins at Sickly First Responders.

But that’s the conscience of a conservative for you. They don’t have one.

Meanwhile, the good guys won on START. That doesn’t include many, many Republicans.

Danger Room has a good rundown on the new nuclear arms treaty, but suffice to say that Republicans were made to look like fools when Admiral Mullen, who’s been a keen, cagey and very important political figure recently, urged passing of the new START Treaty. From Spencer Ackerman:

The headlines first: New START caps strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 on each side. (According to the nuke wonks at the Ploughshares Fund, the Russians have 2,600 strategic nuclear weapons and the United States has just under 2,000.) The intercontinental ballistic missiles, subs and bombers that deliver them have to be capped at 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers.

By most arms-control experts’ accounts, these are pretty modest cuts, still allowing each side to incinerate the Earth several times over.

Additionally, every year, each side will conduct 18 on-site inspections at places where those warheads and delivery vehicles are stored. That’s 10 annual inspections fewer than under the old treaty, but more data is extracted from each inspection.

The treaty does not deal with missile defense, a favorite Republican toy. More from Ackerman:

The closest it comes is to bar each side from converting its intercontinental and sub-launched ballistic-missile launchers into delivery mechanisms for anti-ballistic-missile interceptors.

It’s amazing what can happen in a lame duck session, isn’t it?

Big Loser award: Sen. John McCain.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Another Reason It’s Good To Be A Liberal

By on 21 December 2010

Sen. Tom Coburn should be ashamed of himself.

Sen. Mitch McConnell should too.

Where are these supposed “Christians” when American heroes and other citizens need help?

They’re more worried about tax cuts for the mill-billionaire club and the heirs of wealthy estates.


Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Obama Thinks He Can Work With These Guys?

By on 09 December 2010

Only if he gives up The House. When you don’t use the bully pulpit and Air Force One, local news and your Democratic majority to get what’s needed done, you end up losing a lot more than your leverage.

The Senate failed to get cloture on DADT, the vote 57-40, with Joe Manchin voting with Republicans. Harry Truman didn’t stand for it and neither should Pres. Obama. Part of what went down with it was the 9/11 health bill. Bipartisan that, Pres. Obama. Our President just learned that it’s not just the American people being held “hostage,” but his presidency.

From the New York Times:

Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.

The 9/11 health bill, a version of which was approved by the House of Representatives in September, is among a handful of initiatives that Senate Democrats had been hoping to approve this year before the close of the 111th Congress. Supporters believe this is their last real opportunity to have the bill passed.

Until Barack Obama quits bringing his word salads, fan club emails, and political pom poms to a fight where the other side is willing to let 9/11 workers die in order to make a point, while gay soldiers are expected to die in silence for their country, Democrats are screwed and so is this country.

It’s a very bad day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

However, it pales in comparison to our gay soldiers dying on the front lines, as well as our 9/11 rescue workers who need medical attention. This is what should make Pres. Obama angry and bring him to the White House podium for a hasty press conference, not some tantrum about his own not clapping loud enough.

No confidence vote from House progressives on a tax scheme Biden should be pummeled for dealing and Obama should be ashamed for having staffed out, though it’s what he does.

Dream Act, down.

DADT, down.

Two years of majority and patty cake bipartisanship has yielded our President up against the wall with the mean crowd not even in town yet.

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

TSA Gropefest Latest Domestic Debacle

By on 22 November 2010

“I believe this is a tipping point,” said Debra Burlingame, a vocal advocate for tough anti-terrorism policies. Burlingame – whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 – was outraged after undergoing the new TSA pat-downs. – TSA pat-down controversy: Overreaction or real issue?

Honestly, is there anything the Obama administration doesn’t screw up?

At least someone is happy.

The latest polls on the full-body scanners showing the majority of Americans think they’re just groovy, that is unless they fly more than once per year.

Sect. Clinton spoke for a lot of people when she said answered “who would?” want to go through the groping and embarrassment. One cancer survivor ending up soaked in his own urine, while a breast cancer survivor had to present her prosthesis.

Meanwhile pundits keep squealing and asking what else can be done?

If this country would grow up and allow psychological and behavioral profiling we wouldn’t be in this mess. Couple that with the profound understanding that comes after years of being terrorized until what you come to conclude is that there is never 100% security.

But the way in which the roll out of the security measures and scanners were done as the answers to keeping us safe, including invasive privacy barriers being broken, leaves anyone paying attention asking whether Pres. Obama and his people have a fricking clue about anything.

Heckava job the Obama administration is doing and I mean that in the most critical sense. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine the graphic pictures you’re going to get when the TSA starts grabbing and groping American citizens.

There is simply no way this policy will last. None.

Yet another air ball from the Obama administration that proves again there is no one competent around to give guidance to the people in power, either that or no one is listening.

Ben Smith chalked it all up to the power of Drudge who “chose it and drove it,” making the TSA debacle front page news. I’m not so sure, though I bet POLITICO got a nice link from Drudge for the publicity, because this story was bound to get legs helped by all sides, led by all parties on the Right.

The real question is why in the world Pres. Obama’s people didn’t see this for the disaster it was bound to be. In the era of Tea Party independence did they really think they could roll this out without blow back?

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Bush’s Legacy of Torture Meets Obama’s Executive Power

By on 18 November 2010

After former Pres. Bush admitted he sanctioned torture, we now see the results of his policy on detainees. It’s kind of staring Pres. Obama in the face, as is the reality of what happen when terrorists are acquitted in civilian trial, but his policy demands they not be released.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted of all but one of 280 charges brought against him for the 1998 bombings of United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists. …

Because of the unusual circumstances of Mr. Ghailani’s case — after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was held for nearly five years in a so-called black site run by the Central Intelligence Agency and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the prosecution faced significant legal hurdles even getting his case to trial.

On the eve of Mr. Ghailani’s trial last month, the government lost a key ruling that may have seriously damaged its chances of winning convictions.

In the ruling, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, barred prosecutors from using an important witness against Mr. Ghailani because the government had learned about the man through Mr. Ghailani’s interrogation while he was in C.I.A. custody, where his lawyers say he was tortured.

As Glenn Greenwald rightly points out, with only one charge being sustained, because of Pres. Obama’s “post-acquittal detention power,” Ghailani can still be held for the rest of his life in prison.

A.G. Holder’s pronouncement that “failure is not an option” wafts over the trial, especially thinking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and whether to try him in civilian court. The notion of “justice” for anyone forever modified when you consider that no matter the verdict the U.S. Justice System will never let him go.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

The Juan Williams Confession Tour

By on 22 October 2010

This was so predictable, which is why I wrote it was going to happen. But the plot has certainly thickened.

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com. – In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

It didn’t take long for NPR’s CEO to step in it, saying Williams should keep his comments about Muslims between himself, “his psychiatrist or his publicist.” She wasn’t fired for her remarks, but she did apologize.

Juan Williams has written his story on the whole crescendo of events that led to his firing. It’s a must read to understand the whole story. However, the title of Williams’ piece, “I was fired for telling the truth,” is a liberal interpretation of reality. Plain and simple, he was fired for violating the terms of his contract, which I’ll get to in a second.

NPR is in full damage control, but not backing down. From AJC, an interview with NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller:

A: Let’s state a couple of facts. Juan is not an employee of NPR. He’s an independent contractor. He’s not NPR staff. He’s an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator. He also has an on-going relationship with Fox News. Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that’s a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters to behave like journalists.

Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]

A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News early last year: "Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going" and that she'll be an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isn’t a case of one strike and you’re out.

Ms. Schiller goes on to state that Williams is an independent contractor, which is much looser arrangment than being an employee. It also means you can be fired for just about any reason at all, especially if management had warned you before or if you’d collided with the ethics or morals clause.

As for Mara Liasson, Schiller says in the interview that “she behaves as a journalist” on Fox, so there’s not conflict with her role with NPR. Full stop. Liasson is on the Fox News Sunday panel, which is an opinion driven portion at the end of the show. It is not a news oriented section with any journalism required. That’s why Liz Cheney appears regularly.

Eric Boehlert on Liasson, as well as NPR’s contract:

I’m not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I’m just saying that if you look at NPR’s code of ethics, there’s simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.

Here’s why [emphasis added]:

9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Vice President for their Division or their designee to appear on TV or other media. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis.

Also, the NPR ethics code, written “to protect the credibility of NPR’s programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct,” forbids NPR journalists from participating in appearances that “may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization.”

This is what I was wondering about this morning. The morals or ethics clause makes all the difference in someone’s contract. Number 10 above in bold absolutely outlines what Juan, but also Liasson, was/is doing for Fox. We’ve got a conflict.

The Right has gone berzerk over the firing of Williams. Sarah Palin has called for NPR’s defunding, and is challenging Pres. Obama on it.

If Pres. Obama won’t weigh in on DADT he’s not going to step into this minefield.

NPR could have handled this situation worse, but right now I can’t think how.

Williams was having a discussion with O’Reilly that revealed something about the NPR contributor that showed he feared for his safety if he flew on a plain with someone exhibiting his/her Muslim faith openly. Professionals have all sorts of personal feelings and opinions, which many of us keep to ourselves even when it’s difficult. Juan broke that wall and is paying for it.

Our whole society has become confessional. Blame it on Oprah.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Juan Williams, Just Another American with Islamophobia

By on 21 October 2010

–important update below–

Michelle Malkin is shrill. Her conclusion reveals the ignorance that permeates the Right: “Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism.” The “handmaiden of terrorism” are statements like what Bill O’Reilly, Juan Williams, as well as Pamela Geller make, because it sends a message to moderates that it doesn’t matter what they do, because they’re part of the problem too simply because they’re Muslim.

This all began with Bill O’Reilly’s “The View” squeal, “because Muslims killed us on 9/11.” Juan Williams evidently thought it was brave to join in. On Bill-O’s heels, the Fox News weasel yelped that boarding a plane while viewing Muslims freaked him out.

Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

The last moderate Muslim just locked her door.

For Mr. O’Reilly to state that jihad is “abetted by some Muslim nations” is the broadest brush possible to use. However, the Pamela Geller contingent has won out on this argument, with the Cordoba House now coloring all things many in America see about Muslims, which through the prism of 9/11 has brought back the fury on the wings of a movement whose goal is to take down Pres. Obama.

I remember well traveling after 9/11, the second airplanes started flying again I was on my way to a family wedding, which because planes had been grounded until that day, I was very likely to miss. There were less than a dozen people on each of the four planes I took, which made a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Memphis that took almost a day to travel. It was a very weird ride, starting with a security check that was intrusive, frightening, but which I totally understood.

The American Right needs a boogieman, always has. They see the world as a dangerous, unfriendly place where America has enemies everywhere. Maybe it’s something about fundamentalist Christianity that does it, but it makes a mockery of what true faith is supposed to be about. That’s always been the irony for me with the sleeve wearing religiosity of right-wingers.

The Cordoba House fury has made it okay for the ignorant to let it all hang out against Muslims. The moderates have lost.

Juan Williams is a jackass. He’ll likely get his own show on Fox.

…but let me add that doesn’t mean NPR should have fired him. Even a jackass has First Amendment rights.

Read full story · Comments { 48 }

2010: Overconfidence on the Right, Nothing to Vote FOR on the Left

By on 27 September 2010

The survey, conducted jointly by the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners, shows that if the congressional elections were held today, 47 percent of likely voters would pick a Republican candidate and 43 percent would pick a Democrat. That’s a five-point shift toward the GOP since the last poll, in mid-September, when both parties were tied at 43 percent. – Mike Allen

Republicans did get some bad news in the latest AP poll on health care. Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress and Pres. Obama also got creamed in the same poll on their signature issue, which likely won’t surprise anyone around here. Weak-kneed Democrats, Blue Dogs and Obama loyalists wrong by a mile on health care.

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1. [...] The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

The law needs to be fixed, with the mandate eliminated, but the “repeal and replace” Republicans who hope to sweep in November on the issue are starting to count their seats at a time when chaos politics can still deliver bad news. Sure, there’s still a lot of evidence Democrats areup against it, however, if Republican and Tea Party candidates keep listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who are sounding way too confident this far out, it may not be as bad as pollsters are predicting. No one has convinced me the Senate is in play, even if Mike Castle goes write-in, though I wouldn’t bet against the House going GOTP.

But beyond very bad news in Ohio and PA., for instance, Jack Conway has “pulled even” with Rand Paul, at least for now. Sen. Harry Reid, whom I’d like to see get his walking papers, but not if Sharron Angle’s the choice, is now leading in Nevada. Even Rory Reid, who is fabulous, is surging, with Jon Ralston saying both Reids could actually win. Barbara Boxer is up significantly on Carly Fiorina, whose right-wing rhetoric is biting her; but even Meg Whitman’s gazillions are not working to pull her away from Jerry Brown right now. In New Mexico, Diane Denish has “surged to a tie,” with Mike Allen having the memo.

The DLCC memo on the 20 “essential races” gives you the battlefield.

Caution alert: The wild card remains whether the energy on the Right manifests in November, with Dems not turning out, which could flip any race backward. It’s chaos out there, with no one able to predict until the turn out manifests… or not.

But taking some time to listen to Rush and Sean lately, there is a swagger starting to happen on the Right that’s good news for Democrats. That’s particularly true because the negative ads slamming states have just begun, with many of the Tea Party candidates having huge unknowns, so defining them with scary themes will not be hard. The thing about negative ads, however, is they depress the vote, especially among single women, which could backfire for Dems. But the truth is they don’t have any choice. Democrats have to go negative, because as much as people say they hate these types of ads they work.

The one thing Democrats haven’t done is give primary voters a reason to vote for Democrats. It got worse today.

Likely voters on the Left got kicked in the teeth when the Obama White House reached out against privacy on the Internet. Adding to Pres. Obama declaring “state secrets” just like Bush, it’s another gut punch from a party that just doesn’t get why the base put this guy in office in the first place. That Obama is actually suggesting that Internet communication exist in a manner that allows the government to follow everyone’s every move, even if it doesn’t expand authority, ignores that what he’s asking to be done actually goes to the heart of the web’s structure. From the New York Times:

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”

…Preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security… BLAH-BLAH-BLAH. I wish these disingenuous White House toadies would just talk plainly. They want to take away our privacy on the web to protect us from terrorists otherwise we may all die. It was bull*)#! under George W. Bush and it’s bull*)#! under Barack Obama. What makes it worse is that Obama is supposed to act like a Democrat on matters of national security, but especially privacy. The guy was a constitutional lawyer, for Christ sake.

“Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.” I wrote this, quoting Mr. Franklin, during Bush’s tenure, and for all the disagreements I’ve had with Pres. Obama, it sickens me to have to repeat it now.

No wonder people are turning Independent. Oh, and speaking of that, the Politico poll I cited earlier today also shows that 32% of voters would consider Michael Bloomberg. That’s not a calculation anyone in the White House wants to think about right now.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }