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 | Afghanistan

9/11 Commemoration: Three Presidents, Different Perspectives

By on 10 September 2011

“There has always been a special place in the common memory for people who deliberately, knowingly, certainly lay down their lives for other people to live. …” – Pres. Bill Clinton

Every time I hear the word “anniversary” invoked for 9/11 I cringe. There is nothing celebratory about the date, with it a commemoration of a horrific tragedy that now with the 9/11 memorials in place should take a new spot in our national dialogue. Revisiting the history of it that has an end, which came with Pres. Obama’s call to send Seal Team Six into Pakistan to risk it all to kill Osama bin Laden.

The politics of 9/11, however, will go on, as we saw last Sunday on Fox News with Chris Wallace, when the anchor decided not ask former V.P. Dick Cheney about the killing of Osama bin Laden, because the thought of crediting Pres. Obama with an extraordinary point of leadership, which didn’t require torturing anyone, would be just too much for FNC viewers to take.

From Politico, the politics of 9/11.

A decade later, 9/11 has finally brought the political parties together in this respect: They’ve both mastered the art of politicizing the terrorist attacks.

[...] But the presence of 9/11 in politics is as profuse as ever. Most recently – days ahead of the tenth anniversary of the attacks – candidates in a New York congressional election have traded sharp accusations over who’s more committed to protecting the country from terrorism and supporting first responders.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

10 Years After 9/11, Afghanistan Is No Longer Our Fight

By on 08 September 2011

Kudos to Joe Scarborough for taking the risk, stepping out and releasing this song (video below), “Reason to Believe.”

When I look at Democratic actions to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, I see Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand asking for a quicker timeline, but that’s hardly enough. As a new generation leader and a woman, why isn’t she demanding a full withdrawal immediately? Her timidity represents continued establishment-tied status quo in many ways.

Why won’t Democrats lead the way to get out of Afghanistan?

With SecDef Leon Panetta wanting to stay in Iraq, with Pres. Obama’s Libya regime change policy juxtaposed against Syria’s bloodletting and our inability to respond, there is nothing from Democrats that inspires on the foreign policy front.

See Somalia and the reports from Jeremy Scahill.

I supported Obama’s actions in Afghanistan at first, because Bush allowed the country to spin while our Iraq misadventure manifested regime change. Because I believed soft power delivered through Secy. Clinton could make a difference, which it has. However, once McChrystal imploded in Rolling Stone it was obvious it was over.

How many more men and women have to pay the ultimate price 10 years after 9/11 for a war that is unwinnable by any measurable standards?

We don’t seem to ever learn.

That people continue to support politicians who haven’t either is at the heart of America’s decline.

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

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Chris Wallace Proves (again) Why He’s the Worst Anchor on TV

By on 04 September 2011

… But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP. [...] – Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

Fox News Channel and Chris Wallace won’t be leaving the “cult” anytime soon. In fact, today is representative of how they keep the cult alive, along with the mythology that helps promote, but also hide, the rancid reality of Republicanism today, not only where the economy is concerned, but also on matters of national security.

If you want to get an idea of how awful Chris Wallace is as a news man, today was another example. While discussing Cheney’s book, Mr. Wallace danced around 9/11 without ever once mentioning the killing of Osama bin Laden and the mission Pres. Obama approved to get that job done. It’s the exact opposite approach he took with former Pres. Clinton one day in 2006, with the entire spectacle today on Fox representative of the worst of today’s national security media mendacity.

What’s even worse is that Chris Wallace allowed former V.P. Dick Cheney to once again embellish, some would say continue to perpetuate a historical lie when compared to the facts, his role on 9/11. I’ve written about it before, in 2007 and in 2006, with the second link to 2006 giving you an example of the types of questions Wallace asked former Pres. Bill Clinton compared to how Wallace tip toes around Dick Cheney.

So, take yourself back…

It’s 9/11.

All hell has broken loose, with hijacked planes bearing down on the nation’s capitol, Washington, D.C. and outlying areas and and the financial center of the United States, New York City.

V.P. Dick Cheney has been whisked to the bunker for safety, but according to Mr. Cheney, he’s also in charge of events.

What kind of man lies about his role on 9/11?

Unfortunately, it’s now becoming legend, as Mr. Cheney once again regurgitated his story to Chris Wallace, who did nothing to challenge his version of events.

From a very important Vanity Fair article back in 2006, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes” (the salient section about Cheney being proved a liar on page 18).

Nasypany starts walking up and down the floor, asking all his section heads and weapons techs if they are prepared to shoot down a civilian airliner if need be, but he’s jumping the gun: he doesn’t have the authority to order a shootdown, nor does Marr or Arnold, or Vice President Cheney, for that matter. The order will need to come from President Bush, who has only just learned of the attack at a photo op in Florida.

[...] A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. “Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.,” he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they’d land and make demands. “There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement.”

In his bunker under the White House, Vice President Cheney was not notified about United 93 until 10:02—only one minute before the airliner impacted the ground. Yet it was with dark bravado that the vice president and others in the Bush administration would later recount sober deliberations about the prospect of shooting down United 93. “Very, very tough decision, and the president understood the magnitude of that decision,” Bush’s then chief of staff, Andrew Card, told ABC News.

Cheney echoed, “The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down a plane full of Americans is, a, you know, it’s an order that had never been given before.” And it wasn’t on 9/11, either.

President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over.

Rewriting Bush-Cheney history has been happening a lot in the Obama era.

Now segue to Wallace interviewing former Pres. Bill Clinton in 2006. While Wallace today didn’t bother to ask Cheney why former Pres. George W. Bush said he was “truly not that concerned” about bin Laden. As you can witness by former Pres. Bill Clinton’s response to Wallace’s blatant bias, love him or hate him, the Big Dawg didn’t take Chris’ crap when Wallace tried to sandbag him on 9/11. Here’s the excerpt, since minds have gone soft as we approach the commemoration of the horrific tragedy next week.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

CLINTON: No let’s talk about–

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

Clinton takes on Fox News bias:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke. So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?

I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke?

I want to know how many people you asked…

WALLACE: We asked — we asked…

CLINTON: I don’t…

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch’s supporting my work on climate change.

And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

WALLACE: But, President Clinton, if you look at the questions here, you’ll see half the questions are about that. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: You launched it — it set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

WALLACE: That’s not true. Sir, that is not true.

CLINTON: And Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.

CLINTON: All I’m saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew Al Qaida existed then. And…

WALLACE: But did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S.? Did they know in 1998…

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: … when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about…

WALLACE: Did they know in 2000 when he hit the Cole?

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.

The entire interview from 2006 is instructive. Because whatever you think of Clinton, and his third way-ism, NAFTA and other policies that were destructive to progressive economics, while paving the way for Obama’s Republicanism, at least the man didn’t use kumbaya bipartisan excuses to keep from fighting battles that need to be fought. Bipartisanship for Clinton didn’t require caving to wingnuts out of fear of partisanship or because he might scare off Independents.

As for Dick Cheney’s other claim today on Fox News Sunday that Obama’s made the economy worse, said with a straight face and without a hint of irony, Chris Wallace didn’t challenge him on that either. The fact that Bush-Cheney kept the wars off the budget, gave massive tax cuts that produced no jobs, while blowing the surplus Clinton left them, with the list a lot longer than this, none of this was on Chris Wallace’s mind either.

That’s because Mr. Wallace feels more comfortable catering to the Fox News audience, so presenting facts over ideological fluffery isn’t his top priority. He does prove why they’re the least informed, because he and others on the network make sure of it.

Simply, do you think there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media? – Chris Wallace to former V.P. Dick Cheney

Maybe Mr. Wallace should try his luck at comedy, because as a journalist, “fair and balanced” or otherwise, he continues to fail.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 04 September 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday, I’m Stacy and I’ll be your host.

On this day in history, September 4, 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called in the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black students from entering the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.

I’ve perused the internets for some good reads, to save you the trouble:

~The AP is reporting that the CIA worked with Moammar Gadhafi’s intelligence services when we rendered terrorism suspects to Libya to be, you know, tortured. Part of the reason the U.S. is so nervous about the “Arab Spring” is that as word continues to leak out about how we enabled these dictator’s repression of their own people, it’s a good bet the governments that are eventually formed will ensure that they are never again beholden to the United States for anything.

~Late last week a WikiLeaks cable was released which seems to raise the question of whether Iraqi civilians were massacred by U.S. forces, followed by a cover-up. For all those people in the media who were saying “there’s really nothing new in the WikiLeaks documents,” here you go. But don’t expect David Gregory or Candi Crowley to discuss this today on the Sunday talk shows. No, instead, we will hear more endless speculation about whether or not Sarah Palin is going to enter the 2012 race.

~Yet again, President Obama sides with big business and ties the hands of the EPA by putting a halt to tougher smog/pollution rules. Why? Because the Republicans and the pollution lobby opposed it, that’s why. So, now that Obama has done their bidding are they grateful and willing to compromise on something? No, of course not. Now, they want more environmental regulations rolled back.

~The head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, is hoping for a bold new jobs plan from President Obama next week. Is there some other Obama he knows who is coming out with a job creation plan?

~A very interesting interview with Gen. James Cartwright by Josh Rogin over at The Cable. It demonstrates several things about Obama’s leadership style and how Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen did everything they could to ensure that Obama had no other choice than to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan rather than take the advice of Cartwright and Joe Biden, who believed that a surge would accomplish little and instead advocated a smaller U.S. footprint. And guess who turned out to be right?

~The total deterioration in ties between Turkey and Israel is not only bad news for the region, but is bad news for the Obama administration. The administration apparently expended a great deal of effort to get the two sides together, but was unsuccessful, again demonstrating to the entire world that the U.S. no longer has the influence it once did in the Middle East.

~Dana Priest has another great piece of investigative journalism [part of the Top Secret America series of articles] in the Washington Post. The article describes how the Joint Special Operations Command has morphed into a very large, top secret army that seems to operate without any accountability to anyone.

~The American Spectator’s Matthew Vadum thinks that registering poor people to vote is unamerican because they are nonproductive and a burden on society.

Sorry puppy, this cat is so over you:

~The S&P continues to give triple A ratings to subprime mortgage-backed securities. You know, the same ones that helped spawn the global financial crisis.

~Between January and June, approximately 24,000 Afghan soldiers went AWOL.

~There is no state in this country with a more deplorable, ethically-challenged implementation of the death penalty, than Texas. And yet few are raising questions about this particular case, where Governor Rick Perry denied a stay of execution of a man (Cameron Todd Willingham) who many say, was innocent [based on scientific/forensic evidence]. While all the talk of Perry’s extremism, swagger and gaffes are interesting, when will someone in the elite mainstream media ask Perry about this directly?

~As everybody who has electricity is aware, Dick Cheney is doing the talk show circuit in order to generate buzz for his egotistical tome, In My Time. Putting aside the fact that only in this particular democracy could a former Vice President go to each cable news station and openly boast about his role in an impressive list of crimes and deceits, here’s a question- when is someone in the elite media going to actually ask him a tough question? Have you noticed that the David Gregory/Jake Tapper/Bob Schieffer types seem totally intimidated by Cheney? While Glenn Greenwald posted this commentary about how Cheney is profiting off “the fruits of elite immunity” last week, if you didn’t see it, it’s worth a read.

~Political whiz and democratic consultant Joe Trippi is now doing public relations work for the autocratic, un-democratic, human-rights-abusing Kingdom of Bahrain.

~You know, I truly love doing the news round-up but sometimes as I read all these stories, I find myself getting utterly disgusted with not only the Washington, D.C. polls and lobbyists, but also the navel-gazing media who pander so shamelessly to them. Imagine if the MSM actually did their job?

~Did the Obama administration snub The General Who Can Do No Wrong? While focusing on these petty tit-for-tat episodes is a favorite pastime of the beltway, if the Obama administration really has or had suspicions about Petraeus’ motives, then perhaps they shouldn’t have placed him at the head of the Central Intelligence Agency?

~Is anyone in the White House reading all these commentaries about what a capitulating wimp Obama is? Anyone? All signs point to Obama putting forth a meager, uninspired jobs plan after Labor Day. You know, so the plan will have a little something that Republicans everyone will like.

~Now here is a story absolutely no one can relate to- a private unmanned space ship funded by the billionaire CEO of Amazon, was destroyed during a test flight due to a systems failure.

~Obama’s union problems are about to get a whole lot worse.

~The administration continues to flail around in its latest efforts to prevent the Palestinians from going to the U.N. this month in a bid to declare statehood.

~The President’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, is exhibit A with whats wrong with our economy. GE is doing a wonderful job creating jobs- overseas.

~A happy story: The penguin Happy Feet was successfully reintroduced into the ocean off the south coast of New Zealand.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round Up: Hurricane Edition

By on 28 August 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday. I hope that all those in the path of the hurricane are staying safe. I’m trying to get this post out quick before we lose power here in Boston. My youngest cat, Ziggy, is going nuts- more so than usual- so I guess that means something is coming.

On this day in history, August 28, 1963, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place in the nation’s capital, where more than 200,000 people listened as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, D.C.

Some news for those of you that still have, you know, electricity:

~Irene has hit and sadly, already there have been several deaths. Naturally, Ron Paul thinks FEMA is for wimps. Google Maps has created a cool webpage where you can track Irene.

~Hey people, that story you heard about taping up your windows to prevent them from breaking? MYTH. I learned that the hard way during a category 5 hurricane in Grenada. I might as well have used saran wrap. This tape job is particularly ineffective.

~Oh look, it’s an anti-gay Republican legislator in Puerto Rico posting naked photos of himself on a gay website.

~If you didn’t see this earlier this week, it’s worth a look- Glenn Greenwald slams President Obama on MSNBC’s The Last Word for his selective application of the law to protect political elites from the consequences of their crimes (ie. Dick Cheney etc.) while using broad Executive powers to go after government whistleblowers and even journalists. There’s more on that here.

~The Battle of the Hair- Perry vs. Romney: This Time It’s Personal. *yawn*

~This is classic- Iran urges the Syrian government to heed the calls of its people. OF course the same doesn’t apply to Tehran. They must be getting nervous.

~Leon Panetta is already turning out to be a huge disappointment, not that that is all that surprising. In response to a very reasonable question about the economic and practical considerations of fighting multiple wars even as Al Qaeda is considerably weakened in places like Afghanistan, Panetta basically says that wars shouldn’t end until all terrorists who threaten us are gone. Brilliant. As Think Progress notes, Al Qaeda is present in some form or another in at least 70 countries.

~Speaking of Al Qaeda, the government has announced that they killed Al Qaeda’s “number 2″ leader in Pakistan, which I’m sure will just thrill the Pakistani goverment.

~Wikileaks has released almost 4,000 State Dept. cables regarding our diplomacy with Israel. This docudump has largely been ignored by the mainstream media but has been covered a little bit in Israeli media and some non-mainstream sources.

~Several lawmakers are asking the State Department to look into Blackwater founder, Erik Prince’s, latest foray into the lucrative business of killing people. He has been hired by our ally in Abu Dhabi, Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, to create a mercenary army that will be charged with, among other things, [violently?] suppressing internal revolt, ie. pro-democracy demonstrations of the type we’ve seen in Egypt.

~While the news of the Libyan rebels’ advance into Tripoli has been lauded by U.S. government officials, reports of a very dark side of this ongoing battle are coming to light including the rebel’s use of reprisal killings, torture etc.

~Add Patrick Kennedy to the list of politicians and former U.S. officials getting paid big bucks to advocate for a foreign terrorist organization, the Mujahedin-e-Khalqthat (MEK), they seem to know little to nothing about. The fact that the MEK has almost zero support in Iran, particularly among the Green Movement, apparently doesn’t matter.

~Apparently deficit spending doesn’t matter when it’s a multi-billion dollar defense program that is way over budget. It seemed that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was finally going to die a long-deserved death because of cost overruns, poor performance and the fact that we probably don’t even need it but NOPE, the GOP is trying to bring it back from the dead.

~Robert Reich is right, this Labor Day we should protest, not just have parades.

~David Sirota has a great piece in the Washington Post about how the Pentagon is turning to Hollywood to make war look Top Gun cool. Your tax dollars at work.

~Oh my God, mark your calendars- the Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton actually found something the Washington Post did wrong. Usually he just gets defensive and blames the readers for their partisanship.

~The number of attacks perpetrated by suicide bombers is on the rise in Afghanistan.

~Here in the U.S. we can really take anything and turn a profit- Islamophobia is big business.

~Gawker vs. Fox News. Fox is falling right into their trap.

~The Martin Luther King statue was completed using unpaid Chinese laborers. Brilliant, really.

~I guess after the 2008 election, candidate’s church attendance, views etc. will be put under the microscope. Bachmann’s church, unsurprisingly, discriminates. Churches, other private religious groups are allowed to do that by the way.

~Do Egypt and Israel need to amend their peace treaty to allow more troops in the Sinai?

~Michele Bachmann thinks those “radical environmentalists” are to blame for our energy problems. Right.

The End. Stay Safe.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up *updated*

By on 14 August 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. And right now, he is turning over in his grave.






Some links for you to peruse:

~UPDATE: Tim Pawlenty just quit the Presidential race.

~Ok, Bachmann wins the Iowa popularity contest.

~Labor unions are growing increasingly angry at President Obama and with good reason. In what some are saying is a slap in the face to the labor unions, the Democratic convention will be held in a right to work state, North Carolina. Twelve labor unions will sit out the convention and while Obama may assume that at the end of the day he will get their support, he may be underestimating the electoral impact of having some of the Democrats’ most ardent supporters refusing to take to the streets, go door to door and generate enthusiasm for a democratic victory in 2012. In addition, the unions are none too happy with the three free trade bills (South Korea, Panama, Colombia) that Obama will sign, as they are net job-killers and provide more tax havens for wealthy corporations.

~Mitt Romney’s recent “gaffe” about corporations being “people” actually wasn’t a gaffe. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, corporations are people, with some (not all) constitutional rights. Of course, the decisions that anointed corporations with”personhood” was the result of years of out-of-control conservative judicial activism by the SCOTUS and which culminated in the Citizen’s United case. All that said, it does say a lot about Romney’s view of the role of corporations in public life, the economy and politics.

~The administration has claimed that drone strikes in Pakistan have not resulted in civilian casualties, but this report says otherwise. Many civilians have been killed, including 168 children.

~A new political era in Israel? The tent protests are truly incredible to behold. I only wish here in the U.S. we would wake up and feel inspired to do the same thing rather than simply feeling resigned.

~Run Elizabeth, Run.

~David Meyer asks (and answers) “why aren’t Americans protesting?” like their compatriots in other parts of the world.

~Sarah Palin just can’t stand to not be the center of attention.

~Gay rights in Nepal.

~A gay man at the Iowa State Fair asked Tim Pawlenty if he considered him a second class citizen b/c he was gay. Good for him. These candidates with hateful policies and rhetoric need to be confronted.

~The Pentagon is playing with fire. But luckily for them, the MSM isn’t interested.

~President Obama isn’t even pretending to be interested in the grass roots donation drive that helped him achieve victory in 2008. He’s going for the big bucks. We all understand how this works- he had big donors last time around too- but he’s “I’m for the little guy” message has largely been jettisoned due to total lack of credibility.

~I’m sorry, but Rick Perry is a joke. I’m sure he’ll excite a lot of the far right Evangelical base but when you proclaim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and then can’t have an articulate discussion about it other than to throw out bumper sticker sound bites, then you aren’t serious. Also with Rick Perry, he is even more opposed to gay rights than his fellow right wing GOP candidates.

~Speaking of right wing GOP candidates, next up…Rick Santorum. Have you noticed that when it comes to foreign policy (ie. anything other than talk about the economy/taxes and social wedge issues like gay rights and abortion), the Tea Party types get a glazed look and start speaking total nonsense? Rick Santorum has an interesting view of the history of Iran vis-a-vis the U.S.

~Speaking of Iran and Santorum, while he unabashedly is opposed to any type of rights for LGBT folks in the U.S., he supports gay rights for….Iranians!

~DC lobbying firms represent the human-rights abusing Bahraini government for a rather large fee. Is there anyone they won’t represent?

~Who is and isn’t deemed a “terrorist organization” and who does and doesn’t provide material support for said terrorist groups is largely political. Take the Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK or Warriors of God) for example, now that Iran is in our cross-hairs, a group with American blood on its hands is the darling of Washington DC officials because the group opposes Ahmadinejad. It’s sort of like the pre-Iraq War all over again when the Iraqi diaspora community (think Ahmed Chalabi) won the hearts and minds of neoconservatives (and others) because they were virulently opposed to Saddam Hussein. The problem was, much of the information they passed on to the government was false and they had absolutely no base of support in Iraq. Similarly, the MEK has no support amongst the Iranian Green Movement and it operates in a cult-like, undemocratic manner that should make Washington nervous. The NYT published an excellent opinion piece yesterday that is worth a read if you aren’t familiar with the controversy surrounding MEK.

~So, do you agree with this WaPo commentator that Obama should cancel his Martha’s Vineyard vacation?

~In case you missed it, Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Israeli opposition leader (Kadima) Tzipi Livni, who said that Obama needs to continue to put some pressure on Israel.

~Tom Friedman is overpaid if he keeps writing stuff like this.

~At least one U.S. official seems to understand Afghanistan’s tribal culture.

~A school in Missouri has recently banned one of my favorite books, Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut. Just for fun, here is a list of the top 100 banned books (2000-2009) from the American Library Association. Here are the top ten:

1. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
2. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
3. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
5. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
7. Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
8. His Dark Materials (series), by Philip Pullman
9. ttyl; ttfn; l8r g8r (series), by Myracle, Lauren
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky

~The latest blow to the health care reform bill is a reminder of what happens when President Obama (and Congress) settle for sketchy compromises like the individual mandate over a public option, which likely wouldn’t be struck down. The next Appellate court to rule on health reform is the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit. You can be sure of one thing, this is going to the Supreme Court.

~A stage collapse prior to a concert in Indiana ends in tragedy.

~Lets just keep ignoring our crumbling infrastructure because I’m sure it will all just fix itself.

~Are they kidding? Michele Bachmann’s people had insisted in advance of the debate that she be able to leave at each commercial break to “touch up” her makeup?

~Former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke gave an interview for a local PBS station where he accused the top echelon of the CIA of a cover up with respect to two of the 9/11 hijackers. The response from the mainstream media (other than PBS)? Something between a collective yawn and an attempt to downplay the charges leveled by Clarke.

You made it to the end. I’ll leave you with some Free-running/building-jumping that you definitely shouldn’t try at home:

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Rick Perry: ‘I’m running for president and `full well believe I’m going to win’

By on 13 August 2011

**UPDATED**

Perry’s announcement came during a conference call, which (of course) was then blasted across Twitter by the AP’s Beth Fouhy.

Here’s Perry’s “Why I’m Running” pitch.

So, his big announcement speech included a gafferiffic moment, when Perry called the fallen Afghanistan soldiers “Special Operators.” The second half of his speech took off on optimism, which will be very effective in the primaries. Mike Murphy tweeted that this will soon become a contest between Romney & Perry, which is an easy prediction. But if Republicans nominate Perry, Obama will be the luckiest man on earth. I simply see no way Independents and moderates will take to this Bushesque character, whose slick preacher routine will not wear very well at all.

George W. Bush isn’t that far in the rear view mirror, so morphing Perry and Bush will be a breeze.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

That 1979 Feeling

By on 09 August 2011

Ten years into our involvement in the war in Afghanistan, in the mountains southwest of Kabul in the Tangi Valley, an elite group of Army Rangers were pinned down in a fight, when they called in their “Immediate Reaction Force,” according to reporting by Danger Room. It would be another elite U.S. fighting force, Navy SEALS, who would respond, but would end up blown out of the sky. It’s not Desert One, this mission having an even more desperately reckless cast to it. What was worth risking our finest elite force, around 7% of the total according to some experts, in a country that continues to revert back to it’s origin of a tribal nation?

“The Taliban knew which route the helicopter would take,” one unnamed Afghan official tells AFP. “That’s the only route, so they took position[s] on the either side of the valley on mountains and as the helicopter approached, they attacked it with rockets and other modern weapons.” “It was a trap that was set by a Taliban commander,” the official added. – Did a New Taliban Weapon Kill a Chopper Full of Navy SEALs?

The Taliban Haqqani network, operating in the extremely dangerous Wardak province, includes the most brutal fighting insurgents in Afghanistan, so any mission against them is high risk. U.S. Navy SEALS, as well as their Afghan counterparts, a translator and a working dow, came in via a U.S. Army A Special Operations MH-47G Chinook helicopter, seen as the best among these fighting machines but incredibly slow, bulky and vulnerable when navigating in between steep terrain. There are no defenses to deploy when a Chinook is within range of an RPG, though there are speculations that a newer weapon was involved. It was the worst single day loss of life since entering Afghanistan in 2001, with reports saying many of the Navy SEAL Team 6 who took down Osama bin Laden perished this day.

As the latest and worst news from Afghanistan continued to sink in, late yesterday, Pres. Obama addressed the S&P downgrade as the stock market plummeted, finishing with words about the horrific carnage that happened over the weekend. With words coming out of his mouth invoking his belief in America, the President’s grim facial features belied the pep talk that was weirdly surreal. It turned into the Twilight Zone when he got to the end, invoking the spirit of the fallen heroes while using the word “succeed” in the same sentence as Afghanistan.

“Their loss is a stark reminder of the risks that our men and women in uniform take every single day on behalf of their country,” Obama said from the White House. “I know that our troops will continue the hard work of transitioning to a stronger Afghan government and ensuring that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. We will press on and succeed,” the US president said. – US will succeed in Afghanistan: Obama

Last year in October, I wrote a piece entitled Getting that 1979 Feeling Again. Today this feeling is palpable.

Every time Pres. Obama comes out to speak now there is a vacuousness to his purpose that goes well beyond what words can hide. It’s like he doesn’t even believe himself anymore, as he babbles on without presenting a single plan. The least he could have done was call Congress back to Washington.

The crisis of economic confidence…

The out of touch talk about “We will press on and succeed” in Afghanistan…

It’s clear individual Democrats in Congress better take up the charge on jobs and growth, because Pres. Obama is acting politically paralyzed.

The good news for Obama is that his poll numbers remain decent amidst his floundering. Everything else, however, is reminiscent of the run-up to 1979 when America seemed incapable of acting like a great nation amidst economic, energy and foreign policy crises that were overwhelming the current occupant of the White House.

America ended up handing the country to Ronald Reagan, who ballooned the deficit, raised taxes over and over, and deserved impeachment after Iran-Contra, but got away with it because it was a different time and an assassination attempt had bonded Pres. Reagan to the people.

There is an out of control, out of touch, out of sync feeling Pres. Obama reveals every time he takes to the podium. He’s been incapable of leading the events playing out during his presidency, instead just reacting to them. Obama needs to change this perception and he has until Thanksgiving to do it.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 07 August 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday!

Quote of the Day:

“No risk of that, no risk.”

– Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during an interview in April, discussing the risk of the U.S. debt being downgraded.

Some links to go with your morning coffee/tea:

~China, our banker, is angry at the U.S. about the downgrade. I guess more administration-China ass kissing diplomacy is in order.

~The Super Duper Debt Committee will just cause more problems than it solves, for obvious reasons.

~The biggest US single-episode loss of life in the Afghanistan War took place Friday as insurgents shot down a Chinook helicopter carrying 38 members of US special forces and 7 Afghan soldiers. More here.

~Also on Afghanistan- The International Crisis Group has issued a report which concludes that despite dumping billions of dollars into nation-building in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its allies have failed to stabilize the country. I think the billions of dollars they are talking about does not include the money spent on the actual war effort there-in other words, just the military and civil rebuilding and stabilization efforts.

~In today’s WaPo there is an article about the origins of the debt showdown and how Eric Cantor took advantage of the House’s new Tea Party recruits to turn the debt ceiling debate into a standoff over the role of government.

~The Wikipedia conference is currently taking place in Israel and the Wikipedia founder talked about how the community tries very hard to keep Wiki entries as neutral as possible. That’s not easy in an era where as soon as there is a political controversy, groups run to the site to get their version of the story out.

~Up to 12 million people’s lives are under direct threat in the Horn of Africa as drought, famine and war take their toll. Much of the world looked away when the predictions of an extreme famine were first put forth. However, the terror group al-Shabab claims there is no famine taking place in Somalia but of course, that could be because the group is preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the men, women and children who are currently starving to death and as a result, they bear direct responsibility.

~A Navy vet and former defense contractor in Iraq explains why he is suing Donald Rumsfeld over the Bush administration’s torture policy- but here’s the thing- in a crazy twist, he was tortured by Americans in Iraq.

~In much of the media’s coverage about the S&P downgrade, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the impact of the refusal to add ANY revenue-generating provisions in the debt deal. There was plenty of blame to spread around to both parties, but there are some interesting tidbits in the S&P statement about revenues. It would seem that the GOP is giddy about the downgrade because throwing a Molotov Cocktail into our already depressed economy was always the GOP plan leading up to 2012.

~While the S&P is certainly correct that Washington is completely dysfunctional and getting them to do anything constructive for the good of the nation is a bit like trying to herd cats, there is no denying the politics of what is taking place. Firedoglake has a good summary of some of the things that may have actually been behind S&P’s decision to downgrade the US credit rating.

~So, how is Saudi Arabia doing on the human rights front? Really, really well. [/sarcasm]

~Despite a lot of people giving Obama props about being willing to put defense cuts on the table, the truth of the matter is that the Obama administration shows no interest in curbing out-of-control defense spending as evidenced by his new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, publicly complaining all last week about how disastrous defense cuts would be. Once again, fear trumps reason. Interestingly, when asked, Leon Panetta can’t seem to articulate any reason why any proposed cuts would be so dangerous to our nation’s security:

~Over 300,000 people took to the streets in Israel this weekend to protest the high cost of living. Good for them. We need to do that here in the U.S.

~The Obama administration will likely squander yet another opportunity to take a serious stand on environmental issues. The Alberta tar sands pipeline is currently being reviewed by the State Dept. and the review itself has been mired in controversy from the start. The pipeline’s chief lobbyist is a former Hillary Clinton deputy campaign director and Secretary Clinton made the none-too-subtle remark long before the review process even started, that she was “inclined to support” it. That made environmentalists and even many Congressional Democrats hopping mad. Of course, the buck doesn’t stop there and environmentalists and congressional democrats are urging the administration to not approve the project. Good luck with that, the fix is in.

~Speaking of the environment, some say that the current Congress is the most anti-Environment since about the 1950′s. Impressive.

~All eyes are on Wisconsin which is in the midst of the largest number of recall elections in U.S. history. Huge amounts of cash have been flooding in to the state via special interest groups from both the left and the right. Some see Wisconsin as a dry run of sorts for what may happen in 2012, ie. did the Tea Party types go too far?

~Gov. Rick Perry’s prayer rally certainly won’t endear him to moderates or independents but I have a feeling that’s ok with Rick Perry.

~Things are still not well in Sudan/Southern Sudan. There is still a long, long way to go.

~The repressive, human rights-abusing Communist Chinese government continues to throw fuel on the fire of religious freedom with respect to Buddhists in Tibet. Even if Americans know very little about this right now, it is a very big issue and could lead to bloodshed when the current Dalai Lama dies. And when that happens, Washington will be forced to take notice but by then it will be too late.

~The death toll in Syria continues to rise as government forces continue the siege on Hama. As Assad’s forces continue to slaughter his own people, the Syrian foreign minister comes out and makes the ludicrous statement that the Assad government will allow free legislative elections by the end of 2011. Yeah, and unicorns are real.

~Both Palestinian and Israeli security forces are frustrated with the politicians in Ramallah, Jerusalem and Washington DC. This is something I have heard over and over again. The Israeli and Palestinian security forces have been training and had unprecedented security cooperation over the past 8+ years, with impressive results, while the politicians piss away every opportunity for a reasonable solution to the conflict.

~Sean Hannity thinks it’s wrong to require insurers to cover birth control but guess what he thinks they should cover…Viagra. Indeed.

~Fox News is out of control with race-baiting.

~Politico continues with its status quo hackery and prints an op-ed from GOP Representative Duncan Hunter, who fear-mongers about cutting defense spending. Ok, no problem there because people can write opinion pieces from various points of view. The problem is that a) he makes patently false claims about the role of defense spending in our current debt crisis and b) Politico knew, or should have known, that Hunter has a conflict of interest when it comes to defense spending given most of his top campaign contributions come from defense contractors. If Politico readers knew that, they might be a little bit more discerning when it comes to taking Hunter’s claims at face value.

~Demonstrations turned violent in Tottenham, England, as people marched to the police station to protest the shooting of a 29-year old man Mark Duggan by police last week. Racial tensions have historically been high in the Tottenham region and as of last night, the situation was still not under control.

~Some in Israel are concerned about a bill that is poised to pass the Knesset and which seeks to provide guidance to the courts such that they would be expected to privilege maintaining “the state as the Jewish nation state in ruling in situations in which the Jewish character of the state clashes with its democratic character.” Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf and other critics of the pending legislation have argued that proponents of the bill seem to be saying that maintaining a Jewish state and upholding democracy are at odds. It’s an interesting debate.

~Donald Trump really embodies the corporate greed and entitled attitude that seems to have infected this nation. His most recent stunt is to vow to do everything in his power to prevent the building of an offshore wind farm in Scotland because it will obstruct the beautiful view from the golf course he is currently in the process of building.

~Whatever you do, don’t read Thomas Friedman’s silly editorial about the financial crisis in today’s NYT, it’s five minutes of your life that you’ll never get back which is why I read it for you. It’s loaded with dumb analogies and really obvious points like “[r]egarding growth, we surely need a much smarter long-term fiscal plan than the one that just came out of Washington.”

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Pres. Obama’s Deficit Debacle, National Security, and Warmaking

By on 03 August 2011

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.”

From McClatchy:

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.

Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:

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.”

Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:

“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.”

ABC News:

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.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Biden on Point, while Republicans Balk at ‘Professor Obama’s lectures’

By on 02 August 2011

(Official White House Photo by Sharon Farmer)

It always comes down to relationships and Pres. Obama just doesn’t have them. Joe does.

An interesting back story put together by Politico’s Glenn Thrush, Carrie Budoff Brown, Manu Raju and John Breshnahan.

[...] With the talks going nowhere Saturday morning, the White House made “our last play,” according to a senior administration official, calling on Biden’s long-time connection to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). [...]

McConnell wanted to negotiate primarily with Biden, concerned that other Democrats, especially Obama, would prove to be less trustworthy bargaining partners.

“Biden’s the only guy with real negotiating authority, and [McConnell] knows that his word is good,” said a senior GOP staffer close to the talks. “He was a key to the deal.”

… GOP House staffers were burnt out after months of fruitless meetings at the White House that they had taken to calling “joke meetings” or worse still, “Professor Obama’s lectures.”

[...] “There was nothing these far-right guys would say yes to,” said a leadership aide close to the talks. “It became clear that they were going to be intransigent no matter what.” …

Whether it’s been Afghanistan and Pakistan or the latest debt ceiling talks, nobody has turned out to be more valuable to Pres. Obama than Vice President Joe Biden.

…notwithstanding the… um… uncomfortable moments that arise.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Buying Time for the White House, Reid Postpones Vote Until Sunday 1 pm

By on 30 July 2011

“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

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Reid Shoots, Scores, by Ending Wars

By on 27 July 2011

Well, at least Harry can count, not only doing proper math, but it’s likely he’s the one who has the votes he needs, while the jury’s out for Mr. Boehner.

In the battle of budget scores, the Senate Democrats deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by Speaker John Boehner, which has had to be pulled back from a floor vote for retooling. [...] A second factor is the Senate’s willingness to take advantage of CBO baseline rules and claim large savings from winding down US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. – Reid savings trumps Boehner plan

As for the White House, Pres. Obama has a fairly clear schedule today, according to reports, including Chuck Todd. After a day that had even Jay Carney on “Hardball,” you can bet this only means frantic movement behind the scenes to get this thing done.

Robert Reich peels back some of the self-interest behind S&P’s motives, as Wall Street starts to be a real player as well.

Anyone else find it vaguely amusing Reid and Senate Democrats are pushing to end wars in order to get a deal on the debt ceiling?

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

The Sunday Early-Bird News Round-Up

By on 17 July 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday!

On this day in history, July 17th, 1918, Czar Nicholas II of Russia and his family were executed by the Bolsheviks.

Some news for you on a fine Sunday morning:

~President Obama has decided not to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

~This week Jeremy Scahill of the Nation did a fine bit of investigative journalism and revealed that the CIA is running secret prisons in Somalia, which if true, means that we still basically have a rendition program. And how did the fawning corporate media respond to the revelation? Well, two ways- 1. they largely ignored it and 2. when they didn’t, they dutifully jotted down administration talking points denying the allegations in the article. Naturally, they gave administration officials total anonymity to do this, lest said officials be held accountable at some future date. You know, for lying. Glenn Greenwald wrote a must-read article about how the administration uses the MSM to attack real investigative journalism that it finds inconvenient. For my part, I stalked followed David Gregory around Twitter on Friday asking him repeatedly if he would cover the story on MTP today. Naturally, that wasn’t on his agenda. Because foreign policy is hard.

~Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s maiden voyage to Iraq and Afghanistan was, shall we say, less than spectacular. Les Gelb has more here. Just what the White House needs, another wishy-washy consensus-builder.

~Sobering statistics: The Minimum number of people killed by CIA drone attacks in Pakistan last year was 607. Number of those who appeared on a U.S. list of most-wanted terrorists- 2. Hearts and minds people, hearts and minds…

~Did Obama lie about his dying mother’s battle with health insurance coverage? It appears he did. Does it matter? Probably. Why do politicians always do this and think that they can get away with it? As someone who did have a mother who was denied insurance coverage for potentially life-saving cancer treatment, I find his “misstatements” crass, politically expedient and insensitive.

~The GOP plan for the economy? Blow it up and blame it on Obama. This Red State article has been boomeranging all over the right-wing blogosphere and was apparently passed around at the House GOP caucus meeting. The fact that the Democrats, and the WH in particular, can’t use this to their advantage shows that after almost three years, their political messaging still sucks.

~Rupert Murdoch is very sorry that his media empire is an unethical, corrupt wasteland.

~The White House and State Department deflected questions all last week about whether President Obama or Secretary Clinton would meet with the Dalai Lama, who has been in Washington for over a week. Then, Friday evening, the WH released a statement saying Obama would meet with him- on Saturday (yesterday), and no photographers or press would be present. In response, China said that Obama’s meeting with him harmed Sino-U.S. relations and get this…”hurt the feelings of the Chinese people…”

~Good God, Michelle Obama eats a burger and fries for lunch while attending the opening of a eatery called “Shake Shack” and the self-righteous food nazis go nuts!

~Michelle Bachmann left her controversial Church not long before announcing her Presidential run. Coincidence? Does it matter?

Cats crash Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s interview in Istanbul:

~Thank goodness the GOP is keeping track of the important issues, like ensuring that the energy-draining incandescent light bulb sticks around for a while longer.

~The U.S. has formally recognized the Libyan rebels as the government of Libya. That sounds messy.

~Think Progress interviews the former head of the American Jewish Congress about the Mideast peace process and the Palestinians’ UN bid for statehood. He says the U.S.-sponsored peace process is a fraud and one of the main obstacles to peace is actually the United States itself. It’s a great interview, check it out here.

~Doctors Without Borders has formally spoken out against the CIA’s use of a fake vaccination program for children in Afghanistan, which they used to obtain information on Osama Bin Laden. DWB says it harms public health efforts undertaken by NGO’s in the region. Our MSM is not covering this issue at all.

~Sebastian Junger writes a powerful opinion piece for the NYT about the psychology of war.

~Meet the pay for play conservative nonprofit that writes a LOT of pro-energy industry laws around the country- The American Legislative Exchange Council. Democracy for the highest bidder.

~Remember the people who sold us all the lies about Iraq’s WMD’s? They are like bad pennies, they keep turning up. Only in Washington could such losers keep failing upward. Doug Feith, the man who Gen. Franks referred to as the “stupidest guy on the face of the earth” is now a foreign policy adviser to Rick Perry.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Mitt Romney, King of Layoffs

By on 14 July 2011


Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee will provide a wealth of ammunition for Democrats. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy provides the path and the foreshadowing of what could come.

Politico’s piece today reveals why, which also provides un-aired as well as aired ads from Ted Kennedy’s old campaign archives. Romney’s troubles begin with Bain Capital.

A company that laid off hundreds of employees. A federal “bailout” to rescue a failing bank. Mitt Romney, at the center of it all.

[...] The never-aired “bailout” ad [see below], shared with POLITICO by one of Kennedy’s advisers, remains an unexploded grenade from that race, underscoring Romney’s vulnerability in the first presidential election fought since the 2008 financial meltdown.

According to former Kennedy advisers, the ad never ran because it turned out to be unnecessary: Kennedy had already broken Romney with a series of ads tying him to layoffs in Indiana.

[...] Greg Mueller, the conservative public relations man and former Pat Buchanan adviser, argued that the offensive against Romney was well under way: “They’re trying to hit him on Bain, companies that Bain had under their umbrella, where people lost their jobs.”

[...] In one instance, Romney sat on the board of a medical supply company, Damon Corp., which later paid $119 million in penalties for billing unnecessary blood tests to Medicare during the period of Romney’s involvement.

The Tea Party crew has said they’ll do everything to stop Romney, but I haven’t seen or heard much from them lately.

In the believe it or not column, Romney’s finally spoken on the debt ceiling debate. A balanced budget amendment is his “line in the sand.” What a putz. Oh, and Mr. Romney also believes that civilians shouldn’t control the military.

Just what we need, another national candidate from the Republicans who believes the role of commander in chief is to be a puppet of his generals.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Jon Huntsman Stiffs DeMint

By on 12 July 2011

This guy needs to find a path to run as an Independent.

Of course, there’s no path to win that way, but he could cause nightmares for Pres. Obama and the Republican nominee, which would be well worth it as an exercise.

AP reporting:

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who would like to be the Republican nominee in the White House race, said Tuesday he’s not about to sign the spending limit pledge that a South Carolina senator has turned into a threshold test for 2012 presidential hopefuls seeking his support.

… The pledge says spending cuts are needed to lower the deficit and capped to balance the budget while Congress and the states approve a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets.

“I don’t sign pledges — other than the Pledge of Allegiance and a pledge to my wife,” Huntsman said. He says he told DeMint “You just have to understand that’s where I come down.”

It’s irresponsible for anyone to pledge that the federal gov. should be held to a balanced budget, something that is so counter to the purpose of government when the country gets in trouble it further illustrates the idiocy of Tea Party people.

On Afghanistan, Huntsman makes Obama sound like Bush, while revealing himself as someone ready to turn away from the Bush-Obama war machine that has us entrenched in wars we can’t afford, in countries we have no business conducting military exercises.

“We have fought the good fight in Afghanistan,” Huntsman said. “Only Afghanistan can solve Afghanistan. We can’t want them to have a country more than they want to have a country. And I’m here to tell you that we need to make sure Americans take care of America at this point in our history.”

Huntsman also believes that Libya was a bad decision, which it was.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Ahmed Wali Karzai Assassinated, U.S. General Reportedly Wanted him Burned

By on 12 July 2011

From the New York Times:

For years, the American military has believed that public anger over government-linked corruption has helped swell the Taliban’s ranks, and that Ahmed Wali Karzai played a central role in that corruption. He has repeatedly denied any links to Afghan drug trafficking.

According to three American military officials, in April 2009 Gen. David D. McKiernan, then the top American commander in Afghanistan, told subordinates that he wanted them to gather any evidence that might tie the president’s half brother to the drug trade. “He put the word out that he wanted to ‘burn’ Ahmed Wali Karzai,” one of the military officials said.

The gnashing of teeth over Ahmed Wali Karzai is because of the vacuum he leaves.

Also in Afghanistan, the man who mutilated Aisha, part of the torturers who cut off her nose, has been released. All sorts of excuses are being used, but the reality is that all the U.S. military might and money cannot change the culture of Afghanistan to save the women.

Now, with Pres. Karzai’s half brother dead, someone who was corrupt and also had an important role in negotiations with the Taliban and others, a dead end for the U.S. in Afghanistan seems even more apparent.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

The Sunday News Round-Up

By on 10 July 2011

On this day in history, July 10, 1509, theologian John Calvin, a key figure of the Protestant Reformation, was born France.

Some news that caught my eye this fine morning:

~Elizabeth Warren for Senate?

~The GOP has predictably rebuffed the President’s so-called Grand Bargain, which is really a Grand Capitulation to corporate interests on the backs of the middle class, so perhaps its a good thing. Interestingly, polls consistently show that the American people are on the Democrats’ side with this- they see no problem whatsoever with tax increases for the richest Americans, closing some of the ridiculous tax loopholes that create subsidies for big business etc. So now we are back to the cuts/revenue increases that were part of the Biden-led negotiations.

~Witchita, Kansas, again becomes Ground Zero in the battle for abortion rights.

~The Washington Post’s resident right wing hack, Jennifer Rubin, thinks that defense spending has nothing to do with the deficit. I still can’t believe the WaPo gave her a platform. Oh, wait, Fred Hiatt, Jackson Diehl, Krauthammer. Never mind, yes I can.

~Mitchell Plitnick over at LobeLog has a good piece on why the U.S. is so frantic about the possible upcoming UN vote about Palestinian statehood. In addition to putting Israel and the U.S. in a very, very tricky spot, the reality is that things have changed since the Arab Spring and the release of the Palestinian Papers- something which the Obama administration seems reluctant to take to heart. The Palestinians can no longer enter negotiations without achieving substantive results, end of story. That’s the new reality. The U.S., meanwhile, has nothing to offer but the same old, failed formula of never-ending negotiations that achieve nothing other than the further entrenchment of the occupation beyond the Green Line and the Palestinians know this. Hence, the UN vote.

~Ann Coulter thinks we bombed Egypt, which caused Hosni Mubarak to leave. Jesus Christ! WHY CAN’T THE REPUBLICANS DO FOREIGN POLICY?!?

~Eric Cantor cancels the July 18th House recess. Isn’t every day recess in the House?

~Winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan.

~The life of Betty Ford.

~John Aravosis thinks Obama should appoint a top level LGBT adviser. Dream on.

~It’s nice to know that James Murdoch is just as much a scum-bag as his father.

~For a great article on the cozy relationship between the elder Murdoch and British politicians, check out this article. The sad thing is, the same corrosive media/political cronyism is right here in our own Beltway.

~ Dick Morris’ makes stuff up. Again. Note to the right: Using Israel as a political wedge issue is a really bad idea…for Israel.

~South Sudan declares independence.

~Glenn Greenwald points out that in our effort to fight terrorism, we’re actually creating more terrorists. It’s like a hamster wheel of sorts.

~Ever wonder what happened to the so-called American Taliban, John Walker Lindh? Read this article from his father with a rather disturbing update. Now remember, Lindh is in jail as part of a plea deal for joining and fighting with the Taliban (the govt had no proof he was a “terrorist”, a with whom we are [right now unofficially] negotiating with.

~Alex Pareene over at Salon’s ‘War Room’ points out that when it comes to terrorism-foreign policy-national security coverage, the Washington Post has No. Standards. Whatsoever.

~Keeping Michele Bachmann from letting go of the reins is probably more than a full-time job for her fancy new advisor Ed Rollins, but she clearly slipped away from him for a moment to be the first (and hopefully only) Presidential candidate to sign “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” Naturally, anything with the word “family” in coming from the far, far, far right includes stuff about gay people, Sharia Law and porn. Or something. Naturally, Pamela Gellar is thrilled.

~The feds have ruled that marijuana has no acceptable medical use. You can read more about Obama’s War on Pot here. The admin. seems to be harder on medical marijuana growers/users than he is on the Big Banks that caused the global financial crisis. #fail.

~Over-react much?

~Forty people are dead in a mere 24 hours in Mexico- drug and gang related violence.

The End.

[cross-posted over at USFoPo and the Middle East]

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

House Progressives and Obama’s ‘Deal of the Century’

By on 07 July 2011

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was not informed in advance of President Obama’s plans to include Social Security reform in the scope of the debt-ceiling talks, a House Democratic aide said Thursday. Reports that Obama is looking for a big debt deal that would include Social Security reforms provoked anger among liberals in the House and Senate, who said they were irritated to learn of the news from the press. – Pelosi not informed in advance of Obama’s broader reform plans

On “Morning Joe” today, Steve Rattner’s insulting condescension toward Rep. Keith Ellison dripped with phrases suggesting he come back to reality, the real world, you know, where the grown ups are discussing tough economic issues that idiots like you don’t understand.

Mr. Ellison was having none of it. His solution? Change the debate.

The smirk on Rattner’s smug little mug disappeared. (Here’s a piece I did in 2006 on Rattner.)

What a concept. Instead of playing into the Republican narrative on deficit reduction, spending cuts and austerity, offer up a grand vision directly responding to what’s on the minds of Americans. From The Hill:

“First, any cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be taken off the table. The individuals depending on these three programs deserve well-conceived improvements, not deep, ideologically driven cuts with harmful consequences.”

As a second condition, the lawmakers added, “revenue increases must be a meaningful part of any agreement.”

“Tax breaks benefiting the very richest Americans should be eliminated as part of this deal,” the lawmakers wrote. “The middle class has experienced enough pain during the last three years, Republicans are willing to inflict even more. We will not join them.”

Grijalva said there’s room for “restructuring” in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But if the final debt-ceiling package cuts benefits under those programs, he warned, “then I couldn’t support it.”

AARP delivered a similar message on Thursday, issuing a statement warning that the powerful lobbying group “will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to pay the nation’s bills.”

[...] “We do have more leverage than people anticipate,” Grijalva said. “Without overwhelming support from our caucus, I think it’s going to be a hard deal to pass.”

Rattner finally just gave up and asked Ellison if he’d support a deal with Social Security cuts that wasn’t balanced with taxes, revenue increases, or stimulus Ellison preferred, never mind that he also suggested a more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Rep. Ellison gave a one-word reply: no.

But again, there’s still no evidence that Tea Party Republicans will accept Obama’s “deal of the century.”

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Obama’s ‘Deal of the Century’ for Republicans

By on 05 July 2011

If you want one reason why Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection this is it.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. – The Mother of All No-Brainers

The bookend to David Brooks is Frank Rich, who evidently has finally awakened to the actual Barack Obama, 3 years too late. This was after appalling political analysis that should not only have gotten him laughed out of the opinion racket, but rendered his views worthless. Rich preferred to play games in the primaries rather than learn, then help readers understand Barack Obama’s political philosophy:

But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.

One of the people who underestimated Barack Obama was Frank Rich, but not in the manner he originally meant. It’s because he was too besotted to identify candidate Obama’s squishy Republicanism.

Mr. Rich also predicted a Democratic “civil war” if Hillary didn’t cool it, though even Rachel Maddow did this, but Rich went several ugly steps further, to make his points:

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

The “suicide for the party” is indeed happening, just a lot later and through the very politician Mr. Rich exalted.

Rich could have looked at Obama’s Illinois record, his statements about being non-ideological, about being more of a mediator between two opposing views, but he chose fan politics instead, ignorantly blinded by what the outcome could eventually be.

Paul Krugman laid out the economics for Rich and his ilk, but there were many clues, the most important coming from candidate Obama himself:

“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama, 5.14.07 (on ABC’s “This Week”)

Pres. Obama adopting the Republican economic model has set the Democratic Party back, how far and for how long it’s hard to tell.

Obama’s position is now where Republicans have placed the new center, which will dog any Democratic candidate and president who believes progressive philosophy is not only more sound, but imperative to save the middle class.

Any Democrat not starting by offering tax cuts and even targeting the safety net will now be considered “extreme” or “far left” by the new center, you know, because Barack Obama did it. Progressive politics then becomes a harder sell. Where that leaves the “professional Left” is anyone’s guess, but it’s nowhere good.

That is unless Obama’s economic Republicanism is abandoned wholesale, which is unlikely when you look at the behavior of elite Democrats today, politicians who don’t understand that by “winning” the Democratic Party is actually losing their identity. Though there are some signs of life in small quarters of Congress, with a few Democrats recognizing that the small differences that used to exist between the parties, Pres. Obama has obliterated, not only on economics, but including on matters of war and peace.

There’s something even more chilling about Pres. Obama’s economic Republicanism. If he’s doing this now, what will he do if he’s reelected, facing no other elections in his future, able to carve the path as he sees it?

It’s not Republicans who should start worrying about Obama’s reelection, it’s Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }