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 | diplomacy

U.S. Embassy on ‘Lockdown’ after Quran-burning at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan

By on 22 February 2012

U.S. Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said after the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit without realizing it. “It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials,” Allen said Tuesday, one day after Afghan workers at the garbage pit found the books. “It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened.” – CBS News

The Qurans were removed from a library in the Parwan Detention Facility and unintentionally burned at Bagram Air Field. According to reports from a military official, they contained extremist messages, though what that means no one has specified yet, an investigation pending.

Jay Carney said it was a “deeply unfortunate incident,” with an official apology offered to the Afghan people from the U.S. military yesterday.

However, today, all hell broke loose.

From CNN:

Violent protests left at least five dead and others wounded Wednesday as demonstrations over Quran burning intensified in Afghanistan. Police killed four people and wounded 10 others during protests in Parwan province, said Abdul Wassi Sayedkhili, a provincial council official. Health officials said a fifth person died and 10 others wounded in eastern Nangarhar province.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Pentagon Budget 2013 Broken Down by Winslow Wheeler

By on 20 February 2012

Winslow Wheeler is one of a very determined band of defense experts who have been diligently deciphering and challenging the Pentagon budget, expenditures and priority for years.

I’ve cited Wheeler many times before, who has been a guest writer around here as well (here, here, here, here, here, here, with more at the Winslow Wheeler tag below).

Steve Clemons cited Wheeler today, with Winslow Wheeler’s analysis posted earlier in February. This query by Clemons is priceless.

And to take this just one step further, I really would like to know how many cars and how much it costs to ferry US military personnel, generals, colonels, and the like back and forth between the Pentagon and the US Capitol. The amount of money dedicated by the Pentagon to engage and penetrate the legislative branch of government must be impressive.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Trial Date Set in Egypt for 16 Americans and Other Pro-Democracy Workers

By on 18 February 2012

NGO’s have rarely, if ever, been targeted this way and have been operating in Egypt and around the world for years.

Egypt sets trial date for pro-democracy workers – The trial of 43 people charged with unlawfully conducting pro-democracy work will begin Feb. 26, state media reported Saturday, in the latest sign that the Egyptian government is disinclined to heed Washington’s warning that failure to drop the matter could lead to a cut off of U.S. aid.

The announcement of a trial date for the defendants, including at least 16 Americans, came as the state-run newspaper, al-Ahram, published several stories that portrayed the work of the non-government organizations as underhanded and a threat to Egypt’s sovereignty.

The al-Ahram report goes on to say that Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, already requested to transport the 7 indicted Americans with him as he departed Cairo recently, with Secy. LaHood’s son one of those being detained. Egyptian officials decline the request.

White House and State Dept. hadn’t released statements at the time of this post.

As an aside, I have always marveled at Egyptian men turning away from the heritage seen in their ancient erotic art, drawings and relics. The earliest erotica can be traced back to ancient Egypt. Any time you see a watering can or vessel in mural or any other Egyptian art, pay close attention to the details, which very likely will lead you to a corporeal setting.

It’s hard to think of this latest development of the Egyptian revolution that ousted Mubarak without thinking of Secy. Clinton’s first words. She came out first to say the Mubarak regime was “stable,” quickly having to eat those words. Can there be any doubt that knowing the Middle East as she does what Clinton was envisioning were circumstances the U.S. could no longer control through our “friend”.

If you believe in freedom you’ve got to also understand that societies kept in bondage for a century are going to unleash fury once freed. That goes double for Egypt, which is the beating heart of where Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of Al Qaeda and leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood back in the ’50s and 1960s, lived.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Secy. Clinton’s Strength at State Seen in Obama Budget

By on 14 February 2012

Secretary Clinton is welcomed to Munich conference by host Wolfgang Ischinger. State Dept Image (Feb 04, 2012)

Provides $51.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an increase of 1.6 percent, or $0.8 billion over the 2012 enacted level when including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) resources. Within tightly capped budget constraints, the Budget makes investments in key priorities including the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus continues funding for critical initiatives such as global health, climate change and food security. – Budget: DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

It’s the Hillary Effect.

An event that occurs or when something important is impacted because of Hillary Clinton’s presence, her power and strength of persuasion that is built entirely upon purpose.

It’s why she’s been so effective, even when I’ve disagreed with her, like on Libya. This chasm doesn’t change that her cunning helped get people, the Arab League for instance, to listen, then act.

It’s another example of what I write about in The Hillary Effect.

However, looking at Syria through the lens of Libya, let’s be perfectly clear what the Obama administration is saying through policy.

“Ultimately, it’s going to be important to convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria,” Clinton said. “No one wants to see a civil war in Syria. So we have to encourage the Assad regime, and those who support it, to understand that there’s either a path toward peacemaking and democratic transition – which is what we are promoting – or there’s a path that leads toward chaos and violence, which we deplore.” – Clinton: We need Assad’s consent to put troops in Syria, by Josh Rogin

Humanitarian intervention through military might will be utilized, but only when it’s fully convenient; access to water helps. Because if any situation required humanitarian action and intervention by the world it is in Syria, where innocents are being slaughtered and have been for weeks. In Libya there was only a threat of massacre, whereas in Syria it’s playing out now.

However, as Rogin reports, the Obama administration is “looking for a political solution in Syria and won’t consider putting international troops there unless the Syrian regime agrees.” Because of the proximity of Syria to Israel and its primacy in the region, as well as being land-locked, which is no small issue, there is little the U.S. can do without risking very serious consequences, something that wasn’t a threat with Libya.

In Pres. Obama’s new budget, where the State Dept. received a slight increase over last year’s budget, you can see the prowess soft power has gained since Bush-Cheney. You can peruse for yourself, the entire State Dept. budget available on pdf.

I was thinking of Ryan Lizza’s article “The Obama Memos” when the news of Clinton’s budget victory the State Department was reported:

One Cabinet official made it clear that she did not share the President’s growing commitment to coupon-clipping: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She rejected the White House’s budget for her department, and wrote the President a six-page letter detailing her complaints. Some in the White House saw the long letter as a weapon, something that could be leaked if Clinton didn’t get her way. “At the proposed funding levels,” Clinton wrote, “we will not have the capacity to deliver either the full level of civilian staffing or the foreign assistance programs that underlie the civilian-military strategy you outlined for Afghanistan; nor the transition from U.S. Military to civilian programming in Iraq; nor the expanded assistance that is central to our Pakistan strategy.” She went on, “I want to emphasize that I fully understand the economic realities within which this budget is being constructed, and I share your commitment to fiscal responsibility. But I am deeply concerned about these funding levels.”

The letter contained indications of a real relationship between the former rivals. “You and I often speak about the need to restore the capacity of civilian agencies,” Clinton noted. But the general tone was stern and businesslike. It ended with an urgent plea for Obama to intervene on her behalf. “There is little room for progress unless you provide guidance that you are open to an increase in overall funding levels,” she wrote. Obama did indeed fight for some additional money for Clinton.

Mark Leon Goldberg had the same idea when he wrote his piece for UN Dispatches.

As I noted at the time of Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, we are seeing the final moves of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She’s stated that if Pres. Obama is reelected she will not serve a second term and I doubt anything will change her mind.

From Goldberg’s UN Dispatch’s piece on the budget, first section in bold below is from his original post, the second is added:

This will be the last foreign affairs budget request in which Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. At a time when other agencies are seeing their budgets slashed or flat-lined, the State Department managed to receive a slight increase over last year’s funding levels. I can’t help but think that having a politically powerful Secretary of State had something to do with this.

Without a strong secretary of state fighting for diplomatic and soft power priorities, the cuts seen at other agencies would likely be delivered to the State Dept.

I’ve been thinking for some time whether Pres. Obama will pick Sen. John Kerry next; though I must say that Kerry coming out against Obama’s contraception mandate is not a small thing.

There can also be no doubt that Pres. Obama listened to Secy. Clinton’s case for the increase, proving this relationship has indeed been all that I wrote it would be.

State is also drawing down its personnel in Baghdad. Pres. George W. Bush’s boondoggle embassy in Iraq, a titanic monstrosity, is scheduled for massive cuts, which is very good news for everyone, especially the Iraqis.

The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.

The swift realization among some top officials that the diplomatic buildup may have been ill advised represents a remarkable pivot for the State Department, in that officials spent more than a year planning the expansion and that many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived.

Michael W. McClellan, the embassy spokesman, said in a statement, “Over the last year and continuing this year the Department of State and the Embassy in Baghdad have been considering ways to appropriately reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Iraq, primarily by decreasing the number of contractors needed to support the embassy’s operations.”

Everyone remembers what the Cheney-Rumsfeld alliance did to the State Dept.

Secy. Clinton came in to a greatly diminished and in some cases, gravely demoralized foreign service team. What she’s done in Obama’s first term has injected new purpose, meaning and power into State, with the power she wields through the Hillary Effect giving her a seat at the boys’ table.

The Pentagon has won more battles, because the defense industry remains one of the toughest and most formidable lobbying arms in America, with the challenges in the world going well beyond State’s reach.

Issues, however, remain. They begin with Pres. Obama’s foreign policy itself and the eye-in-the-sky predator drone strike priority of his Administration, as well as the choice of surgical assassinations. It has rendered Obama counterterrorism policies a cold, bloodless, and lawless venture for Americans who simply look on from afar; the collateral damage we wreak void of glaring light or witness, except for the elite forces that sweep in and out unseen.

Progressives are looking the other way, with a Washington Post/ABC-News poll just last week showing Democrats approve of Pres. Obama’s tactics. Put the name Pres. Romney behind these same policies and I can hear the caterwauling echo. Both Glenn Greenwald and Greg Sargent made a similar point when the polling was first released.

The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed. – Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies

It’s why you have stories like what’s in the LA Times today:

Pentagon working with FAA to open U.S. airspace to combat drones

The military says the nearly 7,500 robotic aircraft it has accrued for use overseas need to come home at some point. But the FAA doesn’t allow drones in U.S. airspace without a special certificate.

It means when hell comes knocking at the hands of people who have scores to settle, nobody will have clean hands.

Secy. Clinton getting a small increase in State’s budget won’t come close to challenging what’s become a foreign policy that adopts a water’s edge philosophy in the worst of what that means. It melds Bush-Cheney with the Obama-Biden era, with the lack of morality and conscience best represented in Libya and Syria.

Being moral and just, committed to upholding U.S. and international laws in the face of great challenges including political pressure, but only when it’s convenient, isn’t something to commend or support.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Dem Lawmaker: Obama Budget Nervous Breakdown on Paper

By on 13 February 2012

**UPDATED**

“This budget is a nervous breakdown on paper,” said Cleaver during an interview on CNN’s “Starting Point” Monday morning. “We’re still in a recession, we’re still struggling. Unemployment is still too high,” he said. – The Hill


Pres. Obama is also campaigning for the payroll tax cut to be extended, as you’ll see in the video.

As for the budget, Republican austerity star had a different take, of course:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) accused the White House on Sunday of “failing … to articulate how their upcoming budget would lift the crushing burden of debt and tackle our nation’s most pressing challenges.”

…and the beat goes on.

UPDATE 3: Obama’s chief of staff Jack Lew misspeaks on Senate numbers to pass budget.

UPDATE 2: Reuters covers the $800 million for the Arab Spring.

UPDATE: Obama’s budget remarks have been added above. Politico has a rundown, which includes “an additional $593 million proposal to do away with tax deductions for conservation easements on golf courses.”

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Obama and the Boiling Middle East

By on 07 February 2012

“So what do we do? Well, faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with those allies and partners who support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future. We have to increase diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime and work to convince those people around President Assad that he must go, and that there has to be a recognition of that and a new start to try to form a government that will represent all of the people of Syria,” [Secy. Hillary Clinton] said. – Josh Rogin

It’s no secret I was against the Libya bombing and remain so. Watching the carnage in Syria reveals the flaws in the Obama administration’s strategy, as much as there was one. The unspeakable, which Josh Rogin said outright last night, is civil war in Syria. Even as Secy. Clinton worked the Arab League hard to make the NATO mission feasible, regime change looks differently once it’s over and the fallout begins.

See Egypt, where Americans are reportedly to be tried, including Secy. Ray LaHood’s son. Our so-called relationship today in that country as bad as it’s been in decades, which Josh Rogin explained with Chris Hayes last night. No doubt Secy. Clinton’s first instinct to bolster Mubarak came from this dreaded place. However, the truth is wider and deeper, of an American policy supporting dictators who are our allies in torture and rendition, as both Mubarak and Assad have been, while the people suffer.

The Arab Spring has unleashed a lot of energy, none of which Pres. Obama can predict, contain or manage very easily, but considering we engaged in the contagion to try and impact it, he’ll have to take ownership of something that is uncontrollably unpredictable.

Stephen Walt offers some thoughts on Syria, after the Libyan NATO mission.

One can argue that this was the right course of action anyway, because getting rid of a thug like Qaddafi was worth it. That’s a debate for another day, although I would note in passing that post-Qaddafi Libya remains deeply troubled and the collapse of the regime seems to be fueling conflicts elsewhere. But what if the Libyan precedent is one of the reasons why Russia and China aren’t playing ball today? They supported Resolution 1973 back in 2011, and then watched NATO and a few others make a mockery of multilateralism in the quest to topple Qaddafi. The Syrian tragedy is pay-back time, and neither Beijing nor Moscow want to be party to another effort at Western-sponsored “regime change.” It is hardly surprising that Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin condemned the failed resolution on precisely these grounds. In short, our high-handed manipulation of the SC process in the case of Libya may have made it harder to gain a consensus on Syria, which is arguably a far more important and dangerous situation.

Also read Marc Lynch on what a horror it is that the U.N. failed, which no doubt is making the neoconservatives gleeful.

I wrote about this just a few days ago, but if you count Iran and Israel, the economy may be the least of Obama’s worries, with the Middle East possibly throwing a curve to all the prognosticators.

With Pres. Obama’s foreign policy credentials including ordering the slaying of Osama bin Laden, there is no sense whatsoever that Mitt Romney can make a serious challenge to Pres. Obama if the Middle East goes south.

What that means to Republicans picking a nominee is anyone’s guess. It also could be why Newt Gingrich has seduced himself into thinking the race isn’t over.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Leaked Syrian Report at Foreign Policy

By on 31 January 2012

“What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people,” said Malek. “The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.” – report by Column Lynch

After calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, which was ignored, the Arab League also called off its mission to monitor the carnage inside Syria this past Saturday. Considering they reportedly didn’t have enough armored vehicles and too few bullet-proof vests, with the details from Turtle Bay’s Column Lynch about the Chinese passing the walkie-talkies, it would be laughable if the situation hadn’t been so deadly.

Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi was in charge of the mission, which is part of the problem. Lynch has a good rundown on the general:

The mission’s international standing was also diminished by the selection of its monitoring chief — General Al-Dabbi, a close advisor of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Al-Dabbi also served as a top military officer in Darfur, Sudan, at a time when the government was organizing local militia, known as the Janjaweed, that were involved in mass killings of civilians in the region. An Algerian member of the Arab team, Anwar Malek, resigned in protest, telling Al Jazeera that the mission was a “farce.”

The leaked report is available over at Lynch’s Turtle Bay. The Europeans are unimpressed by it, while the Russians and the Security Council are in it over the bloodletting in Syria. One thing is clear after reading the report and that is the Syrian government seems to have had no intention of allowing it to succeed. From Lynch:

On Jan. 18, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby ordered the suspension of the organization’s observer mission, its first major experiment in human rights monitoring. He claimed that the escalation of violence had undercut its ability to do its job.

But a confidential account of the organization’s mission, signed by the monitor’s controversial chief and obtained by Turtle Bay, shows that the Arab monitors were hobbled from the beginning by a shortage of equipment — and by what Al-Dabbi describes as a ferocious Syrian media disinformation campaign against the monitors and him personally. “The credibility of the mission has been undermined in the minds of Arab and foreign viewers,” he wrote.

[...] “The mission…sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured [by] Syrian citizens,” Al-Dabbi wrote. “Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes.” That said, he is surprisingly candid and critical of the observer mission’s ability to perform well the task required of them.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS

By on 26 January 2012

“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2012. State Department photo/ Public Domain

I tweeted about this likelihood on Tuesday. She’ll no doubt work up until the very last second on her very last day, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful, as are we all.

We can only imagine that it’s “a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” as she also admits she “didn’t watch any of those debates.”

After she leaves State, Hillary Clinton will be able to rest, write, and then assess other options. This includes, come 2014, coming to grips on whether she’s ready to walk away from another run for the White House and possibly being the first female president of the United States.

There will be a different breed bidding for the Democratic presidential spot in 2016. However, no one in politics would be more prepared. She would, however, have to defend her continued militaristic foundation, whether it’s Libya or her continued belief in the war in Afghanistan. Her close relationship to the Pentagon and the U.S. defense industry would also be at issue. Mrs. Clinton’s closeness to Israel’s leaders and the trust built between them, would, however, hold great possibilities. Her involvement during the Libya bombing proved unparalleled, as she worked to convince Arab leaders to come on board. It would be a serious campaign, not a walk in the park, at least with progressive primary voters, though there would also be great emotions on the left to making a Democratic female a seminal part of American history.

Mrs. Clinton has also said time and again she will not run for president again.

TM NOTE: An international women’s foundation, raising money from all sides, like her husband’s CGI, and impacting women’s lives in countries around the world, is one very good bet, which I’d put money on myself.

Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which traces the history of the near twenty years of press coverage and political events that followed Hillary Clinton into the 2008 presidential race and helped make her candidacy as impossible as it was part of her destiny.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Newt Gingrich Can’t Beat Barack Obama

By on 21 January 2012

NEWT GINGRICH WINS SOUTH CAROLINA

Memo to GOP Star Chamber. RE: Not Losing the *(&#! House and Senate GOP Majority w/ Newt Disaster. Time for a Secret Meeting. – Mike Murphy tweet

UPDATE (10:00 p.m.): Once again I want to make it very clear, I do not have a candidate in the race in 2012. I will not support any candidate this year. The headline is simply a statement based firmly in reality.

Romney got clocked in South Carolina. Gingrich was in full grandiosity swoon that doesn’t lend itself to synopsis. But his characterization of Pres. Obama is unrecognizable & loopy. GOTV jet engine for Democrats. If Newt doesn’t implode it’s a first. The graph on CNN with women & men listening in Florida went sky high for males, plus for women, but lower. Earlier, priceless Chris Matthews on Gingrich in Florida: “vibraphone of erogenous zones,” referring to playing all the ethnic richness of the state.

A great mentor of mine used to say you can’t win until you’ve lost the fear of failure. Mitt Romney as underdog, could he turn into a force? Republicans sure hope so.

Rick Santorum serves up working class red meat, making the pitch for vice president.

Ron Paul seems to be talking not just about 2012, but addressing what he hopes will be a revolutionary movement that will be passed, I believe, to his son Rand Paul.

_____original post below_____

America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt. – Washington Examiner



The polling compilation from the Washington Examiner article linked above won’t surprise many, especially the girls around here.

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ice Mitt Romney, who’s now trying to hold on instead of trying to win, at the very least represents the corporate Wall Street decay in both parties for all to see. There’s some educational benefits to this contest.

Mr. Cool versus Mr. Ick Newt Gingrich reveals the rot of Republicans, but it also lets Pres. Obama off the hook on any substantive challenge that won’t be reduced to race baiting “food stamp presidency” invective.

Maybe that’s what the America people have earned for their laziness and lack of involved citizenship. People don’t seem to care that indefinite detention is real and that we continue to hold people at Gitmo without trial, because we’re too squeamish to incarcerate them with murderers in maximum security prisons. The ideals on which this country was founded are less important than the fear factor pushed by both Democrats and Republicans, with Pres. Obama’s refusal to lead continually revealing what ails us.

Leading from behind didn’t start with the bombing of Libya, though it is the first time our sleepy national press picked up on it. Pres. Obama’s entire leadership style is to lead from behind so as not to put himself too far out in front on any issue. With a majority in Congress his first two years he negotiated with himself on the stimulus, while bargaining with private insurance and drug companies, never stepping out on health care, until he sided with Stupak for optics. Leading up to the 2010 midterms, Obama hung back on offering an economic message, then extended the Bush tax cuts when he got shellacked. On the Keystone Pipeline decision this week, it wasn’t made boldly on the side of principle and the potentially dangerous environmental impact; instead it was no for now, blaming his decision on Republicans who wouldn’t give him more time, with the win more to do with activists raising a ruckus than anything. On contraception, which could have easily been embedded earlier in ACA, the decision came down just yesterday on the heels of a report that had an Obama official warning that the budget to come wouldn’t be liked by the left. This requires warning? Pres. Obama works through delivering carrot (contraceptive coverage) and stick (scuttling Plan B) tactics that depend on his political needs (the coming budget to woo independents) and have a foundation in austerity, choosing conservatism as his guide.

However, up against Newt Gingrich little would matter beyond the ick factor of this despicable man.

When it comes to women, Mr. Ick, who’s always had a problem with female voters and for very good reasons, doesn’t stand a chance against Mr. Cool.

Oh, and the video above has gone viral. …as well it should. Did you hear those squeals?

Read full story · Comments { 102 }

Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer

By on 16 January 2012



The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, gets it right, even if Andrew Sullivan’s nervous writing on the subject gets it wrong. Anyone believing Pres. Obama would have a presidency any different than has manifested is dumb. However, it’s certainly not because Obama’s long game will outsmart his critics, as Sullivan posits.

It’s because there was nothing in Obama’s past that pointed to decisive progressive or F.D.R. leadership, which has resulted in many of his current critics on the left being disappointed and disillusioned. The media in ’08 never bothered to tell that story, with the very few who did, of which I was an early writer, being vilified for our efforts.

I have chronicled why since 2007, having interviewed and talked to some of the Chi-town crowd who saw Obama rise (in 2007) while following candidate Obama on the trail in early 2008. I outlined it further in my piece, “Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama.”

The Obama supporter in the video shown here is “not disappointed by Pres. Obama.”

I’m not either.

The difference is that I’m not as exhausted as this particular Obama supporter seems to be, because I don’t feel the need to defend him or attempt a pitch on his presidency that comes with no enthusiasm and gives lesser of two evils as the foundation. Watching the video is actually depressing instead of convincing.

I’m also not disappointed to say most of the things Pres. Obama has accomplished most any Democratic president would have also done, which may be part of the reason most die hard Obama fans always end up their arguments talking about the appalling choices on the right.

It’s what has led me to the view from a recovering partisan outlined in “The Party’s Over.”

The exhausted Obama supporter in Newsweek‘s case is the conservative who recently endorsed Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, whose rhetorical flailing can’t do anything but remind everyone of his convoluted and corrupt theories of intelligence and race, which is mixed in with his bankrupt C.S.I. ramblings on Sarah Palin paternity, which I chronicle in my book. But who can forget Sullivan’s main case for Pres. Obama in ’08, his face. Fan politics has never been so fully defined.

That Andrew Sullivan is for reforming entitlements, and fiscally conservative, is unlikely to be remembered in his case for Pres. Obama. There are few heartfelt endorsements coming from anywhere, with “Republicans are Worse” the main Obama reelect theme. Torture runs deep on pluses with Sullivan, as it should, and DADT is important, a policy who’s time had come, with activists the prime movers on this one. Sullivan’s certainly not concerned about the erosion of women’s individual freedoms, which exploded when Pres. Obama refused to make the economic case in 2010, handing legislatures across the country over to the right that led to an assault on unions, the middle class and a war on women’s rights. He seems unmoved by the Bush-Cheney neoconservatism in Pres. Obama’s foreign policy, including indefinite detention cloaked in the window dressing of an executive order that is more marketing than substance, because the un-American option remains a choice.

However, the real issue with Sullivan’s case on Barack Obama’s 8-year, long-haul case is that it is inarguably the worst Republican field in modern history. No one doubts Pres. Obama is beatable, but in order to do so you at least have to nominate someone for whom voting is a worthy exercise and viable option that doesn’t make you gag. That someone so unloved, barely respected, even vilified by conservatives, will be the Republican nominee proves that the challenger Pres. Obama will likely face is someone for whom conservatives can barely vote.

Mitt Romney is a one-percenter in an Occupy era who can’t even close with Republicans.

Sure he’s the best candidate among the field, but what does that even mean this year? Better than Rick Perry, who can’t remember three bullet points of his own philosophy? Better than big government conservative Rick Santorum who doesn’t believe in birth control, thinks gays are worse for children than an orphanage, neither stance embraceable by independents, and is a “pro-life” politician who has a blood lust for war? Jon Hunstman, the smartest man in the field— Oh, right. A better choice than the hypocritical Newt Gingrich, an ethics challenged, multi-married opportunistic, tantrum prone priss who would rather take his party down by challenging their core foundation with gas bag rhetoric based on lies to get it done?

Then there is Ron Paul, whom Sullivan endorsed recently. Paul is more anti-war than the once anti-Iraq war market-pitching, regime change, indefinite detention backing “Democratic” president. Paul also wants to take on the drug war, something that hits minorities more than any other policy, and honor civil liberties, which Sullivan conveniently ignores for the very reasons I just stated in the previous paragraph. He simply can’t vote for the Republican rabble. Paul also doesn’t have a path to win, so Obama’s the next best stop for Sullivan, an obvious lesser than other evils voter.

He’s not alone.

So, if Pres. Obama succeeds in beating Mitt Romney, assuming he prevails, is it really due to the President’s long term strategy? No, it’s not. It’s due to voters feeling they have no other choice, because it’s been obvious for some time the American electorate wants one, including Andrew Sullivan.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

It’s Back to Motorcross for Jon Huntsman

By on 16 January 2012

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — Jon Huntsman will drop out of the GOP presidential race Monday morning and endorse Mitt Romney, POLITICO has confirmed. Huntsman will endorse Romney in a speech at 11 a.m. Monday at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center.

Tomorrow from Jon Huntsman Jr. on Vimeo.

National politics isn’t Utah and the man proved to have no national political talent or touch.

Jon Huntsman just never got it and his intellect, policy prowess and experience was never communicated in a manner that could resonate. He may have been handsome, but he had no charm.

The other fact that he never defined himself as the Republican conservative, but decided to make the colossal miscalculation of trying to win independents before he got the nomination, is nothing new. Politicians make this mistake all the time.

But it came down to the diplomat not having the chops or the instinct for the game of presidential politics. He was also positively tone deaf.

When Stephen Colbert is polling higher than you are there really is no other choice.

Americans Elect is still hunting for a candidate, but Huntsman’s endorsement of Mitt Romney kills that deal, though it’s not clear he could maximize that opportunity anyway, because this first run at the title has been a disaster.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats

By on 15 January 2012


As much as our national media deserves criticism, a central focus in my book, some are at least offering alternative candidates airtime. Chuck Todd interviewed Rocky Anderson when he announced the formation of the Justice Party, Joe Scarborough invited Buddy Roemer on Morning Joe, with George Stephenopoulos the latest, though there are other examples as well. Our media is starting to at least acknowledge what’s going on outside the establishment bubble, which is important, because free media can at least get these candidates and the cause to challenge the status quo into the national conversation.

Stephen Colbert easily got as much time as Rick Perry on ABC’s “This Week,” now back with George Stephanopoulos at the helm. In the race against Romney, one of the most hilarious and effective counter intuitive punches was leveled by Colbert today through “Mitt the Ripper,” making a mockery of both sides where Mitt Romney is concerned. It had the added virtue and punch of representing what Ron Paul is doing, but also, if to a much lesser extent, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson.

Colbert satirizes the over the top tactics to make Mitt Romney the target of all that ails our country, our economy and the corporate tactics that are taking down the middle class. Colbert’s satirical attack on Romney also has the credibility of not only representing Newt Gingrich’s banchee Bain cry, but also partisan Democrats who have their heads in the sand about their own side’s culpability where crony capitalism is concerned, which I wrote about this past week.

From ABC:

Colbert’s super PAC, which was re-named The Definitely Not Coordinated With Stephen Colbert Super PAC after Colbert announced his exploratory committee, launched an ad in South Carolina this week labeling Mitt Romney a “serial killer.”

The Colbert super PAC ad is an obvious spoof of anti-Romney ads being run by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC in the Palmetto State. Gingrich has said any untrue statements should be removed from the ad, but, because the PAC does not coordinate with Gingrich, it has refused to re-edit the ads, which some say stretch the truth about Romney’s time at Bain Capital.

Colbert took a similar tone, saying he had “nothing to do” with the “serial killer” ads.

“I am not calling anyone a serial killer,” Colbert said. “That’s not my super PAC.”

On the other side, seriously challenging whether other conservative candidates are an alternative, there is Ron Paul. His anti-war, non-interventionist foreign policy is resonating with young people like no candidate in decades, which is wrapped in an economic message that’s simple and clear.

Paul’s candidacy has brought about a real battle inside progressive circles on the power and potential of Ron Paul’s influence in 2012, with a growing number of anti-war progressives willing to forgive clear issues Dr. Paul raises about his aversion to any safety net, his libertarian notions of freedom and liberty that don’t apply to women, as well as his states rights flippancy on civil rights. However, it’s close to inarguable that anyone who wants a real shift in the way we handle our foreign policy and economic policy, both of which are crippling what we can do here at home, has a real reason to consider voting for Ron Paul, since there will always be points of disagreements on any candidate chosen. The one thing you can say about Paul is that he’s the most philosophically consistent and transparent politician in the race today.

The pressing issues of 2012 include the erosion of civil liberties, which Pres. Obama and Democrats have approved, going along with Bush-Cheney neoconservatism terrorism polices, as well as the model of regime change. Economically, Obama, Democrats, Republicans and the majority of conservatives still approve of deep foreign intervention and a cascade of military involvement. Both parties evidently are convinced that America’s economic engine depends on defense expenditures, which is as frighting a thought as it is plausibly true. When it comes to priorities, neither Democrats or Republicans are offering an answer.

Robin Koerner wrote about the challenges in 2012 last summer on Huffington Post. Here’s an excerpt:

If you’ve read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again “because you’ve always been a Democrat” or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don’t you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

Obama fans and Democratic voters say in emails and tweets to me all the time that they’re “trapped” and have no choice but to vote for another Obama term. If you choose to vote for another 4 years of Democratic capitulation to conservatism, fiscal profligacy that benefits the 1%, and foreign policy intervention and militarism, that’s your choice. Go for it, just don’t say you have no choices.

Another issue is the American electorate is still comprised of a majority of people who are embarrassed about being associated with candidates who are outside the system. People want to be associated with the winner and outsiders like Ron Paul, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson or any other politician taking on the establishment can’t win, because the money is stacked against them. When the American electorate won’t step outside their self-imposed partisan boxes they construct a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A couple of emails from people on the subject, one on Rocky Anderson’s candidacy: “does Anderson/JUSTICE grab you?”

One person wrote the following, with an accompanying link that encourages Democrats to register Republican to support Ron Paul and send a message:

Interesting idea from “George Washington” blog: to get the issues of war, civil liberties at least debated, register Republican one time only, vote Ron Paul in Rep. Primary. Then figure out what to do in the general.. –link provided in email went to this text–

Forget what you’ve been taught … the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans are virtually identical on all core matters.
Obama, Gingrich, Romney and the whole sorry lot are for more war, for further crackdowns on our Constitutional liberties, and for giving the Federal Reserve all of the unchecked power that it wants.

Don’t fall for the old divide-and-conquer trick.

Whatever you may think of Ron Paul, he has consistently championed three core American for three decades. Paul has consistently argued for the following three positions which Americans overwhelmingly favor:

  • Stop the never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars
  • Restore our liberties, and stop the march towards martial law, indefinite detention idiocy, and the crack down on the Internet
  • Rein in or abolish the Federal Reserve
  • None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates support these positions, and the mainstream media has done everything it can to try to squelch debate on these issues.

Somewhere between Stephen Colbert calling Mitt Romney a “serial killer,” with the Democrats mimicking that cry without any hint of irony of their own crony capitalism, and Ron Paul’s power with many people, it’s clear no matter what the eventual outcome is in November that the 20th century paradigm of two party rule is being challenged in fundamental ways that could over time bring about its replacement.

Obama fans charge that this conversation is actually about trying to depress the vote, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Others posit that it’s about voting or starting a third party, which is part of the small thinking that permeates our political discourse, because choices outside the establishment parties exist today, with the options stronger and more viable than they’ve ever been.

The intent of this conversation is to inspire and empower people to think about their vote and what it means when they cast it for either Democrats or Republicans, considering what each represent. Both of these establishment parties are bought and paid for by corporations and Wall Street, as are their institutional backers. All part of the blind partisan pack who either squeal “Obama is a socialist” or contend Romney is a “serial killer” capitalist, while railing at Ron Paul as a wacko or worse to make you embarrassed about your vote, simply because Paul and others are outsiders taking on the status quo.

Consider being a change agent instead of a person captive to the marketing of change, which comes from both sides.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow, a Super PAC not associated with Stephen Colbert’s South Carolina presidential campaign, is not responsible for this message.


Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Secy. Clinton’s Speech on Women, Peace and Security

By on 20 December 2011

Of course, we understand that there are differences that are of historic and cultural importance in many places around the world. And many of those we respect, and we try to be very sensitive to the legitimate concerns that people have about protecting what they value in their own societies. But there are certain actions that are beyond any cultural norm. Beating women is not cultural, it’s criminal, and it needs to be addressed and treated as such. (Applause.) – Secy. Clinton

It was a tremendous speech and a very important one. I tweeted many of her best sound bites, but there were so many. Secy. Clinton also announced an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, for which Pres. Obama deserves credit.

We all know that this focus on women as part of U.S. foreign policy is being guided by Secy. Clinton, who began this push as first lady that is the foundation of my book (now in print). It is part biography of Clinton, part autobiography as well because of the trajectory of my life and its link with the modern feminist movement and Hillary’s rise, which follows 20 years of politics.

It is another example of the Hillary Effect, with Clinton’s position at State solidifying the importance of women in United States foreign policy under Pres. Obama, which has never been given the focus it has before.

Farah Pandith, special Representative to Muslim Communities for the State Department, attributed this goal to the “Hillary effect,” a phrase that has come to describe Clinton’s contagious enthusiasm. Pandith applauded Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign, citing “15 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” – Clinton inspires Barnard students at State Department (h/t Daniel Aubry)

The text is here.

That is why this morning, President Obama signed an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security – a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the United States Government to advance women’s participation in making and keeping peace. This plan builds on the President’s national security strategy, and it was jointly developed by the Departments of State and Defense, USAID, and others with guidance from the White House. I also want to take a moment to recognize all our partners in civil society and the private sector who contributed, many of whom are here today. Without your on-the-ground experience, your passionate commitment, and your tireless effort, this plan would not exist, and we look forward to working just as closely together with you on implementing it.

…It’s true that the question of just how women contribute to peace and security, aside from the high-profile woman who sits at the table, or the nation’s leader that makes the peace, what it is that women themselves across the board can do? Well, this does deserve far more quantitative research and rigorous study. That’s why Georgetown’s plan to establish an Institute for Women, Peace, Security, and Development, to support scholarship and research, as well as outreach, will help us elevate public understanding of this important matter. It will be a home for primary source material such as oral histories, and quality analysis that will help activists and leaders as well. I can’t wait to see it up and going. A new push on research and data collection will be particularly useful for us as we implement our own National Action Plan.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Romney’s $10,000 Bet Trends Worldwide, While Gingrich Flunks History

By on 11 December 2011

While Twitter and the press were giddy over Romney’s $10,000 bet-pocalypse line, the serious gaffes of the night went to “historian” Newt Gingrich, who called himself a Reagan conservative, doubling down on his “invented” Palestinian line, which doesn’t come close to Reagan’s views at all.

Throughout this period of difficult and time-consuming negotiations, we never lost sight of the next step of Camp David — autonomy talks to pave the way for permitting the Palestinian people to exercise their legitimate rights. – Ronald Reagan (h/t Ben Smith via Twitter)

You can make your own bets over which will get more coverage.

“He’s going to own that $10,000 bet line,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse said on Twitter. “Nothing else he has said in this debate matters.” – TPM

Earlier in the debate, Newt landed a beautiful zinger that pretty much characterized Gingrich’s demeanor the entire debate.

“The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994.” – Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney

However, Mitt didn’t go “beet-red,” as has been predicted, with this providing a moment that proved Romney could take a punch, which he turned around with a nice line that if his dreams to be a pro football player had come true he’d have had a career in the NFL.

But at the end of the debate, Matthew Dowd proclaimed Newt Gingrich now the candidate to beat, as Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet line ricocheted across Twitter. It’s stunning Romney’s people are trying to push that it won’t hurt him, as #What10kbuys was trending worldwide.

“I’ll bet you a bottle of 1961 Chateau Lafitte that I’m a regular guy.” – Paul Begala

There was little discussion of jobs, with climate change not addressed at all, neither was China or the war in Afghanistan. Diane Sawyer took a beating on Twitter.

I’m still not there on Newt Gingrich and this debate moved people like Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann up, maybe even Santorum and Perry, because he served up the Romney trap. Maybe I’m blind to Gingrich, because I know his history, but tonight I simply disagree with the majority who think he “won.” I found him pompous, though the base will like that, though I think his surly demeanor, but also his clear petulance at Bachmann’s bites, made him look like an elite who doesn’t like to be questioned.

Newt will tell “the truth” all the way to losing 40 states in November… – Mike Murphy

Michele Bachmann grabbed hold of Mitt and Newt, conjuring up the perfect political clone of the two heavy weights, naming it “Newt Romney” and never let go. She even was able to draw first blood on Gingrich, whom she clearly pissed off by going after his record, making Newt look surly and small at one point. Bachmann was able to remind her home state fans just why she won the Ames straw poll, while invoking Herman Cain every chance she got to try to pull his supporters over to her side. Watch her numbers this next week.

Rick Santorum, yes, him, had his best night.

It’s why neither Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney will be impacted much by what happened last night, though the problem for Romney is the reverberation of the $10,000 bet line. For one thing, it will aid Obama and the Democrats greatly and help them continue to drill down that he’s slick Mitt, the one-percenter, because the line wasn’t off the cuff, it came out like a serious bet.

Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register tweeted this: Not too many Iowa caucusgoers are the sort to offer a $10,000 bet, even on a sure thing.

The fact that Romney would have won the bet hardly matters (h/t @JakeTapper). That’s not what it was about. The tone deafness rang like John Kerry’s I-voted-for-the-87-billion… yada-yada line, which stuck to him like a bad smell the whole campaign.

However, Newt Gingrich’s Palestinian line has real legs too and an impact that would have real and lasting damage if this wasn’t a Republican primary. Rick Santorum backed up Romney’s analysis of the line in the debate.

Newt during the debate (emphasis added in the quotes shown below):

“Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes,” he answered. “Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States? The current administration tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process… Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left? We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East.”

Romney countered:

“The last thing [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who’s a historian, but someone who is also running for president of the United States stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in… his neighborhood,” Romney said. “And if I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that I don’t say anything like this. Anything I say that can affect a place with — with rockets going in, with people dying. I don’t do anything that would harm that — that process. And, therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together because we’re partners. I’m not a bomb-thrower. Rhetorically or literally.”

When Diane Sawyer asked who won the debated between them, Santorum cited Romney:

“I think you have to speak the truth. But you have to do so with prudence.. it’s a combination,” Santorum said. “I sat there and I listened to both. I thought they both… made excellent points. But we’re in a real life situation. This isn’t an academic exercise… We have an ally here that we have to work closely with. And I think Mitt’s point… was the correct one. We need to be working with the Israelis to find out, you know what? Is this a wise thing for us to do? To step forward and to engage this issue? Maybe it is. My guess is at this point in time, it’s not. Not that we shouldn’t tell the truth, but we should be talking to our allies. It’s their fight.”

Newt’s second gafferiffic moment came when talking about Iran he said, “If we do survive…” it will be because of people like Rick Santorum, tipping his hat to him. Survive? It’s Middle East dog whistle stuff that matches his dream of John Bolton as his secretary of state. Establishment Republicans will be downing antacids like candy on this one.

The other effective candidate was Ron Paul. Romney tipped his hat to Paul’s supporters. Perry tipped his hat to him on the Federal Reserve. Newt tipped his as well. While Paul just continued to illustrate and proclaim his constancy. Watch his numbers, too.

After last night, more than ever before, Iowa is anybody’s ballgame.

Well, it’s not Romney’s, and I don’t think it’s Newt’s either, though he clearly has perfect pitch with right wing primary voters, while getting a thumbs down from the conservative intelligentsia. But it’s anyone’s guess who wins it after last night, with it really about who has the more sophisticated caucus goers, because it’s never easy inside that voting brawl.

“I think Obama won tonight.” – Al Gore on CurrentTV (The only network to do live analysis after the debate.)

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Secy. Clinton Taking Heat for Hypocrisy on Internet Freedom

By on 09 December 2011

Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the Conference on Internet Freedom, in The Hague, Netherlands. (State Dept Image by Jos van Leeuwen)

Yesterday, Secy. Clinton gave a speech on Internet freedom at the Hague. Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Clinton, as well as the Obama administration today, with the criticism well earned.

The subject is important, because there’s quite a flurry of activity right now surrounding SOPA, with all you need to know at TechDirt.

In the Senate, both the New York Times and the LA Times came out against the Protect IP Act, so have entrepreneurs. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been the champion against it, placing a hold on it.

The PROTECT IP Act Will Slow Start-up Innovation

McKinsey recently studied thirteen mature national economies and found that over the past five years, 21% of GDP growth can be directly attributed to the Internet. They found that 2.4 jobs were created for every job lost to Internet efficiencies. They also found that over the last fifteen years, an increase in Internet maturity is directly correlated to an average increase in real per capita GDP of $500. By contrast, it took 50 years to see that impact during the industrial revolution of the 19th century.

The Internet is good for the economy. It is also good for consumers. McKinsey found that Internet efficiencies put $64B back in U.S. consumer’s pockets in 2009. The full report is here.

So when considering legislation or regulation that would impact the basic structure of the Internet, we believe that legislators and regulators should be guided by a key tenet of the Hippocratic Oath “FIRST DO NO HARM”.

Clinton’s speech made her a target, because of the Administration’s history, which isn’t great. The State Dept. has a history of interesting choices when it comes to online communications as well.

Many of you may remember when I challenged the official blog of State, Dipnote, when they ignored the Green uprising in Iran, two years ago this month.

From Greenwald:

What Hillary Clinton is condemning here is exactly that which not only the administration in which she serves, but also she herself, has done in one of the most important Internet freedom cases of the last decade: WikiLeaks. And beyond that case, both Clinton specifically and the Obama administration generally have waged a multi-front war on Internet freedom.

… First, let us recall that many of WikiLeaks’ disclosures over the last 18 months have directly involved improprieties, bad acts and even illegalities on the part of Clinton’s own State Department. As part of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, she was caught ordering her diplomats at the U.N. to engage in extensive espionage on other diplomats and U.N. officials; in a classified memo, she demanded “forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers” for a whole slew of diplomats, actions previously condemned by the U.S. as illegal. WikiLeaks also revealed that the State Department — very early on in the Obama administration — oversaw a joint effort between its diplomats and GOP officials to pressure and coerce Spain to block independent judicial investigations into the torture policies of Bush officials: a direct violation of then-candidate Obama’s pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White House’s dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely “hypothetical.” WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clinton’s State Department about the U.S. role in Yemen were at best deeply misleading. And, of course, those disclosures revealed a litany of other truly bad acts by the U.S. Government generally.

One headline read like this: U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet.

The Obama administration has attacked email privacy:

In a brief filed Tuesday afternoon, the coalition says a search warrant signed by a judge is necessary before the FBI or other police agencies can read the contents of Yahoo Mail messages–a position that puts those companies directly at odds with the Obama administration.

Regarding the Wikileaks diplomatic dump, did you know that wannabe diplomats are being warned off commenting on the cables? According to a report by the New York times, Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, a hub for future diplomats, got a missive from the State Dept. warning students that if they ever hope to work at State they should “avoid posting comments online about the leaked diplomatic cables.”

From: “Office of Career Services”

Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST:

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,
Office of Career Services

A grand jury was opened last May to investigate the leaking of these documents as well.

You may also remember that last January, the U.S. subpoenaed Twitter in order to gain access to the accounts of people associated with Wikileaks.

The White House warned federal employees that if they dare to even read the Wikileak documents they’re breaking the law.

The White House Office of Management and Budget blasted out a memo that if you looked at the cables on your BlackBerry you were breaking the law.

The structure for the creeping security state was laid after 9/11 during the Bush administration. There is a lot of evidence that the Obama administration and politicians are using what happened in the last decade to further encroach on the privacy of Americans, but also on tech entrepreneurs, which could end up having a chilling impact on us all.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Would Obama Veto Payroll Cut Bill If it Includes Keystone Pipeline?

By on 09 December 2011

Republicans believe that after weeks of taking a pounding from Obama over the payroll tax issue, they finally found a rallying point over the Keystone pipeline. “Everybody sees the president’s delay on the Keystone pipeline [for] what it is: He doesn’t want to choose between his political base, labor and environmentalists,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who heads up the Republican Conference’s 2012 efforts. But even though Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas support the pipeline project, top Senate Democrats are confident they’ll remove “extraneous” GOP provisions. – Politico

Right-leaning The Hill news outlet has a different take.

For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), there’s nothing like a presidential veto threat to make his job easier.

Pres. Obama delaying his decision on the Keystone Pipeline is like everything he does, it’s about his reelection and motivated by politics.

But while Republicans won’t tax millionaires, they are also trying to cut federal unemployment insurance benefits substantially too, as almost 1 million people are about to see the end to the aid in January.

So this is a very interesting development with the Keystone gambit smart for Republicans if they’d give on the millionaire surtax, but they won’t. It would also provide Pres. Obama an out, something that’s always appreciated by any politician.

If he caves on Keystone, it’s like what he did last year on extending the Bush tax cuts, but lately Obama doesn’t seem to be in that same mood. In 2010, he’d just come off a brutal shellacking in the midterms. Looking at Republicans today, Newt at the top of the ticket, with Santa coming early giving Obama reelect The Donald’s Apprentice debate (if it still happens, because most aren’t showing up), Pres. Obama is in the power position.

Nothing counts unless the Senate can pass the bill. But if they do, something that doesn’t happen often these days, and it comes to Pres. Obama’s desk, will he actually veto it?

In the background is what Barack Obama would likely do in a second term, with no political threat left. I believe he’d okay the Keystone Pipeline, because he’d be safe to rack up what the White House would call accomplishments. This isn’t Yucca Mountain, which I lived through out west. There’s a lot of ignorance about the environmental dangers of Keystone, with Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell saying that people will be protected environmentally from the dangers of what the Keystone could bring.

So, imagine a Cordray recess appointment, coupled with an Obama veto on a bill that extends the payroll tax and unemployment insurance, because of Keystone is included.

It would be an interesting way to end the year, with Obama cornering Republicans on raising taxes just as 2012 rolls in.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Why is John Bolton’s name trending on Twitter?

By on 07 December 2011

“If he’ll accept it, I will ask John Bolton to be secretary of state.” – Newt Gingrich

It’s happening right now and now you know why. The accompanying tweet snark is priceless.

That officially makes Newt Gingrich scarier than George W. Bush.


Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Secretary Clinton: ‘Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights’

By on 06 December 2011

The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday. President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality. – U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad

What Pres. Obama has done through this directive is historic. Having Secy. Clinton to deliver the message makes it resound.

To use American foreign aid to combat foreign governments from criminalizing homosexuality is something only a president can do and Barack Obama has done a great and controversial thing, given the focus on foreign aid and our economic state, through his decision.

This speech continues what Hillary began in Beijing, China as first lady in 1995, a speech that is foundational to my book, The Hillary Effect, and which is cited in the Introduction. The Hillary Effect itself, along with Secy. Clinton’s advocacy, helped by time, made possible by Pres. Obama’s courageous act, aided by the advocacy of gays and lesbians fighting for equality, which reached critical mass on DADT, manifested a global moment of pride for our country today.

Contrary to the naysayers, I always contended, in fact I knew, that Barack Obama could have no stronger partner than Hillary Clinton in his Administration. Having studied her for two decades, I had never a doubt. Their partnership here sings out.

It is a great day for which we owe Pres. Obama a great deal, with this speech by Secy. Clinton a historic moment for her as well.

Of course, in an election season, nothing this grand could go without scurrilous words from the right. It’s fitting that it comes from Rick Perry.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. … Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. … This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Ah yes, human rights as “special rights,” the threats of torture and even death for gays not enough to convince Republicans like Rick Perry that this is a human rights issue.

This is the sort of action that inspires people to repeat the axiom that presidential elections be seen as a choice and not a referendum. Only a president can make such a groundbreaking, sweeping decision. It’s a reminder that hits deep for many and will bind some people to Pres. Obama tightly, while also revealing a core tenet of the Democratic Party.

First Lady Hillary Clinton said “human rights are women’s rights.”

Today she spoke for America once again saying, “human rights are gay rights.”

It is a great day.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Jon Huntsman Sends his Regrets in Snark

By on 03 December 2011

From Business Insider:

“Lol. We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn.” – Tim Miller, a spokesman for Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign

The rest is up to New Hampshire.

Because it’s clear Republican primary voters across states where Newt Gingrich is surging haven’t a clue.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Pakistan to Boycott Conference on Afghanistan Future

By on 29 November 2011

According to Afghan security officials, their commandos were engaged with U.S. Special Operations troops in a nighttime raid against suspected Taliban insurgents when they came under cross-border fire and called in an airstrike. – Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan

Watching the reaction of the Pakistanis after the NATO bombing incident that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, it was hard not to wonder if this would escalate further. It just did.

Calling the event a “tragedy,” Pres. Obama did not offer an apology, mainly because the events that played out are being contested.

From Foreign Policy’s daily brief today:

Pakistan’s government announced Monday that it will not participate in an upcoming conference in Bonn, Germany on Afghanistan’s future, in protest to this weekend’s bombing of two border posts in Mohmand by NATO forces that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers (BBC, Tel, AP, Reuters, ET, AFP). The decision came during a meeting of Pakistan’s cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who promised in an interview with CNN Monday that there would be no more, “business as usual” with the United States following the raid (CNN, Reuters, ET, AFP/Dawn). In a briefing Tuesday Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem called the incident a “deliberate act of aggression” by the United States, and said Pakistan was still deciding if they will cooperate with an American probe of the attack, whose results are due to be released December 23 (AP, Dawn).

Pakistan and the United States continue to dispute the events surrounding the bombing, as U.S. and Afghan officials describe a joint commando patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that came under attack from positions near or even inside the Pakistani army posts, while Pakistan has said the assault continued long after Pakistani forces identified themselves to NATO (Post, NYT, ET, BBC, AP, WSJ). President Barack Obama and other American leaders have called the incident a “tragedy” but refused to apologize (AFP/ET, Tel). The Pentagon said Monday that it would “carry on” in Afghanistan without supplies from Pakistan, which has closed its border to U.S. supplies, and Pakistan reportedly refused a request by the United Arab Emirates to review its decision to evict American personnel from the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, which the Emirates are believed to control (AFP, ET, Dawn, AFP).

Pakistan is sending a chilling message that in the short term is saying they’re pulling out of any regional involvement on what happens with Afghanistan. Since Pres. Carter signed off on funding efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there hasn’t been a development like this that I can remember.

A nuclear power in this region, with an unstable domestic landscape to boot, is not a positive prospect to consider.

Osama bin Laden picking Pakistan to hide away seems to have been foreshadowing and the result of the U.S. never quite understanding what we were dealing with in this country going all the way back to Ronald Reagan.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }