Jordan | TaylorMarsh.com

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Jordan

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

By Taylor Marsh 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 }

Hillary’s Close-Up

By Taylor Marsh on 30 October 2011

“We came. We saw. He died.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton, TIME magazine

The issue above is slated to hit newsstands on November 7, the day before my book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss comes out. I urge you to read this article, which is behind a subscriber wall. It will cost you $2.99 to get access for one week. Do it, if you possibly can. The media establishment needs to see evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton, whether you love her or hate her, is a woman worthy of coverage and that people will pay to read candid articles and books about her, because of what she has accomplished. It’s how Sarah Palin happened, even after her vice presidential candidacy collapse. Sarah became bankable because of her fans. No one deserves to become monetized in media terms, that people will pay to read about her, more than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

They say timing is everything and I certainly hope so. Because Hillary has earned it, that’s why I wrote my book. This woman, this dynamo, this fighting female made history and her story matters to American politics, but now even the world.

The TIME article also has an iconic Hollywood type shot of Secy. Clinton looking positively fabulous, by Diane Walker. You will love it. As she heads into what will be her last year at the State Department, at least according to her own statements, there can be no doubt that Hillary Rodham Clinton is riding the wave she created, the Hillary Effect.

Beyond American politics, including the galvanizing impact her loss represented for both women and men, in and out of Washington, which is the focus of my book, the Hillary Effect can be seen across her diplomatic efforts, but also in the latest action by Pres. Obama, the bombing of Libya. It’s one of the things over which Secy. Clinton and I differ greatly. But if you believe the New York Times reporting, among others, which I do, Hillary was instrumental in what manifested. The militaristic reaction by Pres. Obama and his administration, including Clinton, toward Kaddafi’s threats to massacre Libyans made them act through NATO with bombings and force. And guess what, it worked to get rid of Kaddafi.

I was strongly against Pres. Obama’s decision and disagreed with Clinton’s choice to side with Samantha Power and Dr. Susan Rice, though I understand and sympathize greatly with their humanitarian reasons to suggest bombing Libya to save the people. But what will replace Kaddafi? The stories so far are not promising, nor is what this action means to U.S. foreign policy as part of an overall strategic vision.

It’s the militaristic reaction from women, now represented very well through Libya, that proves we’ve got a long way to go before females can add the dimension needed on foreign policy matters. Of course, it helps that it’s just not practical anymore to send a large footprint into nations. However, a smaller force doesn’t mean no involvement or that our impact will not be costly to the U.S., not just financially, but more importantly in our global focus.

When it comes to military action, Secy. Clinton, as well as Power and Rice, but also Madeleine Albright, have proven women aren’t yet ready to lead differently than men. Albright once saying “What’s the point of you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can’t use it?”

Will it be different as American women take larger roles in the military and get more involved on the front lines of battle? Conservative women are always the first to say fight, “man up,” while simultaneously spewing that women shouldn’t have combat roles. The irony is not lost on people like me who study these issues and the surrounding hypocrisy.

There’s a story that’s gone around for a long time about Clinton being one of the most trusted Democrats by the Pentagon establishment, because she understands the military. It’s something former Pres. Bill Clinton did not enjoy. All of the research I’ve done proves this to be the case regarding Hillary. It comes out of her generation and her persona, which has at its core traditionalism, something that informs all she does, particularly her larger foreign policy philosophy, beyond her diplomatic instincts, but particularly her domestic priorities.

If Secy. Clinton wasn’t the star talent she is, knowing how to speak the language of men and might, she would never have convinced the Arab League and leaders of the Arab world to approve of Pres. Obama’s actions through NATO.

This is also part of the Hillary Effect.

But so was Sarah Palin’s history making presence on the Republican presidential ticket; Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party candidacy, which also made her the first Republican female in U.S. history to win a straw poll, primary or caucus; so is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s stepping out to help women like Rep. Hochul and many others; as is Elizabeth Warren, whose fan base makes her look like a presidential contender. These are just a few examples of women breaking out since Hillary’s historic candidacy that made her the first woman in U.S. history to win a major party presidential primary.

Secy. Clinton’s tenure at the State Dept., through the brilliance of Pres. Obama choosing her to not only run State but resurrect it from the ashes of Bush-Cheney, has shifted the world in the short-term. This shift is one reason why Clinton’s work post-State will be so important, because it’s a continuation of her “human rights are women’s rights” speech in Beijing, China as first lady, which began the charge of her life: convincing the world that women and girls matter to countries and that the stability of nations depends on females being part of the political process and economic future of each country.

Clinton’s feminist philosophy, if you will, has established “human rights are women’s rights” as a tenet to U.S. diplomacy, which includes women’s ability, no matter where they live, to have access to reproductive health care, in order for women to plan their life and their family.

How she’s altered the State Dept. through her leadership is the story yet to be told, which will no doubt happen once she starts her next chapter. Experts on diplomacy and statecraft will no doubt weigh in soon, though I’ve offered a brief preamble in my book.

Clinton opens a chance for women to succeed in the hierarchy of U.S. foreign policy. What has not happened is that women today have yet to break out of the male dominated militaristic language and attachment to use of force tactics to solve problems that are well outside America’s strategic interest.

Secy. Clinton has made U.S. history in putting women and girls at the forefront of U.S. diplomacy. Her impact in Afghanistan, Africa, but also in the world at large is undeniable. Across the globe backward countries like Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan still abuse and marginalize women, as will no doubt happen in Libya if sharia law is implemented. But Clinton gave women a voice, a megaphone and a platform, and though there will be brutal battles ahead to drag religious fundamentalist Arab and Muslim countries and the citizenry into modernity, it has begun.

It’s another facet of the Hillary Effect.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Peter Beinert’s Right, It’s The End Of An Empire

By Taylor Marsh on 25 March 2011

Some commentators love the Libya war; others hate it. But most agree that it’s profoundly unnatural that we were pushed into it by… France. Welcome to the post-American world. In the age we’re entering, most of the time, the choice will no longer be between humanitarian interventions controlled by the United States and humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead. The choice will be between humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead and no humanitarian interventions at all. – Peter Beinert

Pres. Obama is walking away from what Pres. Bill Clinton believed about the U.S. in foreign affairs. That we are the indispensable nation. In the year of the Arab Spring, that’s simply so ’90s.

This is what’s causing Republican heads to explode, with GOP presidential wannabes seeing this as their opening.

Rarely agreeing with Mr. Beinert, what he writes about today is the most important aspect of what’s going on over Libya, as Arab uprisings continue to spread and unwind.

He also has the most classic analysis of Gates since he uttered his own “on the fly” description of Obama’s war of choice in Libya.

I don’t know what it took to convince an obviously reluctant Robert Gates to permit American involvement in the Libyan no-fly zone, but it’s a reasonable bet that had Barack Obama not been able to promise that it would be a mostly European affair, Gates would now be a military analyst on Fox News. It’s not the 1990s anymore. The American public’s appetite for humanitarian war has always been meager. And now the American government’s capacity for waging it is meager, too.

Old school Republicans like Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney and to a lesser degree Newt Gingrich, as well as Sarah Palin, who simply doesn’t have the depth of foreign policy knowledge or study to do anything but parrot neoconservative ideology, are all caterwauling about Pres. Obama’s alleged lack of leadership. The problem with Newt’s fumbling analysis is that it reveals he’s absolutely paralyzed with fear at being humiliated in his quest for the Republican nomination, which seems baked into the plot. With Romney willing to say whatever it takes to nab the nomination this time around. The others simply refuse Obama’s premise.

Obama’s incoherence on Libya, especially Pres. Obama’s arrogant slight of Congress, is unquestionable. Sending Sec. Clinton out to do his job hardly puts to rest the argument that the women guided him into Libya, in fact it reinforces it. No doubt he’ll be center stage whenever this ill fated foreign policy misadventure concludes, taking credit, of course.

But Pres. Obama is attempting to transition the United States into a more humble foreign policy based on practicalities, not the least of which is our terrifying fiscal insolvency, even if Obama’s own mathematical solutions are as bad as Republican.

As impossibly scatterbrained as the Obama administration’s foreign policy is, looking at Republicans and their regurgitation of 20th century national security talking points that long outlived reality, is enough to scare anyone to death. Not only are they clueless about the emerging Arab world, but these fiscal numbskulls can’t even swallow that our means of making war can’t ever be again to deploy tens of thousands of troops. Modern warfare nimbleness hasn’t cracked their thick skulls yet.

But then Pres. Obama’s own stubbornness on Afghanistan is just as bad.

Beinert’s analysis of Europe is also noteworthy, as it’s the bookend change to what’s exploding in Arab nations. Part of it is due to Europe’s own experiences of war on their own soil, something America hasn’t faced. We still see bombs as flowers to people in countries we are invading to “save” for freedom, while European nations focus on the human carnage war making manifests.

Jeffersonianism has landed in Washington, which is why Obama’s taking such a hit politically.

Which leads us back to Beinert: Jeffersonians, to borrow Walter Russell Mead’s phrase, believe that preserving America’s economic and political solvency requires reining in American empire.

Ah, but countries have egos. The Republicans want to continue feeding ours, while Pres. Obama is trying to starve it.

If Pres. Obama wasn’t delivering confusion and chaos through his clumsy transition to America sharing the world’s stage with France and the rest of Europe, instead of making the case directly, which is a good one, the American people just might buy it.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Picture of the Week Represents Rolling World Events

By Taylor Marsh on 18 February 2011

**UPDATED**

Oddly enough, the union battle in Wisconsin, which has the added element of Pres. Obama and the DNC entering, adds a U.S. labor element to workers rising up from Tunisia to Egypt to Bahrain and even Libya.

Col Muammar Gaddafi is the longest-serving leader in the Arab world. Protests are not allowed in Libya, but on the energy of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions cries of freedom have broken out, along with counter protests.

Meanwhile, it’s gotten bloody in Bahrain. Nick Kristoff tweets:

Patients pouring into ER, along w tear gas . Chaos. Tr gas grenades thudding in bckground

People attacking him on Twitter:

HayaAlfa Hayaa AlFadhel @NickKristof Stop spreading lies! where were u when 200,000 Bahraini went to celebrate our king peacefully! you’re a disgrace to reporters!

From Al Jazeera English:

Troops and tanks have locked down Manama, the Bahraini capital, and a ban has been announced on public gatherings as pro-reform supporters bury their dead, a day after a violent security crackdown.
Tanks and armoured personnel carriers were patrolling the streets of Manama on Friday, where checkpoints have been set up by the country’s military.
Riot police using clubs and tear gas broke up a crowd of protesters in the city’s financial district in a pre-dawn swoop on Thursday, killing at least four people.
Al Jazeera’s correspondent, who cannot be named for security reasons, reported from Manama on Friday that thousands of people observed the funerals of three people killed in the police raid on the protesters’ tents in the city’s Pearl Roundabout area.

In Egypt, the banned cleric was allowed back into Tahrir Square to lead Friday prayers. It was the day of the “victory march.”

For the first time since he was banned from leading weekly friday (sic) prayers in Egypt 30 years ago, prominent Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi will lead thousands in the weekly prayers from Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Friday.
Sources told Al Arabiya that a military force will accompany the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars from his home to Tahrir Square, provide security for the prayers and accompany him back to his residence.

Richard Engel in Bahrain, which sounds like a harrowing place to be fighting right now. Tweets:

Reports a group from a funeral decided to march to pearl.. Shot as they approached

In Yemen, today is being observed as the “Friday of Fury.”

The New York Times reported earlier today that Mir Hussein Moussavi is missing in Iran.

The daughters of the missing opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, told an opposition Web site that they had had no word from either of their parents since Tuesday and feared they had been detained. Security forces have surrounded their home, and all communications have been cut.

TM Note: The picture above came from Twitter, original source unknown.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Arafat’s Ghost

By Taylor Marsh on 17 February 2011

From Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch on “Turtle Bay”:

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.
But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesdy [sic] of Arab representativs [sic] and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution Friday, according to officials familar [sic] with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration [sic] will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

The Palestinians are seeing what’s rolling across the Arab world, which manifested in a sacked pharaoh in Egypt, obviously believing that this is the moment to press for it all, which would undoubtedly get vetoed.

Needless to say the Right is freaking out, as you can witness here, here, here, here for starters. Other framing so far is that the Obama administration signing on to a U.N. Security Council to reaffirm that Israeli settlements are illegitimate is “a major reversal” of U.S. policy.

It’s not a reversal of what Pres. Obama has said publicly, but to do so inside the U.N. Security Council is different.

Rep. Andy Weiner is having none of it. Via Ben Smith:

This is too clever by half. Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the U.N. The correct venue for discussions about settlements and the other aspects of a peace plan is at the negotiating table. Period.

Mr. Weiner is wrong, but he’s also a New York Democrat.

On another tract, Rep. Ron Paul is trying to get $6 billion of U.S. Middle East aide cut. Via Josh Rogin:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), have not been shy about their desire to end all U.S. foreign aid. This week, the elder member of the Paul family is seeking a full House vote on an amendment that would cut $6 billion of U.S. aid to a host of Middle East countries.
Rep. Paul is trying to build support for an amendment to the fiscal 2011 funding bill that would end all foreign assistance to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan. The funding bill currently being debated by the House, called the continuing resolution (CR), is needed to keep the government running after March 4.

If you didn’t think the world had changed enough lately, just a reminder.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Egyptian Revolution Inspired by Liberalism

By Taylor Marsh on 13 February 2011

“He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: ‘We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that’s the fate of the Middle East,’” Ben-Eliezer said. “‘They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam,’” he quoted Mubarak as saying. — Mubarak slammed U.S. in phone call with Israeli MK before resignation

Conservatism didn’t inspire the Egyptian people, it was liberalism.

Control is the central tenet of conservatism. That’s what the Egyptian people were fighting against, the control of the regime in all facets of their lives.

Control is also what 20th century leaders and thinkers desperately try to hold on to in the wake of a multi-platform media explosion, which obliterates the notion you can control anything anymore.

What Mubarak warns against may happen, but eventually liberalism will win there too, even if in the confines of a religious society, a conservative construct forwarded from ancient times.

Algeria is shutting down the internet and Facebook as protests mount.

Freedom cannot be stopped. It can only be delayed.

Liberalism is what broke out in Iran during the Green uprising.

Liberalism is what kept France from accepting the burqa.

Liberalism is what sparked the uprising in Tunisia. The basic human desire to live life freely is something worth dying for, because without freedom there is no essential life.

Liberalism is what inspired Egyptians to rise up to demand freedom.

In fact, freedom itself is a liberal notion.

Women in the Mideast demanding respect are invoking liberalism, while the conservatives who prop up old rules want to inhibit their freedoms.

Gays fighting to stay alive in Muslim countries are fighting conservatism. In America, they’re fighting for the basic equality of life, which conservatives believe should be denied.

Women in America are fighting to be as free as men.

Conservatives and leading Republicans like Sarah Palin are fighting to stop that basic human right from manifesting against the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Conservatives in both political parties have made religion more important than the individual life being lived. Religion itself a conservative notion, which aims to control, unless you get beyond the organized into the self-spiritualized experience, which conservative society mocks.

Wherever liberalism is missing there is angst, anger and unrest.

Liberalism reaches out in support of our fellow man and woman, while conservatism demands up from your own boot straps mentality in a system rigged against the poor.

The Taliban and the Islamic extremists we’re fighting are all conservatives. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and many other countries are all conservative nations fighting against the freedom of people.

Conservatives, in whatever party they serve, wanted to gain control of Iraq, so they voted for preemptive war.

Conservatives wanted to control Palestinians, so they forced an election that delivered Hamas.

Conservatism is dry, infertile, cruel and deadly. It is about control and order versus freedom.

Liberalism is ripe, generous, infinite and hopeful. It is fundamentally uncontrollable, which is why people fear it. Like freedom itself, it is inexhaustible.

Everywhere in the world where people are rising up on the cry of freedom it’s because of liberalism.

Conservatism is bondage to rules, which in our country is well represented in Strom Thurmond, as well as Trent Lott, who bolted the Democratic Party to eventually form the Republican Party’s Southern wing, because they couldn’t stomach integration that was being heralded by the new liberalism of the ’60s.

Conservatism shuts off, where liberalism opens up.

Imagine if Iran’s mullahs were liberal.

Imagine if PM Netanyahu was a liberal.

Imagine if Democrats who voted for the Iraq war were guided by liberalism instead of 20th century conservative militarism.

When a small group of freshman Republicans voted against several tenets of the Patriot Act recently, they were joining liberals at a point of common ground, bipartisanship meeting organically. Liberals believing that government has no right to infringe on personal privacy without reason, with a few new conservatives agreeing because they think government’s role should be restricted so that it doesn’t impede on the individual.

Could this finally be a place to reboot, a new political beginning?

Then the Republican establishment rose up, including Rush Limbaugh, to say these conservative freshman were misinformed. The Right’s elite stepping in to curtail the freshman’s freedom to vote in favor of the people over government intervention. Their basic reasoning being that there is much to fear in the world, which makes impeding the American citizen’s freedoms worthwhile. Republican conservatism once again robbing people out of fear, which they also utilize on immigration.

“Compassionate conservatism” is finally understood to be the oxymoron it always was.

Pres. Obama is the latest elite politician to err on the side of conservatism over liberalism under his fear and ignorance moored to marketing more than truth. Because without liberalism Barack Obama would not be president. His conservatism evident amidst the Egyptian revolution, because he didn’t trust the Egyptian people’s freedom cry and know instinctively that they were in the right, no matter the outcome.

The Iranian Green uprising teaching a lesson Pres. Obama and his administration didn’t learn. The thirst for freedom will eventually win out.

If Barack Obama trusted liberalism, which he never has, he would have known what to do on Egypt from the start. If Sect. Clinton had trusted liberalism she would never have uttered that Mubarak’s government was “stable.” And V.P. Joe Biden would never have embarrassed himself by stating Mubarak shouldn’t step down or that he wasn’t a dictator. In the Administration’s struggles to get Egypt right the answer was always right in front of them, but they simply couldn’t see it and definitely didn’t trust it. It’s not just their failure, however, it’s the failure of a world coming out of the 20th century where control was policy.

Freedom cannot flourish in the confines of conservatism.

When Ronald Reagan shouted to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” it was a liberal demand.

When a conservative is crying out for freedom’s justice he’s simply pleading for a release from bondage that conservatism itself has imposed.

There’s no denying it.

Wherever freedom is breaking out, demanded or being defended, liberalism is at its heart.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

Egypt Sends Glenn Beck Squealing about a Caliphate

By Taylor Marsh on 04 February 2011

Who’s organizing these riots?

What role are Marxists playing?

What are the causes?

Glenn Beck proves fear really is a product of ignorance.

Beck is very afraid of The Arab, whom he equates to The Terrorist. Beck is also just another fundamentalist believing his religion is perfect, while Islam is unholy. It doesn’t appear he’s ever seen Al Jazeera English and evidently can’t be bothered with following their excellent live blogging on the story either.

Not a theory of a caliphate, a fact!, Glenn Beck rails. Here’s some actual information on the Muslim Brotherhood from the Council on Foreign Relations. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t even have a majority in Egypt, but Beck can’t be bothered with facts.

Rush Limbaugh and his “Imam Obama” rants add another angle to the continual demonizing of Pres. Obama. The Egypt situation is filled with opportunities for the Right to channel crazy and they’re doing it with glee.

The collective cacophony of the Right on the subject of Egypt has been deafening and dumb.

The Jewish revolution produced by the Egyptian revolt isn’t on their radar.

After the anti-regime protests in Egypt, whenever Mubarak steps down, the world will change and our relationships in the Middle East will, too. The 20th century paradigms have been smashed to smithereens. Whether Americans are ready to gear up and accept reality and our new challenges or if Frank Gaffney talking points and scare tactics will infect the 2012 presidential election season is a real choice.

You can bet foreign policy will be a central focus, even as the economy remains the biggest issue. It bodes ill for people short on national security credentials, which I believe will be important in the general election and may even be the biggest reason Sarah Palin won’t cut it, though will that matter to primary voters? Pres. Obama is in a much better position, but a lot depends on how Egypt shakes out. Whether conservative primary voters accept and appreciate the political pitfalls of putting up someone inexperienced on foreign policy matters will begin to play out soon.

Is Glenn Beck talking to Republican primary voters and are they listening? We know they’re listening to Rush & Co. Does the Right really believe the U.S. is in danger if we respect what the Egyptian people want for themselves?

If you want to know the road the Right is taking on Egypt and how they plan to capitalize on it by further demonizing Pres. Obama, see their current “Obama is Losing Egypt” campaign.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Sect. Clinton Announces Middle East Talks

By Taylor Marsh on 20 August 2010

UPDATE via AP: Iranian and Russian engineers began loading nuclear fuel into Iran’s first atomic power plant Saturday amid international concern that the Islamic Republic is seeking a nuclear weapon. State television showed what appeared to be fuel rods being loaded into the core of the reactor, which is on the shores of the Persian Gulf near the town of Bushehr. The plant is one of the first tangible results of Iran’s controversial nuclear program, which has been the target of increasingly tough international sanctions….

Amidst a very hard push on the right about Israel striking Iran, which was forwarded by Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent ramblings, good news comes today that the Obama administration has pushed back hard, convincing Israel the Iran is still at least a year away from going nuclear. That’s a concrete plus as we sit here looking out on what is coming in September.

With the partnership of Pres. Obama and Sect. Clinton, which is unmatched, the much anticipated news on talks was announced, though it’s getting drowned out by mosque mania. But before you think this is huge news, as it stands now it is more theater than anything else, which isn’t bad either. The trouble is that everyone is coming to Washington for different reasons, with no common denominator on which to begin.

Regardless of the lack of good faith that may come from the Netanyahu government, with the PM already having rejected the language of the Quartet statement, which David Ignatius mentions also, or skepticism from Abbas and the Palestinians, forging ahead is what the Obama administration must do, because this long after his Cairo speech, Pres. Obama hasn’t accomplished much of anything.

Meanwhile, looming in the near distance is the settlement agreement expiration, with no one knowing what will happen afterward or if Netanyahu will agree to extend it (even as settlements continue). With Obama in a weakened position domestically, and elections on the horizon, it’s not the strongest hand.

Sect. Clinton’s remarks, excerpted (video):

Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states – Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I’ve invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.

President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I’ve invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations.

As we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it. There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead. Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks. But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.

As we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the region.

Pres. Obama needs this theater, which will come as his speech to the United Nations General Assembly nears.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel Attacking Iran

By Taylor Marsh on 11 August 2010

The Netanyahu government is already intensifying its analytic efforts not just on Iran, but on a subject many Israelis have difficulty understanding: President Obama. The Israelis are struggling to answer what is for them the most pressing question: are there any circumstances under which President Obama would deploy force to stop Iran from going nuclear? Everything depends on the answer. – Jeffrey Goldberg

The whole premise begins on the foundation that PM Netanyahu believes Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the world’s problem. The weakness of this is that while that is so, there is not a consensus that Iran poses an existential threat to world peace. It’s over that divide the Israeli government and the U.S. stand, which makes Ehud Barak’s battle plan plausible. But Jeffrey Goldberg’s article should be seen as nothing less than Israel’s warning to the world, though I’ll leave you to decide how much stenography versus baiting versus fearmonger is involved in Mr. Goldberg’s intense rhetorical napalm*. “If (Pres. Obama) is a J Street Jew, we are in trouble,” doesn’t exactly fold into my brain as something simply added for color.

Israel won’t need or ask for our permission nor should they, besides, after Goldberg’s article it’s not like the possibilities haven’t been publicized. PM Netanyahu knows that no matter what Pres. Obama says he will not strike Iran. “All options on the table” means squat as things stand today for the U.S. in the region, as not only are our hands overflowing, but cramping from too much juggling.

From Goldberg’s piece:

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)
In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

Steve Clemons has dissected Goldberg’s piece, but it comes with the background of Steve’s latest writing that focuses solely on explaining why Obama will not choose to go to war with Iran, which I don’t think is in question and is not the issue at all. That said…

Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran. They argue self-interestedly that an aerial attack on a handful of Iranian facilities would not be as complicated or as messy as, say, invading Iraq. “This is not a discussion about the invasion of Iran,” one Arab foreign minister told me. “We are hoping for the pinpoint striking of several dangerous facilities. America could do this very easily.” (Jeffrey Goldberg)

The cold reality is that Israel’s national security issues have never been further apart than the U.S. It’s not about our friendship, which is not in doubt, but about strategic and practical benefits and risks considering our own role in the greater region today, but especially looking at our gargantuan commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will not end in the near future. But of course that doesn’t mean we won’t be drawn in.

But more importantly, Israel feels that Iran is a mortal threat to their sovereignty and very existence. The U.S. does not have the same fears and foreboding. It’s that simple a line, with nothing more important for PM Netanyahu than protecting Israel, which is the only job that matters.

Jordan’s King Abdullah warned of in 2009, that if there wasn’t a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians war would be the outcome. For the record, there isn’t anyone who can convince me Iran cares one whit about the Palestinians, no matter what is being pantomimed.

Goldberg outlines possible worldwide ramifications of an Israeli strike:

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

A couple of things. There is nothing that can “rupture relations” between Jerusalem and Washington considering domestic politics as Pres. Obama begins to run for re-election. Hate to be crass, but wake up and smell the coalition counters. American Jews, no matter what their ambivalence towards Israel, are very unlikely to stand on the side of the “bomber-boys.”

Additionally, say good-bye to the two-state solution forever, with Israel’s very existence put at peril. The “Zionist experiment” and Pres. Harry Truman’s risks finally proved a bridge too far in a hostile region where Israel stands alone. Think Humpty Dumpty and spilled yoke everywhere.

Mr. Netanyahu didn’t pick Avigdor Lieberman and his war council mistakenly. Israeli neoconservatives like PM Netanyahu think Israel stands at a crossroad anyway, so if Ehud Barak orders a strike against Iran it will be because Israel feels she has run out of options and has no choice. Whether that’s true or not, there will be very few political leaders in the U.S. who have the courage to argue it and PM Netanyahu knows it.

“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” he said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.” Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and he fears that Israel’s status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison d’être of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.

PM Netanyahu feels like he’s got nothing left to lose. If you hear Janis Joplin singing you’re not alone.

“In Israel, we heard this as nine months from June—in other words, March of 2011,” one Israeli policy maker told me. “If we assume that nothing changes in these estimates, this means that we will have to begin thinking about our next step beginning at the turn of the year.”

I just wish everyone would quit equating John F. Kennedy with this situation, in whatever manner it’s being done to draw out the drama. There is no equivalency here and the drama is very clear. Israel’s position with Iran is not close to Kennedy’s with Cuba, and Ben-Gurion talking to Kennedy on qui pro quos is irrelevant to the situation, as is Jeffrey Goldberg ending his piece with the falsely ringing finale about what Pres. Obama does in this situation will or will not make him a “great president” in Israel’s eyes, which is not only a condescending coupling, but the mother of all traps for the United States.

TM Note: The term “rhetorical napalm” was written somewhere recently and I immediately thought of it in context with the Middle East. I’ve borrowed it here and will again, though I can’t remember who wrote it first, so this is the best I can do to give credit for the brilliant word coupling.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit Theater

By Taylor Marsh on 14 April 2010

The Post’s Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.
“I’m not going to comment on their program,” Obama said.
Obama’s disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit, by Dana Milbank

Why, of course not. But it would have added substance to what was largely Obama’s nuclear summit theater.

Can you have a real nuclear security summit without discussing Israeli nuclear reality? By ignoring what Israel’s nuclear offensive weaponry means to the Middle East, while focusing solely on Iran? For that matter, what about Pakistan and India? If you didn’t see the revolving photo op, where Pres. Obama’s team herded world leaders in one at a time to get their picture taken with Pres. Obama, you missed the quintessential message of the meeting.

Sure, Pres. Obama met with leaders of both Pakistan and India the day before the “nuclear security summit.” But when you call discussing the arms race, not to mention the dangers percolating in these two countries, as “too politically divisive” to discuss at a “nuclear security summit,” it makes a mockery of the theater which I called out yesterday, before Dana Milbank wrote his piece that takes on another aspect of omission from Pres. Obama’s summit theater.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of that limited pool: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is.”
ad_icon
Alamiri’s counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”
The Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia, but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”
Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan’s Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to “say hello to the cameras” and “thank you everybody.”

However, the elephant amidst Obama’s “nuclear security summit” theater, which Pres. Obama won’t address, and neither will experts, with much of the media playing stenographer, is the issue of Israeli nukes in a region where they could draw the world into a catastrophic conflagration, the likes of which we haven’t seen before.

Mr. Obama should have stopped with the signing of the treaty with Medvedev, when he was ahead and acting statesmanlike, while getting something concrete for his efforts. He just couldn’t resist playing the leading role as Leader of the Free World in his manufactured nuclear security summit theater.

Atlantic Wire has a good summary of the stenography. Not one of the people cited even mention Israel, Pakistan or India.

So much for the U.S. press, which largely played along with the Obama administration freezing them out, happy to write the script handed down from on top. Even Joseph Cirincione fell in line.

It doesn’t seem to dawn or matter to Mr. Cirincione or anyone else that the pledges are totally voluntary, with the goals talked about easy to forget the second the photo op souvenir with Pres. Obama is framed.

A day after the White House announced Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to cooperate with the drafting of sanctions against Iran, it was clear China had not made a total commitment to squeezing Tehran. – New York Daily News

Read full story · Comments { 42 }

Netanyahu Cancels Plans to Attend Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit

By Taylor Marsh on 09 April 2010

–updated–

“The nuclear security summit is supposed to be about dealing with the danger of nuclear terror,” the official said. “Israel is a part of that effort and has responded positively to President Obama’s invitation to the conference.”
The official added: “But that said, in the last few days we have received reports about the intention of several participant states to depart from the issue of combatting (sic) terrorism and instead misuse the event to goad Israel over the NPT.” – Haaretz

Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking his smallest, sending Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor to Washington, because of a potential shift in the nuclear security summit meeting that might include a discussion targeting Israel’s nuclear “ambiguity.” (To update, Chuck Todd reports NSA Jones briefed press pool on AF1, saying Netanyahu “needed to stay in Israel for Holocaust day.” Using this commemoration as cover, because Netanyahu obviously knows the dust up he’s causing, is truly a new low; Obama White House obviously offering Netanyahu as much cover as possible.)

Over 189 countries, including Arab states, are part of the NPT, with only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea not signing on.

It brings to mind the interview Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren had with Fareed Zakaria that I wrote about at the time, which was akin to Zakaria having to pull Oren’s rhetorical teeth to get him on the record regarding Israeli ambiguity about their nuclear capabilities.

FAREED ZAKARIA: If you don’t believe you can deter a country, why did you build 250 nuclear weapons yourself?
MICHAEL OREN: Israel’s position is that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the Middle East. Stand by that position.
FZ: Wait, let me be clear. Are you denying that Israel has nuclear weapons?
MO: I’m saying that Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry into the Middle East.
FZ: When you say “introduce,” you mean use.
MO: I mean introduce.
FZ: “Introduce” means actually have them.
MO: To “introduce.”
FZ: All right, so… But the common sense understanding of that word is that Israel does not have nuclear weapons.
MO: The idea is that Israel will not be the first to introduce, deploy nuclear weaponry in the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s fear of being pressured on the NPT puts Israel on the spot and in a very bad place during a time when Pres. Obama is asking the entire world leadership community to stand up against nuclear proliferation, but also each nation’s own responsibility to help create a non-nuclear world.

Pres. Obama is willing to put U.S. skin in the game to get it done, asking other nations to do likewise. It is nothing less than a Reagonesque move, when back in the 1980s Pres. Reagan dared to dream about nuclear zero. This historic reality renders the caterwauling from the right even more ridiculous. Obama going one step further by prioritizing the policy.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is, by his diplomatic ducking, saying he will remain outside the world community, further ostracizing Israel, which doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be safe. Not only do they have conventional weaponry for aggressive defense of their country, but the world community, led by the United States, would rightly act on Israel’s behalf if she was ever threatened.

There are other issues involved as well, including commitments of Arab nations, inspired by the dangerous saber rattling from Iran and Israel. From Haaretz:

[...] Many Muslim countries have voiced alarm at alleged nuclear programs in Israel and Iran, and have repeatedly called for an agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the region.
In late March the Arab League called for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons during a closed-door sessio, calling for a review of the 1970 NPT in order to create a definitive plan for eliminating nuclear weapons.
They also called on the UN to declare the Middle East as a nuclear-weapons-free region.

If Israel feels its national security is threatened by signing on to the NPT, Prime Minister Netanyahu should not equivocate in making that case strongly to world nations at a nuclear security summit if it comes up. It’s what strong leaders do: stand up for their own national security in the face of criticism or challenges of their policies.

Ah, but the problem with that is that Mr. Netanyahu might be confronted and be forced to admit that Israel’s conventional weaponry and the deep defensive and offensive structure they have built is more than enough to take out any enemy, including Iran. Face that the world actually stands behind the defense of Israel if threatened by Iran’s potential nuclear weaponization, even if that’s a long way off, and that the time to join the world to fight Iran on different turf than mere belligerence is an idea whose time has come.

The issue to be discussed at Obama’s nuclear security summit is “the danger of nuclear terror,” not the NPT, and Mr. Netanyahu hiding behind potential challenges to Israeli policy makes his country look like an unsophisticated, scared rogue nation, instead of the powerfully great little democracy it is today.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Of Underpants, Double Agents, and David Ignatius

By Taylor Marsh on 05 January 2010

The bomber appears to have been invited to an operational planning meeting on al Qaeda, a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. “It looks like an al Qaeda double agent,” the former official said. “It’s very sophisticated for a terrorist group that’s supposedly on the run.” – CIA Blast Blamed On Double Agent

It certainly was.

Maybe the National Security Staff, the merged National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, will make a difference. One can only hope.

All of this leads to one reason why Danger Room’s Nathan Hodge takes out David Ignatius today. No doubt inspired by the Post‘s preference of offering their intelligence through fiction writers, instead of through cold doses of reality, though they do that too, just not with top billing. Hodge:

What government agency doesn’t need a good public affairs officer? It’s a rough world out there, with lots of critics. You never know when someone might try to cut your budget or demand a Congressional investigation.
So much the better if your PAO has a twice-weekly column at the Washington Post, and does the flacking for free. I’m speaking here of David Ignatius, Post columnist and author of spy novels. …
[...] On December 13, Ignatius wrote a eulogy for Gen. Saad Kheir, the former head of Jordan’s General Intelligence Department. In the course of one 750-word column… (Kheir is described as a “brilliant but emotionally wounded” spookmasterJordan’s masterful spy agency, huh?)… It now turns out that the suicide bomber who killed seven CIA officers and a Jordanian intelligence officer in Afghanistan was a double agent, recruited by the GID and brought to Afghanistan to penetrate al Qaeda. He carried out the terror group’s mission instead. …

The trouble with access journalism, especially when you’ve got an intelligence “opinionator,” as Hodge labels Ignatius, is that a novelist and screenwriter is often too wrapped up in his own characters and his next spy yarn to see what’s playing out underneath his Hollywood gaze.

On “Morning Joe” today, Mr. Ignatius couldn’t resist breaking away from the real life disaster of our CIA being taken by a Jordanian double agent in order to once again pimp “Body of Lies,” which is a fun ride, but hardly representative of the disaster that just played out. Joe Scarborough introducing Ignatius as if he was the second coming of Robert Ludlum, which in and of itself renders him not credible in the news department. After all, being privy to the powerful doesn’t mean you know squat about what’s actually going on, as Danger Room’s Nathan Hodge reveals today.

Save the spy yarn tales of David Ignatius for after supper, at least as far as detailed facts are concerned, and instead turn to Richard Engel, talking about the Jordanian double agent al-Balawi yesterday:

… Last week, according to the Western officials, al-Balawi reportedly called his handler to say he needed to meet with the CIA’s team based in Khost, Afghanistan, because he said he had urgent information he needed to relay about Zawahiri.
His handler was a senior intelligence official, identified in Jordanian press accounts as Sharif Ali bin Zeid.
But bin Zeid was not just a Jordanian intelligence officer; he was also a member of the Jordanian royal family and was a first cousin of the king and grandnephew of the first king Abdullah.
Bin Zeid’s prominent role offers rare insight into the close partnership between American and Jordanian intelligence officials and how crucial their relationship has become to the overall counterterrorism strategy.

This horrific CIA intelligence failure, turned tremendous tragedy, impacts our effectiveness in this dangerous region because of the dedicated intelligence experts murdered by al-Balawi, and jettisoned me back to when Ahmad Shah Massoud was murdered by assassins masquerading as TV interviewers just before 9/11.

The Jordanian double agent case is far more terrifying than the underpants bomber, just not as sexy, because partisan politics doesn’t play a part. Which it should be pointed out is still unfolding, as the State Department still has much for which to answer regarding the initial Visa VIPER cable. See Spencer Ackerman on State’s “very thin information,” which may not be in line with Visa VIPER requirements, and Josh Rogin from yesterday:

“Based on what we know now, the State Department fully complied with the requirements set forth in the interagency process as to what should be done when information about a potential threat is known,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday.
But a close look at the rules for compiling Visas Viper cables shows that the information supplied about Mutallab might not have met the existing requirements, leaving out some crucial pieces of information.

What is certain is that an al Qaeda double agent played us on this one, using our staunchest ally in the region to do it. No way to spin it, as you are only as successful as your last lethal failure. This one to reverberate for quite some time due to the dedicated individuals who put their lives on the line and lost them while continuing to connect the intelligence dots that al Qaeda once again blew away.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Barack Obama Wins the Nobel Prize for Peace

By Taylor Marsh on 09 October 2009

expanded edition cross-posted at Huffington Post

The Nobel Committee announced Friday that the annual peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the committee said. – In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy

Barack Obama with Sasha at
Jefferson Memorial.

Robert Gibbs had the common reaction: “wow.” It is a huge surprise. The White House says Pres. Obama wasn’t even aware he’d been nominated.

The Nobel awarded through an international eye on world events, having nothing to do with U.S. domestic affairs. The Nobel committee looking not just at achievements, which clearly was not the measure here because Pres. Obama has just begun, but something more foundational.

Pres. Obama should thank Dick Cheney and his sidekick George W. Bush, because it’s obvious after this announcement that never has an international community looked to America for a change in direction more than they did in last year’s election. Longing for something beyond fear, the “axis of evil,” preemptive foreign policy, smaller yield nuclear weapons, and that all time Bush-Cheney favorite, “war on terror.”

This is going to put Rush, Sean, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the conservative townhall brawlers right off their weekend. Cue up the “Yasser Arafat won it too” brigade, which is exactly what the UK Times did; but considering they’re also the outlet that used our soldiers for their own purposes yesterday I’m not surprised. Ignorance is seldom gracious. Mickey Klaus already saying Pres. Obama should turn it down. This insulting right wing post mild compared to what we’ll hear on wingnut radio. Michael Steele being, well, Michael Steele: ‘What has Pres Obama actually accomplished?’

For Pres. Obama’s outreach to the Muslim community, which is nothing less than historic, especially looking through the prism of Bush-Cheney; when you look at his preliminary preparations for Middle East dialogue; when he took the bold step to demand a freeze in Israeli settlements. Barack Obama foreshadows what could be if partners come forth, even if nothing concrete has manifested. In Afghanistan, his determination to help the Afghans help themselves, but particularly the women of that country rise up.

From Foreign Policy, “Dangerous Prize,” an article revealing the mixed blessing of Obama’s award:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s aims are expressly political. The Nobel committee seeks to change the world through the prize’s very conferral, and, unlike its fellow prizes, the peace prize goes well beyond recognizing past accomplishments. As Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee in the 1990s, once proudly admitted, “The prize … is not only for past achievement. … The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account [because] … Nobel wanted the prize to have political effects. Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”

It’s a huge honor of hope and promise given to a man who represents the best of America in his rise to the presidency. But with Nobel Prize for Peace also comes expectations that have not yet been met. I just hope it becomes something Pres. Obama utilizes to push harder and farther, with more energy than he is currently expressing. Because there are enough challenges Pres. Obama is facing that we can all hope this will give him new energy to face them all.

The American jury is still out.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Liz Cheney’s Ideological Blindness Revealed in Hoax

By Taylor Marsh on 01 September 2009

Anyone watching “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday saw he was clearly out muscled by the non-stop motor mouth debate tactics of Liz Cheney. Tom Shales takes Stephanopoulos to task for letting the rising right wing star get the better of him, though nothing less than a Vaudevillian hook would have succeeded in shutting her up. This is especially true when Liz gets on one of her Cheney tears defending torture, waterboarding her favorite technique. Regardless of truth or reality on record, Liz Cheney babbles on, inspired and fueled by her embedded right wing ideology, which no fact can dent, because with ideological blindness you can never be wrong. Shales on Liz Cheney’s “Chatterbox Summer”:

She doesn’t just finish a thought, she doesn’t just finish a sentence, she’ll go right into a new paragraph and ignore all attempts to head her off.

But for all of Liz Cheney’s babbling, her ideological blindness recently led her into embarrassing territory. How can someone charged with being a “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs”, then promoted to “Principal” in that same post, not know basic information about Jordan? Liz Cheney getting suckered into what some have called the first great hoax of the 21st century.

This is something that has not garnered much attention even with “Forbidden Lie$”, which is about the Norma Khouri hoax, hitting Showtime. Khouri is a now disgraced fabricator who perpetrated this fantastic hoax, writing a book about her friend who she claimed was a victim of an honor killing in Jordan.

This tale was good enough to suck in Liz Cheney, someone who touts her experience as “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs,” which some have claimed was a post specifically created for her by her father, with Cheney promoted in 2005 to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs. A position that should have given her, at the very least, rudimentary knowledge of Jordan. Meaning that when Khouri talked about women needing escorts around the streets, let alone that they had to be covered, warning bells should have gone off in Cheney’s head. It’s just not reality for women in Jordan. But Ms. Cheney fell for Khouri’s fiction hook, line and lie, not even aware the Jordan in the book has little relation to the country it chronicles.

Honor Lost was initially published in 2002 in Australia, under the title Forbidden Love, and became a bestseller. But in 2004, the literary editor of the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that, although Khouri had indeed been born in Jordan, she had been living in Chicago during the years her story took place. Khouri’s book was withdrawn from publication, but the author didn’t slink so quietly into the Australian night. – Vanity Fair

Evidently, hearing about a supposed honor killing that allegedly happened in Jordan was all Liz Cheney needed to know.

You can forgive NBC news anchor Lester Holt for an interview with Khouri, the author, which is shown in “Forbidden Lie$”. But someone with Liz Cheney’s background should have easily recognized some of the more glaring and obvious factual errors in Khouri’s book. Like where the Jordan River flows (and where it doesn’t).

Enter Rana Husseini, an award winning journalist and expert on honor killings in Jordan, whose book is called Murder in the Name of Honor, who is also featured in “Forbidden Lie$.” Ms. Husseini did interviews asking women about the conduct expected of Jordanian women alleged in Khouri’s book, only to get laughter as a response. The places mentioned, like a unisex hair salon, not even in existence in Jordan.

Liz Cheney’s part is a side story, but is influential:

First was the granting of the visa. The department doesn’t define “Distinguished Talent” outside the circularity of “people who are internationally recognised for exceptional and outstanding achievement”. Assessing that talent is left to the nomination process. Those who nominated Khouri were her victims: publishers, literary agents and others who believed her memoir was a true story. Supporting material was provided by Elizabeth Cheney, a daughter of the US Vice-President, who was also sucked in. Her “Distinguished Talent” rested on pure deceit. We can only speculate on how much weight the name Cheney carried in the department.

This is just background on the type of shallow knowledge Cheney has accrued while spinning a career readying herself for higher office.

But to be taken in on an honor killing story is particularly dangerous. Countries are sensitive to Americans lecturing and any interference in their affairs, so getting caught in an honor killing hoax reduces our standing to ideological reaction. It’s one thing to come out strong where honor killings are hidden, but this is not the case in Jordan, because when it does happen they are prosecuted fully.

Liz Cheney’s ideological performances have become very popular on political shows, because everyone loves a spectacle. No problem with that, as politics on TV is now seen as entertainment. But as much as I think it’s important to get women on TV, Stephanopoulos choosing Michelle Malkin, then Liz Cheney, shows a disturbing trend.

However, the real issue is more serious. When someone like Cheney uses her clout and name on a sensitive issue like an honor killing, but ends up being duped because she didn’t know basic knowledge of a country like Jordan, which has supposedly been in her purview for years, it makes us all look bad, because our actions are reduced down to primitive emotional and ideologically driven spasms.

Read full story · Comments are closed

For Obama in Locked Down Cairo, Honor Killings Don’t Exist

By Taylor Marsh on 04 June 2009

–updated below–

“Culturally sensitive” is how Bob Shrum judged Pres. Obama’s historic speech in Cairo, as he pronounced “a new beginning,” which was the foundation of his speech.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. (transcript)

However, let’s not kid ourselves, shall we? The site of Pres. Obama’s speech could not have been worse. In the place where he will lift everyone up, Mubarak continues the practice of keeping his people down.

The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the “historical speech,” State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations…

The stage is set.

Standing in the heart of the Arab world, Pres. Obama didn’t give an inch on his Middle East policy, stating bluntly inside this world that the habit of acquiescing to Israel on all things is over.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Stunning coming from an American president and also proof that at the dawn of the 21st century there is a dramatic new policy in place, one with the intention of changing the status quo. As this is a topic on which I am focused, it was heartening, but the hard work lies ahead.

Haaretz reports protests in Israel by one lone group, proving that Obama’s words are not going down well in Netanyahu’s country, with today’s language setting a hard line that Israel now must know will not be moved.

On Iraq and torture:

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
… I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Words that needed to be said, but over here there still isn’t transparency on Guantanamo, with most of us not sure what the hell to make of detainee photographic records protection provision, tucked deep inside the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. Glenn talked about this on Monday.

For me, however, that’s nothing.

It was on women’s rights that Pres. Obama sought to truly, as Mr. Shrum said, show cultural sensitivity, completely and totally ignoring the horrific issues women face in Muslim and Arab countries across the world. That is the threat of death if they do not kowtow to the men who make the rules and enforce them through beatings, rapes, honor killings and all manner of abuse, mostly in the name of religion. It is a cause I have fought for since the 1990s, when Mavis Leno took up the charge of Afghan women under the Taliban. But today, Pres. Obama chose instead to respect the cultural differences that are not only dangerous for women, but deny them basic human rights. When it comes to violent extremism towards the populace, talking about an older woman getting blown up was okay, but acknowledging the wholesale violence against women and girls, Obama offered an American shrug in reaction to what women in Arab and Muslim countries have to endure. Mentioning that was just too much. Instead, Pres. Obama focused on, unbelievably, hair and traditional coverings of Muslim women. As for a 13 year-old-girl stoned to death, that was just too much.

… Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. [...]
[...] The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. [..]

What Peter said.

It’s hard to worry about literacy when the basic rights of women are ignored, held hostage by the whims of fanatics in a place where tyranny towards them reins.

Ah, yes, one speech cannot change everything, as Pres. Obama said. But if the American president doesn’t lead on calling the horrendous treatment of women out who will? Obama ducked his responsibility on this, choosing instead to have “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” which didn’t include calling out the barbarism perpetrated against women across the world.

Patrick J. Buchanan judged Pres. Obama’s policy a new direction for which he offers approval.

Bob Shrum talked about “cultural sensitivity,” which reminded me of Speaker Pelosi going to China to talk about global warming, but not feeling compelled to say anything about women’s rights, the forced abortion, and human rights.

It’s the new Democratic Party diplomacy, as we not try to stray too far into another country’s business, because we “do not presume to know what is right for everyone.” On diplomacy, it is not our business to tell countries how they should operate. But it should always be our duty to stand up for the oppressed, the beaten, the raped, those killed in 19th century murder called “honor killings” and say this is not only wrong, but immoral and against the cause of human rights. That doesn’t mean we can stop the behavior of nations, or hold our diplomacy hostage to their barbarous ways, but they sure need to know we’re watching, see what’s happening and condemn what they do. We should never stand silently as Pres. Obama did today.

Pres. Obama is always eloquent. Repeating his policy on Israeli settlements was so very important, as he also honored our abiding friendship with Israel that is “unbreakable.” It gave new hope that something may yet crack in the equilibrium stalemate, which is the Palestinians only chance, but also of Arab Israeli women as well.

But under the Obama administration, as the President made his first and most important outreach to the Arab and Muslim world, he pulled up short on fundamental human rights as it applies to women. But Obama will be hailed across America and the globe, no doubt, even as he gave the speech in a city under absolute lock down, while women were relegated to fashion items and talks of “education,” even if they have to risk their lives to get it.

UPDATE: Some are bristling that I dare to mention women’s rights and the importance of calling out Pres. Obama on this subject. I’ll offer here what I said in the comments “In the News.” It begins with one small step, no lectures or insults. This could have been simply to begin with saying “honor killings” are wrong, immoral, choose your language. I never expected Obama to go down the line on all the issues facing gender equality in the Arab and Muslim world. I’ve studied this subject for years, so I know better. But because there is vast agreement on “honor killings” across the Arab world this was such a great place to begin. It was important and could have been done with one line: It is never honorable to kill a woman. That it wasn’t was a choice.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Jordan a Better Choice

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2009

Sorry to the experts like Marc Lynch, even as little clout as it has compared to Egypt, I still wish Obama had chosen to speak in Jordan. Let’s just hope he can do the U.S. some good, though by picking Egypt it just reminds everyone of their repression and U.S. acceptance, even complicity, in it.

The poll of six Arab nations found that residents think that Obama will have a positive impact on the Middle East — a region marked by war, religious disputes, ethnic and sectarian violence — as well as on the United States and the rest of the world.
Obama scored highest in Jordan, where 58 percent of its citizens have a favorable opinion of him, 29 percent have an unfavorable view, 6 percent had no opinion and 7 percent didn’t know.
… The difference between Obama’s popularity and that of the United States is a goodwill gap that spreads from 26 points in Kuwait to 11 points in Lebanon, all in Obama’s favor.

As for Egypt. Ugh. Mubarak has been a pain in our foreign policy, especially with regard to Hamas, but also Iran (though the Saudis aren’t great either, but Obama wouldn’t dare speak there), with Mubarak’s domestic oppression so intense that I just don’t see the plus here. It just compounds the U.S. coddles dictator talking point.

Lynch disagrees:

Obama could take advantage of the location to forcefully speak out in favor of democratization and human rights. He could point out and favorably cite Rice’s remarks, acknowledge the weak follow-through, and vow to do better by being more pragmatic and cooperative. If he wanted to be really bold, he could reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood as an example of an organization facing a choice between “resistance” and “constructive partnership”, and criticize the Egyptian regime’s repression of the Brotherhood at a time when it was trying to play the democratic game. He could do the same on the foreign policy front, reframing the moderate/radical divide into something more constructive.
If he does some of that with his usual dexterity, then the Cairo location could go from a negative to a net positive — and set the stage for the real purpose of the address, which I assume will be to fundamentally reframe America’s approach to its relations with the Islamic world.

Okay. I just don’t see Pres. Obama in a “reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood,” while tut-tut-tutting the host, Pres. Mubarak. Hey, but hell could freeze.

Egypt’s historic greatness could use ~~resurrection~~ rehabilitating, or maybe the term is redemption, especially since they’ve been a partner in U.S. rendition. Except to be redeemed you must repent. Fat chance from Mubarak.

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Trouble with Saudis

By Taylor Marsh on 11 May 2009

Earth to Saudis, get a grip. Oh, but not on your woman.

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that “if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.”
Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine’s statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.

Regular readers know about the conference I attended on US/Saudi relations recently. An attempt to begin to get a clue about the most important Arab leaders in the region, though as a modern American woman it’s tough, very, very tough.

After the conference I talked about the importance of the Saudis when it comes to Middle East talks and trying to get to equilibrium. The challenge being that Saudi pr in the United States is awful and it’s not just about 9/11. In fact, I talked to Lucien Zeigler of the Committee for International Trade (Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce & Industry), who sponsored the conference along with the Saudis (and the New America Foundation), about their pr problem, particularly among one specific group of voters who aren’t going to give the Saudis a pass for obvious reasons. It’s one thing to have religious differences that make customs diametrically opposed to our nation. It’s quite another to condone violence against women, which the Saudis clearly do.

This is my pet peeve with the Saudis, even as they step up in the Middle East. They set themselves up for failure, which can blow back on Obama at a cost. Not the least of which is because a leading demographic in this country think they’re no good. Part of the Saudi story lies buried because many in the U.S. don’t want to hear it, which is understandable. Gates on the Saudis:

“The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia has been one of the mainstays of stability in the Middle East for more than 60 years,” he said at the Eskan Village military base outside the Saudi capital.
“Saudi Arabia continues to be an important partner for the US in counter-terrorism and a range of other issues.”

How the Saudis hope to get credit or support for anything they do in the Middle East as long as stories like the wife slapping come out of Saudi Arabia is beyond me. You’d think the Saudis would look at the bigger Middle East picture when these stories come out of Arabia. It won’t help us solve issues in the Middle East.

If we don’t the region is headed for another war, as King Abdullah of Jordan has said before, but reiterated again in an interview with The UK Times.

The Obama Administration is pushing for a comprehensive peace agreement that would include settling Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and its territorial disputes with Syria and Lebanon, King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.

The Saudis are so incredibly tone deaf on pr they never move fast enough on stories like the one above making any U.S. partnership, even for the good of the Middle East, impossibly complicated for Obama. How can Americans who only think of Saudi Arabia in terms of 9/11 possibly cut them slack, even when they’re doing good? They can’t and won’t, because the Saudis are just too easy to hate.

Why do I care?

Because women matter in the Middle East. Like the reality of Arab Israeli women, who can’t work and have no independence, as Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka said on a media conference call I was on recently when I asked about the challenges of Arab Israeli women: “… the main problems for Arab-Israeli women is participation of work for them, which ‘is very, very low. … Without work you can’t have independence.’” They stand beside Afghan women, who stand in front of Saudi women, who stand in front of Pakistani women… not to mention Egyptian, Iranian… As women are treated in countries, so goes that country’s stability, which is very much an American interest, especially in the Middle East.

Are you hearing me now?

Read full story · Comments are closed

The Obligatory First 100 Days Review

By Taylor Marsh on 29 April 2009

This day is going to be interminably long.

It’s going to be redundant on so many levels.

It’s also going to be gratifying for Democrats, while only adding to Republican depression. The one real issue in question being Obama’s resolve and his willingness to confront. One review says the window is the auto crisis. I think it’s another, one that doesn’t lead to something so sure.

Among what Obama has done is an Af-Pak strategy; strong Administration push on an early Middle East presence; engaging with leaders Bush wouldn’t (Chavez, etc.); while promising more with Ahmadinejad, which is where we’ll pause for just a moment.

The Iranian president has an election coming up on June 12th, so he’s campaigning. So you need a slogan, right? He’s evidently found one:

Obama’s signature campaign slogan, Yes We Can, has been replicated by the Iranian president in a promotional video issued for Iran’s presidential poll on 12 June, when Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election. The video features a cover picture of Ahmadinejad wearing his trademark white jacket and pointing to the Farsi phrase Ma Mitavanim (We Can) on a blackboard. The film is aimed at students and capitalises on his former status as a university lecturer.

It leaves you speechless.

Obama has also gotten his stimulus passed, expanded SCHIP, reversed the Gag Rule, stem cells, budget done, ethics, Lily Ledbetter, announced yesterday that officials will once again have to consult agencies on rulings that might impact endangered species, among other things, and planted a White House garden to boot.

But if you look back on other presidents, the first 100 days doesn’t tell you how it will all end. So while the review is obligatory, it’s going to tell us nothing, unless you use a different criteria than the usual laundry list, which everyone is trying to do. Find a new way to judge the first 100 days. For instance, danger signs.

WJC got to work on the deficit, aid to Russia, and more, but who could know that in 1994 a simple move to reactivate the special counsel statute would change the first paragraph of his presidential biography forever? You decide if there was a hint it would in the first 100 days.

In George W. Bush’s presidency, something happened at the beginning of his administration that would actually reveal a lot, as far as I’m concerned. Bush demoted the terrorism czar position from cabinet level to staff position, ignoring Bill Clinton’s warnings about al Qaeda. Now this wasn’t an item on Bush’s 100 day list, but looking back it’s one of the most consequential. However, nothing in the first 100 days prepared us for the type of president Bush would be after 9/11, except if you weigh Richard Clarke not being able to get anyone’s attention on the threat until it was too late.

So after weighing Barack Obama’s accomplishments, one of which is turning the right track numbers on their heads from where they were with George W. Bush. Does anything stand out that has the potential to rock his presidency, even as today we evaluate Mr. Obama with superlatives, minus the “state secret” privilege claims, which is a window, but not the nut of what could end up dogging Pres. Obama, much like his predecessors had their own moment when something shifted.

In life, it’s often your strengths that can be your blindside, because that’s where the ego resides, especially for politicians. Not that doing what’s right isn’t laudable, but Obama’s core message, his theme, has always been bringing people together, not confronting them. Once again I go back to that interview with George Stephanopoulos: “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. …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 (on ABC’s “This Week” – May 2005)

The release of the OLC memos has changed this dynamic. It’s unleashed a fury on the right, leaving Obama in a seemingly confrontational position, which is not his natural comfort zone, as has been witnessed by his “no one will be prosecuted” stance that shifted to Justice, while letting it be known that he doesn’t want an accountability or truth commission on torture. He’s besieged on the right, but also on the left, for diametrically opposed reasons. He’s gotten himself caught between his promise for transparency and his penchant for bringing people together in consensus.

Looking back, Bush releasing the terror czar, even after warnings about Al Qaeda, is a hint to his asleep at the wheel reality we faced after “Bin Laden determined to attack inside US.” But it didn’t tell us we’d walk down the torture lane.

So, after all the publicity and stories about Obama’s first 100 days, most of them laudable, and after looking at other presidents, I’ve come to the conclusion that what we should look at is the signal that something might lead us down a path that would change the presidency of Barack Obama. That one moment is the release of the OLC memos, which has twisted the Obama administration into knots. It has exposed Obama’s discomfort with confrontation, something that at his core Mr. Obama is not exactly good at navigating.

But it is this confrontational nature that Pres. Obama will need going forward as he addresses the most important foreign policy area, the Middle East. It’s his stretch moment, to which if he cannot rise he could see a myriad of other issues unable to solve. Because if he doesn’t stand firmly and decidedly in front of PM Netanyahu on the two-state solution, getting something concrete implemented, the Saudis and other important Arab allies, as well as the EU, are less likely to listen to him as readily on Central Asia. Then the next sound you’ll hear is kaboom, with Obama’s presidency changed forever, because bringing people together on the issues he faces today takes skillful confrontation, the bookend of successful leadership.

So the first 100 days tells us something, but only if you look at it through the lens of what the 100 days exposes might be President Obama’s Achille’s heel and the early signs of how well he navigates this personal challenge to his presidency. We all know he can bring people together, but can he confront on issues and push forward implementing what’s needed? His behavior after the OLC memos were released is the window. You decide what you see.

____________________
“Delivering Change” photos compliments of the White House, available on flikr.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama: ‘I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution.’

By Taylor Marsh on 21 April 2009

In case anyone is listening. Like the new Israeli government.

But there’s another piece of news today, with Netanyahu announcing he won’t attend AIPAC. But the JPost is spinning (one reason I rarely link to them) the reason why: “after it became clear that US President Barack Obama would not meet him during the conference.” I smell a rat, either that or call it paranoia. Anyone trying to make something of this is fishing. Martin Indyk offered more recently. (One conservative agrees.)

However, if you want to read a tremendous piece on Netanyahu’s real challenges, Steven L. Spiegel complies with a must read.

As for Obama’s statement today, can we please get off the word “peace?” It’s equilibrium.

With Jordan’s King Abdullah today (via the White House):

KING ABDULLAH: Thank you. Mr. President, again, thank you very much for this very kind welcome. We had a wonderful meeting just recently and I believe it was a meeting of the minds. We are both committed to bringing peace and stability to our part of the world. The President again reaffirming the need for a two-state solution and to move both parties to good negotiations as quickly as possible. He has the full support of my country and the Arab League on this issue. We believe that it is important for all of us to keep our eyes on the prize, and the prize is peace and stability finally for all the people of our region. …
I’d also like to extend a warm thanks on behalf of many Arabs and Muslims who really had an outstanding response to the President’s outreach to the Muslim Arab world. … You have given us hope for a bright future for all of us.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.
Q Mr. President, you’ve raised a lot of positive signals and interest in your commitment to peace and to a two-state solution. What other actions will you be taking to bring about peace, and when do you expect that action to happen? And how does the Arab Peace Initiative feature in such a plan?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we have gone out of our way to complement the efforts of those Arab states that were involved in formulating the Arab Peace Initiative as a very constructive start. And obviously King Abdullah has taken great steps to ensure that that sustains itself, in terms of Arab support, even while we have seen a breakdown in negotiations. And that’s a significant achievement for which King Abdullah and others deserve credit. So we want to continue to encourage a commitment on the part of the Arab states to the peace process.
I have assigned a Special Envoy, George Mitchell, who is, you know, I think as good of a negotiator as there is, and somebody who through assiduous work was able to accomplish or help achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We want that same perseverance and sustained effort on this issue, and we’re going to be actively engaged.
We have obviously seen the Israeli government just form recently. Prime Minster Netanyahu will be visiting the United States. I expect to have meetings with him. I’ve had discussions with Palestinian counterparts as well as other Arab states around this issue.
My hope would be that over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides. I don’t want to get into the details of what those gestures might be, but I think that the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures. And we will be doing everything we can to encourage those confidence-building measures to take place.
[...]
I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I have articulated that publicly and I will articulate that privately. And I think that there are a lot of Israelis who also believe in a two-state solution. Unfortunately, right now what we’ve seen not just in Israel but within the Palestinian Territories, among the Arab states, worldwide, is a profound cynicism about the possibility of any progress being made whatsoever.
… Now, ultimately, neither Jordan nor the United States can do this for the Israelis and the Palestinians. What we can do is create the conditions and the atmosphere and provide the help and assistance that facilitates an agreement. …
KING ABDULLAH: I couldn’t have said it better myself, Mr. President. I think we’re looking now at the — at the positives and not the negatives and seeing how we can sequence events over the next couple of months that allows Israelis and Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs to sit around the table and move this process forward.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama on OLC Lawyers: ‘a decision for the Attorney General’

By Taylor Marsh on 21 April 2009

The New York Times reported on this yesterday, citing Justice lawyers as having a different view than the President on torture investigations. Our position around here is that it’s none of Obama’s business, frankly. The Justice Department has its own purview, in which no president should interfere.

Today in his press conference with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Obama was asked about the issue, with part of his response below (via the White House):

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.
With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.
As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.
And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

As for the predictable “Obama caved to the left” line. Tell that to Philip Zelikow, someone who goes back to the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, as well as Clinton, including the last president as well, having also been executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

Nonetheless, the evidence against most — if not all — of the high-value detainees remains damning. But the issue is not about who or what they are. It is about who or what we are.
… Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:
* the case law on the “shocks the conscience” standard for interrogations would proscribe the CIA’s methods;
* the OLC memo basically ignored standard 8th Amendment “conditions of confinement” analysis (long incorporated into the 5th amendment as a matter of substantive due process and thus applicable to detentions like these). That case law would regard the conditions of confinement in the CIA facilities as unlawful.
* the use of a balancing test to measure constitutional validity (national security gain vs. harm to individuals) is lawful for some techniques, but other kinds of cruel treatment should be barred categorically under U.S. law — whatever the alleged gain.
The underlying absurdity of the administration’s position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

As for Eric Holder, it’s time for him to channel some of Chicago’s own Patrick Fitzgerald. It would certainly get the job done.

Read full story · Comments are closed

1 2 Next »

TM MUST READS

Only Option for Republicans on Obama’s Free Contraceptive Mandate is to Stress Government Overreach
“There really isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this.” – David Boies, on “The Last Word,” with Lawrence O’Donnnell (leading [...]
Some of The President’s Faith Allies
On the Diane Rehm show today, according to my husband who sometimes listens to NPR while he’s driving from order [...]
Women Want Their Birth Control
“The Peggy Noonan piece left some things out. … But I have to say, the article appears to be very [...]
Al Sharpton Schools Morning Joe
The Catholic League, according to CBS, is “poised to go to war with Obama over mandatory birth control payments.” A [...]
And Republicans Wonder Why Turnout is Down
This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well [...]
Susan G. Komen Puts Romney’s ‘Not Concerned About the Poor’ In Perfect Context
The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health [...]
Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise
Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating [...]
Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS
“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of [...]
U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed
President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US [...]
Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt
The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of [...]
Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer
The right is exploding in indignation. As for the left, Tina Brown’s cover title, Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?, [...]
Stephen Colbert, Ron Paul and Others Take on Republicans and Democrats
The Colbert ReportGet More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive As much as our national media deserves [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet
**UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Shameless Plugs, UK Guardian Edition for The Hillary Effect
Last week was busy for me. One interview I did was for the UK Guardian, which is up today: Does [...]
Mitt, Newt, that Guy Ron Paul, and Democratic Trouble
UPDATED Before we get to Iowa, something that’s not getting covered deserves mention, because it ties into the opposite [...]
The Party’s Over
There’s a reason Obama reelect doesn’t have a slogan. All they’ve got is a question: Are you in? Symbolic of [...]
Barack Obama, the Sane Republican
The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read. I am “uncommitted” [...]
Why Newt Committed The Cardinal Sin Among Conservatives
We should not expect Gingrich to understand this until he understands that his work for Freddie Mac was not, as [...]
The Romney as Hillary Headline Finally Appears
WASHINGTON – Oh, what a set up. Thank you Politico. First it was floated on NBC’s First Read, then came [...]
Obama’s Fight for Cordray Missing for Elizabeth Warren
“But the bottom line is that we are going to stay here as long as it takes to make sure [...]
Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues
**UPDATED** In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [...]
A Word from Amb. Joseph Wilson about The Hillary Effect
“During the primary elections that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Taylor was the leading analyst of, and most articulate [...]
Chris Matthews: ‘There’s nothing to root for.’
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama
**Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
OWS: The Connections are Wide and Deep
The video above is of Sgt. Shamar Thomas. It went viral and now has over 2 million hits. After Scott [...]
Obama’s Lost Moon Shot on Energy
“… We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do [...]
Fan Politics
Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Money Quote that Would Make Reagan Laugh
“Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be [...]
Getting that 1979 Feeling Again
It’s déjà vu all over again. via David Weigel Pres. Obama has never understood the incredible gift he was handed [...]

TM Connect

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

Hillary’s Close-Up

Peter Beinert’s Right, It’s The End Of An Empire

Picture of the Week Represents Rolling World Events

Arafat’s Ghost

Egyptian Revolution Inspired by Liberalism

Egypt Sends Glenn Beck Squealing about a Caliphate

Sect. Clinton Announces Middle East Talks

Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel Attacking Iran

Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit Theater

Netanyahu Cancels Plans to Attend Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit

Of Underpants, Double Agents, and David Ignatius

Barack Obama Wins the Nobel Prize for Peace

Liz Cheney’s Ideological Blindness Revealed in Hoax

For Obama in Locked Down Cairo, Honor Killings Don’t Exist

Jordan a Better Choice

The Trouble with Saudis

The Obligatory First 100 Days Review

Obama: ‘I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution.’

Obama on OLC Lawyers: ‘a decision for the Attorney General’

Tag Cloud

Follow Taylor on Twitter

TM MUST READS

New Media