Who’s getting creamed in the ad wars in Iowa and seeing his polls numbers slide? Answer, of course is Newt Gingrich, who is about to get some much needed financial assistance.
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is planning to direct $20 million to an outside group backing Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, multiple sources told POLITICO — the first answer to urgent pleas from allies to the former speaker’s longtime billionaire supporters. – Politico
The debate tonight comes with a lot of noise. Sean Hannity was hawking it like it was the last round-up. It is big night, with Newt bleeding support after a barrage of incoming and he’ll likely be the target tonight, too. Could also be the night that Republicans finally acknowledge that Ron Paul actually matters in Iowa.
It’s the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, which could mean a lot if Newt can pull off a win, which I still don’t think he can do. Or if you’re listening to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Chris Wallace, will mean nothing if Ron Paul wins in Iowa.
The GOP Establishment is freaked over Newt, but no one is excited about Ron Paul getting momentum either. Today on right-wing radio Karl Rove called Paul an “isolationist.”
Why is it that anyone who doesn’t like going to war where we don’t absolutely have to is considered an “isolationist” by Republicans and their neoconservative wing?
On a day when everyone is hailing an “end” to the Iraq war, while we have a compound that is over 104 acres, not to mention plenty of support staff and contractors still involved in that country, I’d say our political leaders, especially Republicans, could use a large dose of whatever makes Ron Paul’s foreign policy come out on the sane side of things (though the same cannot be said for other parts of his political philosophy).
Jon Huntsman talks the perfect language on foreign policy, but he’s not on the radar in Iowa, while hoping for an upset in New Hampshire.[This sentence has been updated, because I mistakenly wrote that Mr. Huntsman wouldn’t be in Iowa.}
From my side of the political fence we call it realism.
In what would be a major concession, President Obama and Senate Democrats will drop their insistence that a surtax on millionaires pay for extending the payroll tax cut, a Democratic source tells CNN. This would be part of a new Democratic offer.
With the track record of Pres. Obama and the Democrats, why in the world wouldn’t Republicans filibuster? They knew Obama and the Democrats would cave in the end.
But Republicans talking about paying for a tax cut is ludicrous. They didn’t do it once in the Bush-Cheney era, so they’re not kidding anyone. This is more about 2012 and gumming up the works for Obama and Democrats, who are helping them do it.
I presume you’ve already read that Pres. Obama has rescinded his veto threat over the Defense Authorization bill. Indefinite detention follows other aspects of Obama’s Executive Branch muscle. From Jay Carney:
“While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength,” it said.
“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people,” the statement said, although it added that if the uncertainty raised by the legislation does impede investigations, the White House expects lawmakers to write a fix.
The rationale is also that it already exists in current law, so this latest bill won’t change anything. A section also states: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Ah, but it doesn’t say they cannot be detained, with that idea failing Senate passage.
[Rep. Jerry Nadler] also took issue with Smith’s assertion that the bill just spells out what is already law.
“It doesn’t codify existing law. It codifies claims of power by the last two administrations that have not been confirmed by [the Supreme Court] — rather terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put Americans in jail indefinitely without a trial, even in the United States,” Nadler said.
When are people going to get tired of listening to these incompetent individuals who call themselves Democrats and just quit supporting them?
Global recession with a surprise winner or two – The Eurozombies may avoid catastrophe but instead produce a macroeconomic remake of Night of the Living Dead. Recession in austerity-bound Europe will only be worsened by the sweeping downturn already taking place in the emerging world, and the result could be a deeper slump worldwide. But here’s the twist: the United States will win, as it is a destination for those in the midst of one of the most confusing, frustrating flights to quality in recent history. Japan too. They won’t do very well at all, but in the global ugly contest they may take home least-ugly honors. – David Rothkopf
So, what could happen in 2012?
David Rothkopf over at Foreign Policy has done his next year headlines in review list, many of which don’t take an expert’s mind to name. Stephen Walt has his own that includes Israel accepting the Arab League Peace Plan. Rothkopf thinks the Eurozone will strengthen. More are below.
The end of Ahmadinejad, but it won’t come through Dick Cheney’s fantasies or any neoconservative getting his war wishes in a Christmas stocking. From Erin Burnett’s “Out Front,” when Burnett brought up the RQ-170 sentinel:
CHENEY: I would assume that’s the case. Or they’ll send it back in pieces after they’ve gotten all the intelligence they can out of it.
The right response to that would have been to go in immediately after it had gone down and destroy it. You can do that from the air. You can do that with a quick airstrike, and in effect make it impossible for them to benefit from having captured that drone. I was told that the president had three options on his desk. He rejected all of them.
BURNETT: And they all involved removing the drone immediately?
CHENEY: They all involved sending somebody in to try to recover it, or if you can’t do that, admittedly that would be a difficult operation, you certainly could have gone in and destroyed it on the ground with an airstrike. But he didn’t take any of the options. He asked for them to return it. And they aren’t going to do that.
The world is going to continue to have major shifts in power centers.
The collapse of Assad in Syria, which couldn’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned.
Political unrest in China? It’s the beginning, Rothkopf predicts.
Power struggle in Pakistan? Nothing new there.
Say goodbye to Castro and Hugo Chavez?
Incoming “cybershocker” that will take down somebody financially.
Putin’s not going to return to power easily.
…and get ready for extremism in Africa to become an American strategic interest.
Interesting list, as is Stephen Walt’s.
Do you have any thoughts on what might happen in the world next year?
This film, narrated by Tom Brokaw for National Geographic, was produced in 2001. You’ll have to get through about a minute of advertising, but it’s worth it, especially for those of you who don’t know the history and the legacy.
Today, it’s the 70 year commemoration of that fateful day.
A new book publishes a 26-page memo that details the “Japanese espionage effort,” though it stops short of predicting an attack. From ABC News:
“It was first declassified in 1985 but as far as we can tell nobody looked at it after that time,” said Craig Shirley, author of “December 1941: 31 Days that Changed America and Saved the World.” Shirley said his son discovered the document, prepared by the Counter Subversion Section, Office of Naval Intelligence, while researching at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library.
… On page two, the memo reads, “Japan is vigorously utilizing every available agency to secure military, naval and commercial information, paying particular attention to the West Coast, the Panama Canal and the Territory of Hawaii.”
Roosevelt and his military leaders have been criticized for being inadequately prepared for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There were several warning signs of a pending attack, and “there’s no doubt there were straws in the wind,” Shirley said.
At the time, Japan had already resigned from the League of Nations, signed a pact with Germany and Italy, and invaded eastern China, Shirley explained, so relations between the U.S. and Japan had soured.
The memo references a “possible crisis,” concluding that “a mass exodus of Japanese residents is under way. On December 1, 1941, the Consulate General on the West Coast began to destroy its records, as did the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and the Japan Institute in New York City. Secret codes and ciphers at the Japanese Embassy were burned on the night of December 5, 1941.”
Watching the reaction of the Pakistanis after the NATO bombing incident that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, it was hard not to wonder if this would escalate further. It just did.
Calling the event a “tragedy,” Pres. Obama did not offer an apology, mainly because the events that played out are being contested.
Pakistan’s government announced Monday that it will not participate in an upcoming conference in Bonn, Germany on Afghanistan’s future, in protest to this weekend’s bombing of two border posts in Mohmand by NATO forces that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers (BBC, Tel, AP, Reuters, ET, AFP). The decision came during a meeting of Pakistan’s cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who promised in an interview with CNN Monday that there would be no more, “business as usual” with the United States following the raid (CNN, Reuters, ET, AFP/Dawn). In a briefing Tuesday Pakistani Gen. Ashfaq Nadeem called the incident a “deliberate act of aggression” by the United States, and said Pakistan was still deciding if they will cooperate with an American probe of the attack, whose results are due to be released December 23 (AP, Dawn).
Pakistan and the United States continue to dispute the events surrounding the bombing, as U.S. and Afghan officials describe a joint commando patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that came under attack from positions near or even inside the Pakistani army posts, while Pakistan has said the assault continued long after Pakistani forces identified themselves to NATO (Post, NYT, ET, BBC, AP, WSJ). President Barack Obama and other American leaders have called the incident a “tragedy” but refused to apologize (AFP/ET, Tel). The Pentagon said Monday that it would “carry on” in Afghanistan without supplies from Pakistan, which has closed its border to U.S. supplies, and Pakistan reportedly refused a request by the United Arab Emirates to review its decision to evict American personnel from the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, which the Emirates are believed to control (AFP, ET, Dawn, AFP).
Pakistan is sending a chilling message that in the short term is saying they’re pulling out of any regional involvement on what happens with Afghanistan. Since Pres. Carter signed off on funding efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan, there hasn’t been a development like this that I can remember.
A nuclear power in this region, with an unstable domestic landscape to boot, is not a positive prospect to consider.
Osama bin Laden picking Pakistan to hide away seems to have been foreshadowing and the result of the U.S. never quite understanding what we were dealing with in this country going all the way back to Ronald Reagan.
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Among the latest of the Occupations to be given a deadline by which they had to leave, or law enforcement would evict the Occupants are Occupy Philly and Occupy Los Angeles. As of a short time ago, via OWS, “Occupy Philly Still Standing Strong.”
And at Occupy LA, last night’s 12 AM deadline to disperse was not enforced. As the sun came up, the livestream at OWS included shots of LAPD officers leaving in vans, as well as a friendly conversation with someone identified as “Capt. Smith,” who smiled and talked about the “peaceful” way most Occupiers acted – as an Occupier walked by and asked the officer, “Can I buy you a cup of coffee?”. Capt. Smith added that there were a few people (among the Occupiers) who “didn’t get it,” and threw a few things at his officers; there were “three or four” people arrested. But according to what he, and Occupiers, said, it was a basically peaceful evening. He was asked, “What do you think will happen tonight, at midnight?” in terms of what the city officials would instruct the PD to do, and he said, “I don’t know,” but went on to focus on keeping things as peaceful as possible.
I’ll bet most Occupiers, and most law enforcement officers, agree with that. According to Occupiers in the livestream feed, the people who, as Capt. Smith described them, “didn’t get it,” were not individuals the Occupiers recognized. This, of course, is nothing new. But what’s also nothing new is that it’s the non-peaceful moments and actions by law enforcement and by those among (though not necessarily of) the Occupiers that inevitably get media attention. Maybe that’s why they miss so much of the many things that are going on. A few examples, as I’ve seen them at various Occupy web sites: the NYC People’s Library is now “on wheels”; Zuccotti, and other sites of “evictions,” are still spaces where Occupiers gather during the day for meetings and simply to have a presence, and where some will remain overnight, though not in tents or any other “structure”; Occupy the Board Room; Boycott Black Friday; #OCCUPYXMAS; General Strikes, marches and sit-ins. And these:
At Dewey Square today, Monday, November 28, you will see six barber stools representing the six biggest banks: JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. From 3pm to 6pm, skilled barbers will operate at each of these stations, providing free haircuts to occupiers and supporters. … In banking, a ‘haircut’ is when a bank or other lender adjusts the terms of a loan to decrease the debt on the borrower. While banks routinely take ‘haircuts’ when dealing with large corporations and wealthy clients, they rarely do the same when dealing with members of the 99% who are paying back mortgage loans, student loans, credit card loans and other debts.
You can keep up with what’s going on through a relatively recent addition to online sites: Occupy TV “aggregate(s) videos from Occupy protests worldwide.”
Occupations across the world have recently adopted the tactic of taking over unoccupied buildings. In New York, students and allies occupied New School buildings and dropped leaflets and banners from inside during the N17 Day of Action. In North Carolina and Oakland, protesters occupied vacant downtown buildings.
This Saturday (Nov. 26) Occupy Denver is proud to announce its first ever Children’s March … . From our first march, we have been blessed to have so many young people marching with us. …
Last Monday Occupy Denver was blessed with a fieldtrip of 50 or more 7-8th graders from the Logan School. We were blown away by the questions they asked, their understanding of the issues, and their enthusiasm.
has been a voice for veterans and their grievances since our founding in 2004. We understand that change comes about when people speak up, organize, and demand justice. Veterans and active-duty service members have a history of organizing, from the Bonus March to the Vietnam War. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have an important contribution to make to this movement.
As veterans and members of the 99% we stand in solidarity with the Occupy Movement.
Most of these are actions unlikely to get much media attention, but then, the Occupy Movement isn’t so much a “protest” as a “process.” That presents problems and challenges for everyone accustomed to the controlled gatherings that have become the standard: city officials, law enforcement, media, analysts (Left, Right, Center) academics … everyone has to adjust, or resist adjusting. Occupy certainly draws on historical activism, but just as occurred in those earlier moments, evolving and new ideas are essential. One last illustration of what’s happening and being said, via a few announcements, ideas and thoughts from the Twitter feed at OWS:
Big_Red_Star #occupyyourself #Ows PROTEST ALERT-Occupy the CUNY Board of Trustees, TODAY, 4-8pm, Baruch College, 24th and Lexington Ave.
DEADHEAD1776 RT @occupybot: RT @studentactivism If the #Occupy movement is ‘camping’ then the lunch-counter sit-ins of 1960 were ‘hanging out at the malt shop.’
Jeff_Raines A question of focus is always divisive. RT @PolicyMic Occupy the hood: Should #OWS focus on the bottom half of the 99%? bit.ly/s2wmVS
ATRACZZ RT @blogdiva: RT @an0nyc: @MichaelSkolnik <– 100% Right. The #Occupy movement is not about standoffs with police, this is an #IntentionalDistraction
MichaelWeschler RT @Occupy_Provo: RT @LOLGOP: I’ll remind you that a crowd smaller than #OccupyLA owns more than the bottom 150,000,000 Americans combined.
Of course there is always some continuity in activism. In this morning’s livestream from Occupy LA, I heard one. A woman, off camera, said of an Occupier’s call to “keep it peaceful”: “Right on.” Sometimes eras sort of blend together.
(“Cannot Evict an Idea” poster via OWS. “Not Protest but Process” poster via Occupy Together.)
“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that [Pres. Obama's] trying not to piss off a lot of people. But I believe wholeheartedly if he’s back in, he’s going to do some gangsta sh—.” – Chris Rock, Politico
Thanksgiving week began with a rhetorical explosion of Democratic, progressive and liberal disgust met with defensiveness, which was a continuation of what’s been building throughout Pres. Obama’s first term. The latest defense comes from the estimable Nicolas Kristoff and joins the list of equally unimpressive efforts, which culminates with this all being about “grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.” That is another wishfully lame assessment of an American electorate who passed “grumpiness” some time ago.
The quote above from Chris Rock came in early November, but it follows the current mood, as well as what I’ve written many times before about Mr. Obama and entitlements, for instance. Somebody’s going to “reform” entitlements, so everyone needs to decide which is better to get the blame, Democratic or Republican politicians. It’s a fitting end, because the big two parties have gotten us into this mess, which has led to a political system long overdue for upheaval and realignment, which has begun, the completion of which will take years and several election cycles.
Chris Matthews finally let his frustrations out with Alex Witt recently as well. It was one of the more extraordinary events from the notorious career Clinton hater, someone who earned a significant role in my book.
Coming on MSNBC made Matthews’ grousing more amazing, because there isn’t much political reality to be seen from MSNBC’s primetime coterie of hosts. The entire network has taken a dive into Democratic denial, which could be driven by the lack of sanity on the Republican side and betting it’s the smart move, but which is actually decidedly out of sync with most Americans, who are sick of both big two parties. Being the bookend for Fox News Channel might have seemed like a good idea once, but now just comes off as equally unwatchable.
From the interview with Matthews:
“There’s nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in his second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going?” – Chris Matthews with Alex Witt
What Mr. Matthews still doesn’t understand, though he’s certainly got a lot of company, as Mr. Kristoff proves today, is that even if Pres. Obama answered his questions it wouldn’t mean anything, because it’s coming from a man with no internal compass and people now realize it. Pres. Obama’s style is not moored in leading people to consensus from his own foundational principles that would give us something firm to grasp, but instead is predicated on culling consensus from what’s presented from others, which can change with the wind.
Of course, this in no way means he can’t win reelection. However, there’s a reason Dan Baltz points to the Center for American Progress recent report that states 2012 will be “no election for the faint-hearted.” The uncertainty is also why the news that Democrats are out fundraising Republicans for House races is so important to Democrats, in case Obama loses.
Last week a video circulating had one Obama supporter give a flatly delivered, unenthusiastic case on why he wasn’t disappointed by Pres. Obama, which I rebutted easily with Obama’s history, while simultaneously you had Jonthan Chait give a long-winded whine about liberals. From Chait’s piece:
Harry Truman has become the patron saint of dispirited Democrats, the fighting populist whose example is invariably cited in glum contrast to whatever bumbling congenital compromiser happens to hold office at any given time. In fact, liberals spent the entire Truman presidency in a state of near-constant despair. Republicans took control of Congress in the 1946 elections and bottled up Truman’s domestic agenda, rendering him powerless to expand the New Deal, as liberals had hoped he would after the war had ended. Liberal columnist Max Lerner decried Truman’s mania for “cooperation” and his eagerness “to blink [past] the real social cleavage and struggles,” attributing this pathological eagerness to avoid conflict to his “middle-class mentality.” (Some contemporary critics have reached the same psychoanalysis of Obama, substituting his bi-racial background as the cause.) The New Republic’s Richard Strout lamented how “little evidence he has shown of being able to lift up and inspire the masses.” The historian Richard Pells has written that in the eyes of liberals at the time, “the president remained an incorrigible mediocrity.”
An exception to this trend, but only a partial exception, is Franklin Roosevelt, the most esteemed of the historical Democratic president-saints. Roosevelt is hard to compare to anybody, because his achievements were so enormous, and his failures so large as well (court-packing, interning Japanese-Americans). But even his triumphs, gleaming monuments to liberalism when viewed from the historical distance, appear, at closer inspection, to be riddled with the same tribulations, reversals, compromises, dysfunctions, and failures as any other. Roosevelt did not run for office promising to boost deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. He ran castigating Herbert Hoover for permitting high deficits, then immediately passed an austerity budget in his first year. Roosevelt did come around to Keynesian stimulus, but he never seemed to understand it, and in 1937 he reversed himself again by cutting spending, helping plunge the economy into a second depression eventually mitigated only by war spending.
I’ve written, as Chait did this past week, on J.F.K. being dragged to civil rights by Martin Luther King, Jr. In my book, in a chapter titled “Blaming Bill” that makes a similar case on liberal schizophrenia, I also write about Bill Clinton’s mistake on derivatives, his help campaigning and electing Blue Dog Democrats while making labor the villain, not to mention Clinton’s free trade penchant, which is being channeled by Pres. Obama, as the former president’s economic policies make the latter’s possible. It’s juxtaposed against the pastime of progressives to blame Bill Clinton for everything, which is often cited by Obama fans as what’s happening to our current president, though I also lay out a conclusive case of just how different the situations were for these two men entering the presidency.
See, contrary to my “die hard Clintonite” mantle (given to me by the Washington Post, no less), I’m no stranger to Democratic discontent. It’s why my recovering partisan present is a natural. In fact, anyone paying attention to my history of writing going back into the ’90s will see that it’s the one constant in my life, seen best in my vote for Reagan in ’80.
Chait resurrects a beauty from the history books on that one:
The Times’ editorial board captured the liberal view of the era when it relayed the joke of a voter with a gun to his head who’s asked to choose between Carter and Ronald Reagan and replies, “Shoot.”
So furious was I at Carter, a combination born out of waiting in gas lines in New York City, a place in decline at the time, while watching the hostage crisis play out, with Teddy Kennedy’s hopes going up in smoke with Roger Mudd, it made voting for Reagan easy. Anger’s like that at the voting booth; emotion a powerfully irrational catalyst.
Who can forget candidate Obama hoisting Ronald Reagan up as an example over William Jefferson Clinton time and again? Chait does it as well. However, Mr. Chait ends his attempt at defending Pres. Obama with a thank you to his critics. Oh, the irony, which he misses completely, making his own defense of the President schizophrenic.
Republican Reagan-worship is a product of a pro-authority mind-set that liberals, who inflate past heroes only to criticize their contemporaries, cannot match. If recent history is any guide, they are simply not capable of having that kind of relationship with a president. They are going to question their leader, not deify him, and search for signs of betrayal in any act of compromise he or she may commit. This exhausting psychological torment is no way to live. Then again, the current state of the Republican Party suggests it may be healthier than the alternative.
It brings me back to a place I know well. Not so much looking for an ideological leader, as a human being with an unflinching compass and undeniable character to stand up against Congress and politicians of both parties. A lightning rod of a person who rails at the injustices and isn’t afraid of anything, including outcome. An individual outside of the corporate and political systems that has brought us to the brink.
However, even though this person no doubt exists somewhere it won’t matter as things stand today. Because the system our founders put together wasn’t driven by two locked in ideological political parties that after two hundred years have reached the only ending they could: stalemate.
In the end our American democratic republic wasn’t made from political parties, but from a diverse group of leaders standing on their own principles, as well as self interest, with compromise and deals made possible out of necessity, not ideology. There is no necessity to compromise today because the political parties to which our politicians belong won’t allow this natural occurrence to manifest. The only thing that can alter that fact is more political individuals elected outside the system.
But first we have to tear the two party system down, which is what the Tea Party began doing, with Occupy Wall Street offering another angle, which holds more hope, because there is not party alliance at its hub, though it’s clear there are more similarities with Democratic principles at its core.
As an side, Libertarianism, as seen through politicians like Ron Paul, the only person talking war and peace in real terms, offers an alliance for Democrats and even Republicans sick to death of the militancy of their own conservative wings, which has gained more ground under Pres. Obama. But again, this can only happen with more independent minded and not beholden to party politicians getting elected.
It won’t be done completely in 2012, but the system has already begun to shake. The bad news is that we are going to elect a few more weak leaders before it’s over. That’s the case whether Barack Obama gets reelected or Mitt Romney takes the presidency, though the case for Mitt with some will lie in what might be possible from him, which comes coupled with what is known not to work already with Pres. Obama.
The likelihood that the American electorate will just keep throwing the bums out until we reach a moment when the person we’re electing means more than the party he or she represents is where American politics is being pushed today.
Voting for a Democratic or Republican politician simply because of their brand simply isn’t working anymore. Certainly we can all at least agree on that.
President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll. – The Hillary Moment
The Obama supporter in the video shown here is “not disappointed by Pres. Obama.”
I’m not either.
The difference is that I’m not as exhausted as this particular Obama supporter seems to be, because I don’t feel the need to defend him or attempt a pitch on his presidency that comes with no enthusiasm and gives lesser of two evils as the foundation. Watching the video is actually depressing instead of convincing.
I’m also not disappointed to say most of the things Pres. Obama has accomplished most any Democratic president would have also done, which may be part of the reason most die hard Obama fans always end up their arguments talking about the appalling choices on the right.
But I wasn’t disappointed in Tim Geithner or Larry Summers, because it’s not like Barack Obama, who received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in his time, was going to buck the boys that represent those jackals.
I knew Pres. Obama would not lead the country on issues he believed strongly in, inspiring Congress to find consensus, because what he does is compromise between ideas presented to him.
I also wrote that no one should take his anti-war Iraq speech as any indication of what he’d do as president, because his votes in the United States Senate on these matters were exactly like Hillary Clinton’s. I wrote that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate he would have likely voted for the Iraq war, just as all the Democratic presidential hopefuls did from the Senate, with his presidency proving that possibility very real.
It’s hard to take anyone touting Mr. Obama as the lesser of two evils, as Obama supporters do most often, while as President he’s shown a penchant toward militarism that rivals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
I wasn’t disappointed when Pres. Obama decided to bomb Libya. See above.
I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama assassinated an American citizen abroad using executive branch powers, because he’s been following the George W. Bush presidential model all the way.
So, I wasn’t surprised that instead of showing economic muscle, Pres. Obama opted for 2,500 Marines in Australia. See above.
I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama handed over health care to Sen. Max Baucus and the insurance industry, because I watched him at the very first health care debate, sponsored by CAP/SEIU, in Nevada, long before I back Hillary. He came in and spoke about health care without a plan or a clue on what he would do.
I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama’s compromise and capitulation, because there was never any evidence that he’d fight for Democratic principles.
I’m not disappointed that before the 2010 midterms Pres. Obama didn’t lead with an economic message to rival the Tea Party, because he’s not made one argument for progressive economics, preferring to tout Ronald Reagan a lot more often than Bill Clinton, the man who made Obama’s neoliberal presidency possible.
I’m not disappointed that Pres. Obama then caved to Republicans and extended the Bush tax cuts in December 2010, because after all, if he’s not going to fight before an election why would he fight afterward when his Democratic majority was in shambles?
I wasn’t even disappointed in the midterm outcomes themselves or that women split their vote with Republicans, with seniors tilting right, because Pres. Obama doesn’t make the Democratic case for why they shouldn’t.
I wasn’t disappointed that across the country state houses turned red, because Pres. Obama set the Republicans up by making things easier for them.
I wasn’t so much disappointed in Pres. Obama’s selling out women to the Bart Stupak crowd as wishing he’d simply voted “present” as he did in Illinois.
I wasn’t even disappointed when Pres. Obama didn’t fight for Elizabeth Warren to head the agency that was her brainchild.
Pres. Obama isn’t a fighter, that is, unless he’s fighting for himself.
I’m not disappointed in Pres. Obama for not being a more progressive leader, because I knew he wasn’t a progressive from the start.
It’s also not disappointing that Pres. Obama has made the Democratic Party more like the Republican Party through his continual leaning to the right, because both parties are basically the same these days, though the Republican right’s crazy is more virulent, while the Democratic left is just feckless.
I’m not disappointed Pres. Obama didn’t get a primary challenger, because you’d have to be nuts to go up against a man so thoroughly bought and paid for by Wall Street and big business.
I’m not disappointed that Republicans are “deranged,” because that’s nothing new and so hearing the Obama supporter in the video make the case that Pres. Obama is better than the alternative isn’t disappointing, because as I’ve proven here, what else do they have?
Pres. Obama is better than the current leading alternative on the Republican side, which today is Newt Gingrich.
I’m just not sure what that says about this country or our chances of getting out of the mess we’re in.
I’m not disappointed that Mitt Romney will still likely be the one to challenge Pres. Obama, because they’re the flip side of each big party, matching each other pretty well on aloofness, elitism, lack of power to relate, cluelessness of the 99% and just how badly most everyone would like to have better choices than either of these two men.
It’s just the latest edition of the Hillary Effect.
POSTSCRIPT:The only relevant aspect to the so-called “Democratic pollsters” writing in the WSJ is the short bit I quote at the top. These very real numbers are indeed the inspiration for yet another chapter in the Hillary Effect. So, not even the opining of Fox News Channel shills can negate that the Hillary Effect has been in sway since 2008, going back to when Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s vice president, all of which is detailed in my book. As for those throwing around the false talking point about “Obama hatred,” there is absolutely no evidence of it, except among right wing extremists and wingnut conservatives, with the American people still liking Pres. Obama personally. As for me, I’ve been consistent over a long period of time. I’ve called out Secretary Clinton’s militarism and where we disagree on foreign policy (here, here, here, here, here). The case is made in my book The Hillary Effect, which anyone interested in the history of the last few years should read.
There are four main reasons that Republicans have been ignoring foreign policy. First, polls show that voters hardly care about it. “Republicans realize this will be a referendum on Obama’s economy, and they’re speaking to that,” said Greg Mueller, the president of CRC Public Relations, which works with conservative candidates and advocacy groups. “It’s like in 1992, except that instead of saying, ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’ they’re saying, ‘It’s the Obama economy, stupid.’ ” Second, national security hasn’t been a weak point for Obama… – The National Journal
With the economy on everyone’s minds, Pres. Obama’s disapproval now at a new high, and after Bush-Cheney’s foreign policy adventurism, foreign policy isn’t the Republicans’ trump card any more. The other problem is that Pres. Obama has continued much of what George W. Bush started, while expanding in Afghanistan, with his assassination order on bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki proving Mr. Obama is anything but “weak on national security,” the favorite talking point of the right.
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy ideas deserve the closest scrutiny, as he’s still likely to be the nominee.
But I’m wondering how Herman Cain will survive the night. He can’t revert to his 9-9-9 regurgitated talking points, with foreign policy his jaw dropping weakness.
This is a chance of Jon Huntsman to shine and keep his hopes of challenging Romney in New Hampshire alive, while Ron Paul, even though he rarely gets the credit he deserves on foreign policy, will certainly be challenging the Republican establishment and making them very uncomfortable.
As for Rick Perry, he’s launched a $975,000 ad buy on Fox News Channel to try to resurrect his candidacy, which I believe is actually about being able to go back to Texas short of disgraced.
Of course, on Saturday night it’s hard to imagine just how many potential primary voters will even be watching.
However, the political junkie class will have the popcorn ready, because Newt Gingrich has got to think he’s within striking distance of being the Romney alternative. Conservatives are desperate for one.
TM NOTE:Welcome to Kimberly, who will be writing exclusively on economic issues for TM.com, every Saturday afternoon. She’s fluent in business and technical writing, which is a tremendous voice to add. Please say hello to Kimberly.
Behind the flag waving, cute slogans and parades yesterday for our veterans, there was some very troubling news for the men and women who have served in the armed forces. The most alarming came from a study done by The 100000 Homes Campaign:
27% of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans reported traumatic brain injury, compared to 19% of other veterans.. 21.3% of homeless veterans reported an age over 60, compared to 9.4% of homeless non-veterans… As a group, veterans were 11 percentage points more likely to suffer from at least one condition linked to increased risk of death among the homeless population, which means the men and women who risked their lives defending America may be far more likely to die on its streets.
As the economy slips even further, young veterans are suffering from a disproportionate unemployment rate. According to Businessweek:
The youngest of veterans, aged 18 to 24, had a 30.4 percent jobless rate in October, way up from 18.4 percent a year earlier. Non-veterans of the same age improved, to 15.3 percent from 16.9 percent. For some groups, the numbers can look a good deal worse: for black veterans aged 18-24, the unemployment rate is a striking 48 percent.
We are setting our society for a whole new generation of homeless vets; men and women who signed up (oftentimes these days to get out of economic straits), fought in the name of our freedom and now come back to the same, if not worse, financial situation than the one they left.
“Sometimes you wonder if there would be some way to introduce private sector competition, somebody else who could come in and say each solder has ‘X’ thousand dollars attributed to them and then they can choose where they want to go in the government system or the private system with the money that follows them. Like what happens with schools in Florida where people have a voucher that goes with him.”
The VFW has come out strongly against this, and I’m sure that other groups will follow suit. The one thing veterans know they can rely on is VA medical care, so necessary in light of the above homeless statistics, and privatizing the system would only ruin it.
“Over the last 10 years, more than 1.2 million of the refinanced loans have been made to veterans and their families, and as many as 90 percent may have been affected by the alleged fraud, according to attorneys for the plaintiffs.”
We are the only industrialized country that treats their returning soldiers this way. If the Pentagon would shift some of that contracting money towards the troops and their well-being, they would finally get some of the support they need. We can do better than this.
Read your blog and didn’t know if you knew why Dad didn’t serve in the military. He was working at Boeing Aircraft in Wichita, Kansas, an essential industry, during the war and they wouldn’t accept him in the service because he was needed at Boeing. At least, that’s what I was always told and have no reason not to believe. – Larry (my big brother)
In our family, because of the gaps in our ages, accumulating information to piece together our story has been a life long process for me. It’s become a tradition around here on Veteran’s Day to give a nod to my late Uncle Dick, who flew missions during WWII. So many missions, in fact, that he ended up with what my mom called “battle fatigue” at the time.
People like my father did his part, too, even if he wanted to be on the front lines.
We can never fully thank our soldiers, the military who serve in intelligence and support, or their families, for what they all give to this country and each of us. But today we can remember them and the sacrifices they make every day.
There are too many of our military serving in far off places where we should no longer be engaged. On this Veterans Day, I send a silent meditation into the ether, hoping that we will one day have leaders who understand this and begin to bring our troops home from far flung places around the globe.
To the veterans who read and email me, thank you for your service, as well as the service of your family.
We salute all of those who serve today, including the wives, husbands, children and parents who spend years without their loved ones who are standing on the front lines.
Around the world, Nov. 11 is still celebrated as Armistice Day (or Remembrance Day), marking the day when German and Allied forces agreed to the end of hostilities on the Western Front in World War I. But Armistice Day also now serves to remember all who have served in the military.
That’s the debt deal cog, revenues for entitlement cuts, which Speaker Boehner addressed yesterday. From CBS News:
“I think there is room for revenues, but I think there clearly is a limit to the amount of revenues that are available,” Boehner told reporters.
The comment was significant because Boehner and other Republican leaders have repeatedly insisted that tax increases are off the table, and most Republicans in the House and Senate have signed a “taxpayer protection pledge” vowing not to raise taxes.
[...] Boehner insisted that Republicans would only compromise on tax revenue if Democrats were willing to take significant and painful steps to shore up Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. “Without real reform on the entitlement side, I don’t know how you put any revenue on the table.”
He said any new tax revenue would not come from raising rates but from overhauling the tax code, sweeping out loopholes and deductions in order to reduce individual and corporate rates.
If you haven’t heard, along with Boehner, a coalition of 100 House Republicans and Democrats, led by Blue Dog Heath Shuler, sent a letter to the supercommittee telling them to “go big” and include revenues. You can find the signatories at the bottom of the letter.
Meanwhile, Pres. Bush’s plan to withdraw from Iraq is being carried out by Pres. Obama, though we’ll build up our military presence in the Gulf (while keeping troops in Okinawa, Germany and dozens of other countries around the world). Americans will just have to do without.
After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.
In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.
With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Bahrain , Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.
The Pentagon always wins.
As for the one woman supercommittee, women are the voting, working and buying majority in this country, but Rep. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t bring herself to appoint even one woman. The party’s so over, for Republicans and Democrats.
“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.
The following text was provided by people helping Scott Olsen, including IVAW and Occupy Wall Street:
Scott Olsen, 24, a Marine veteran who did two tours in Iraq, was hit by a police projectile during the brutal police crackdown on Occupy Oakland on 10/26. He is in serious but stable condition at an Oakland hospital with traumatic head injury. Scott is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Donate to the Fund for Scott’s medical care here.
They also provided an address where flowers and cards can be sent to Scott:
USMC Scott Olsen Highland Hospital 1411 East 31st Street Oakland, CA 94602
I’ve been told via email that Scott’s mother is in route to California from Wisconsin, with the money being donated also helping to get her there.
News so far is that it’s going to be a long, hard recovery.
Glenn’s got a new book out, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. The interview above with Rachel Maddow is worth your time.
One focus of Glenn’s book, which I haven’t yet read, evidently is the pardon of Richard M. Nixon, something that rocked my world when it happened. When Gerald R. Ford died, I minced no words, writing “I Can’t Forgive Ford,” plus a follow up piece. I think our country suffered greatly for Nixon not being fully investigated and tried for the crimes he committed as president. A subtle message was also sent.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as I watch Occupy Wall Street unfold, giving birth to state Occupy movements. I think back to Eliot Spitzer, who opened the door for his enemies, but who was on a trail that Wall Street tycoons couldn’t afford him to follow. Spitzer paid dearly for his stupidity and we lost a sheriff.
It’s ironic that Democrats like Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton were made to walk the plank, Clinton being impeached, but yet Richard M. Nixon was allowed to resign, and Ronald Reagan skated on Iran-Contra, something far more dangerous than a consensual fling with an intern.
A lot more people who robbed this country from the comfort of their Wall Street offices need to pay. Our political class and the parties who protect these people, because they pay their way into power are failing us even further if they don’t.
TM NOTE:Speaking of books, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Mahablog, Skippy, Newshounds, and Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice, where I also post weekly. All of these blogs offered a free ad to me to get the word out on my book. Joe also has encouraged me to also write about the book on his site, for which I’m very grateful. Class acts, all.
Byron York picks up the story that started on Fox News Channel.
Appearing on Fox News Monday morning, Rove produced a whiteboard on which he had written a list of recent and not-so-recent Cain gaffes: statements on abortion, taxes, terrorism, neoconservatism, the Mideast, and others. “The whole effect of this is to not create an image, I think, of him being a flip-flopper,” Rove said. “I think it’s to create an image of being not up to the task.”
“It’s a good thing the voters are not looking at Karl Rove’s little whiteboard,” Cain said in a phone conversation from a stop in Chicago Monday afternoon. “I believe it is a deliberate attempt to damage me because I am not, quote unquote, the establishment choice. But why not go with the choice that the people seem to like?”
Cain accused Rove of bias in favor of candidates with big organizations, lots of money, and prior experience in political office — all things Cain doesn’t have. “What has Karl Rove done?” Cain continued. “If I become the nominee, he has given Democrats talking points for a commercial to attack me. It makes no sense unless it’s a deliberate attempt on his part to try to push me down so that the candidate he wants rises to the top.”
When asked which candidate he believes Rove supports, Cain said, “I believe he wants Romney to get it.”
“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she told CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked whether Iran’s relationship with Iraq is a concern. – Clinton warns Iran against moving into Iraq
President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq during a secure video teleconference in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 21, 2011. Seated at the table, from left, are: Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President ; National Security Advisor Tom Donilon; Puneet Talwar, Senior Director for Iraq, Iran and the Gulf States; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough; and Chief of Staff Bill Daley. Pictured onscreen are: at left, Prime Minister al-Maliki, along with two aides; in center, Vice President Joe Biden; at right, General Lloyd Austin, Commanding General of U.S. Forces - Iraq and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
November 17, 2008 – Tina Susman BAGHDAD — Iraq’s Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans. T[...] The agreement is to replace the United Nations mandate expiring Dec. 31 that gives U.S. forces the legal basis for being in Iraq. [...] The agreement calls for American forces to pull out of Iraqi cities by the end of June and fully withdraw from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. – Iraq Cabinet OKs U.S. exit schedule
Before Barack Obama was inaugurated, the Iraq Cabinet voted and affirmed the U.S. military withdrawal of December 31, 2011. That means the timeline was formulated when Pres. George W. Bush was still in office. It seems collective amnesia has set it, with few remembering the facts. If we started talking about the details in Josh Rogin’s piece, “How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations,” the reality beneath what we saw happen on Friday would unravel.
Spencer Ackerman joins Josh Rogin in reporting the outside elements swirling upon Pres. Obama’s announcement. Both reports come under damning headlines, with Rogin getting an adamant response from the White House after his went up. Rogin’s piece didn’t make anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very happy. Ackerman’s post likely pissed off the State Department too. Here’s an excerpt:
But the fact is America’s military efforts in Iraq aren’t coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas.
The State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security does not have a promising record when it comes to managing its mercenaries. The 2007 Nisour Square shootings by State’s security contractors, in which 17 Iraqi civilians were killed, marked one of the low points of the war. Now, State will be commanding a much larger security presence, the equivalent of a heavy combat brigade. In July, Danger Room exclusively reported that the Department blocked the Congressionally-appointed watchdog for Iraq from acquiring basic information about contractor security operations, such as the contractors’ rules of engagement.
That means no one outside the State Department knows how its contractors will behave as they ferry over 10,000 U.S. State Department employees throughout Iraq — which, in case anyone has forgotten, is still a war zone. Since Iraq wouldn’t grant legal immunity to U.S. troops, it is unlikely to grant it to U.S. contractors, particularly in the heat and anger of an accident resulting in the loss of Iraqi life.
It’s a situation with the potential for diplomatic disaster. And it’s being managed by an organization with no experience running the tight command structure that makes armies cohesive and effective.
You can also expect that there will be a shadow presence by the CIA, and possibly the Joint Special Operations Command, to hunt persons affiliated with al-Qaida. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has conspicuously stated that al-Qaida still has 1,000 Iraqi adherents, which would make it the largest al-Qaida affiliate in the world.
So far, there are three big security firms with lucrative contracts to protect U.S. diplomats. Triple Canopy, a longtime State guard company, has a contract worth up to $1.53 billion to keep diplos safe as they travel throughout Iraq. Global Strategies Group will guard the consulate at Basra for up to $401 million. SOC Incorporated will protect the mega-embassy in Baghdad for up to $974 million. State has yet to award contracts to guard consulates in multiethnic flashpoint cities Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as the outpost in placid Irbil.
These reports are both important, because they give atmospherics.
It’s Ackerman’s “entering a new phase” analysis that I think is worth emphasizing.
I disagree with people who are not acknowledging the importance of what Pres. Obama announced, as well as the risks involved, which both reports I mention above reveal. Obama’s announcement is no small matter.
The bookend, however, is that we are entering a new phase of our relationship with Iraq’s government and people. Do people actually expect for the U.S. to go from preemption to no involvement at all? Certainly people’s intelligence for foreign policy isn’t that low.
Given that I’ve written about the mega-embassy in Baghdad, I’m not surprised at all there will be a multi-billion dollar expenditure to protect it after U.S. military forces withdraw. This was telegraphed long ago.
I’m wary of what awaits after we withdraw from Iraq, which is one reason I was against going in and said so at the time.
Both Ackerman’s and Rogin’s reports should be read as they are offered. Reporters doing their job informing people, at least those who are willing to listen to facts and realities on the ground in Iraq as the U.S. military prepares to leave.
What matters in the discussion is that our involvement in Iraq is not over. That’s the sobering and salient point that everyone needs to swallow.
Anyone focused on declaring any kind of “victory” or fixated on trying to claim credit for the current Administration doesn’t understand the collective breath-holding a lot of people will be doing once our troops begin withdrawing. This includes Pres. Obama, whose job it is as commander in chief to oversee the withdrawal that’s about to begin and the aftermath it leaves behind.
Meanwhile, the Republican snarls will rise to a crescendo as the 2012 smackdown gets closer.
President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq. – Mitt Romney (via Ben Smith)
There is real risk to what Pres. Obama is doing on Iraq by following Bush’s timetable, though I’m certainly not suggesting we stay, because we must not. But if Obama’s poll numbers were better among his own base it’s my belief he would not be following it. The forces from the State Dept. Spencer Ackerman reports about points to a reality that leads to this possibility.
The final outcome of what Republicans and Democrats concocted through allowing Pres. Bush to choose preemption is something we may not know for many years.
As for the short-term, I’ve got my fingers crossed that Pres. Obama made the wise decision, which brings with it a shift to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, something that doesn’t fill me with confidence. Secy. Clinton will have her hands full managing this feat, with the track record of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security nothing to laud. If you’re not worried about this development you don’t understand the magnitude of how badly things could go wrong and how very quickly, too.
What Bush wrought in Iraq is not Pres. Obama’s fault, the timeline Bush’s as well. However, once Pres. Obama makes the turn he’s planned, he’ll own what happens next in Iraq. Digest that.
The insipid fan politics that has blown up over Pres. Obama’s announcement on U.S. military troop withdrawal from Iraq is unworthy of the subject. Whether it’s in the comments or emails, Obama fans have now morphed into the 2012 version of “puma,” expecting allegiance or bellyaching ensues. For those of you who have forgotten, “puma” wasn’t welcome around here.
When Pres. Obama made the announcement on U.S. troop withdrawal, initially I simply put up the video, that was it, nothing else. These are the very first two comments that appeared:
Solo 21 October 2011 at 2:31 pm Taylor I am breathlessly waiting to see how you and your followers are going to turn this into a negative!
Solo 21 October 2011 at 2:33 pm I predict that you and your people are going to say one of two things. It’s no big deal or he should have done this sooner. LOL! Obama2012!
Not one word about Iraq or foreign policy, just this drivel. The conversation took off from there, Iraq and the seriousness the U.S. faces in that country taking second place, hijacked by fan politics. This type of comment continued throughout the thread.
I thought it was pretty clear where I was taking TM.com over the last months, even years. But not even Joyce Arnold’s “Two Parties – Too Few Choices” series gave Obama fans a clue. I have encouraged and talked with Joyce about this series since its inception for a very good reason.
The Democratic and Republican parties have failed this country. It’s not “Washington” that is the problem. It’s our two-party system and the weak politicians who inhabit it who have been bought off, locking the American people out of it, unless of course you’re part of the 1%.
Pres. Obama has driven the political and policy conversations to the right, emboldening Republicans.
As for the GOP, I’m aghast and disgusted with the candidates who are auditioning for commander in chief. Jon Huntsman is at least qualified for that part of the presidency, though woefully lacking on others, but he’s not going to get a chance, so Mitt Romney is their most sane candidate, though who knows if he’ll survive. My bet has been he will and I hope so, because we at least need someone serious to challenge him and 9-9-9 man won’t get it done. However, on foreign policy Mr. Romney is only as good as his closest adviser, which looking at Cofer “the gloves come off” Black doesn’t hold out much optimism.
A race between Obama and Romney is perfect for where the two-party system is today: bankrupt on principle, bankrolled and beholden to Wall Street and corporations, and offering no real choice to voters at all. Maybe seeing Obama vs. Romney will wake people up to this pathetic reality in American politics, perhaps move our country one small step away from having only two choices for president.
Contrary to the squeals of “hate,” etc. lobbed against people commenting on this site, the readers around here are very smart and are motivated beyond emotion. Their opinions are linked to actual policy decisions being carried out or those that are not, not their besotted allegiance to a single politician.
The rightward lurch of Pres. Obama, which has led the country, the Democratic Party and our politics further away from progressive economics is simultaneously threatening the American safety net. This is unacceptable, but both Republicans and Democrats would rather carve the New Deal up than adjust our involvement around the world. Both parties refuse to focus on priorities that will help the middle class and put our economic and domestic house in order, allowing the Pentagon to continue their stranglehold on the money pipeline.
Unless more independent voices make it into the system nothing will ever change.
As for around here, we need more voices in the comment section; some of you who are emailing me need to step up and join in. But not to add more fan politics to the pile, but to talk about policies and how our politicians in both parties are failing we the people.
There are many reasons people, independents, progressives and Democrats, are un-enthused about 2012 and Pres. Obama’s reelection. Most of the criticism coming at Pres. Obama and the Democratic Party is justified. So certainly you Obama die-hards who comment can find a way to keep it to the issues, instead of turning this into a politician pimping brawl by going “puma.”
Capitalism Out of the Closet **UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama **Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
Watching the reaction of the Pakistanis after the NATO bombing incident that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, it was hard not to wonder if this would escalate further. It just did.
