TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

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

Tag Archives | military

Obama Wins the Week

By on 21 October 2011

President Barack Obama meets with members of his national security team in the Situation Room of the White House, Oct. 11, 2011, to thank them for their work in disrupting a plot to assassinate Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir of Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Republicans made Pres. Obama look very good this week. They just cannot get their act together and the one they’ve taken on the road for tryouts has been a flop.

As weak as Pres. Obama is today, with large majorities believing he doesn’t know what he’s doing on the economy. The Republicans are absolutely inept at making any economic case at this point, with Herman Cain the biggest obstacle to fiscal sanity I’ve ever seen coming from the right. Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 is positively incomprehensible, especially if you’re a small government conservative.

Joe Scarborough said it best earlier this week:

“… This is exhibit 800 over the past year why my Republican Party has lost their way in such a serious, serious way. We laugh about it, but it is… it is actually tragic.”

Scarborough’s op-ed at Politico eviscerates the Republican field and for good reasons.

It’s a long way to November 2012, but right now team Obama has to be giddy. They’ve even got a priceless slogan, compliments of the Roberts Court and a progressive outside group, to help them drill the point home that Romney is a Wall Street Republican: The Romney Rule.

The “animosity” between Perry and Romney doesn’t look like it’s going away any time soon, either. Perry’s going to bear down for a final push. He’s got the money to do a blizzard of negative advertising, hitting Romney where it hurts. I just don’t see Romney rising unless other candidates start to drop out and there’s no evidence of that happening soon.

Then yesterday, a NATO airstrike, compliments of the U.S. and France, hit a convoy carrying Muammar Gaddafi on his way to Sirte. But that’s not the good news, because NATO taking out the malevolent maniac would have been one thing. However, Libyan rebels capturing Gaddafi after the strike, then delivering street justice means NATO and the rebels worked together, with the death blow delivered by the Libyan people.

It doesn’t come any sweeter, with the Obama administration getting very lucky on this one. Pres. Obama coming out on top.

Pres. Obama’s foreign policy choices have delivered Osama bin Ladin and Muammar Gaddafi to their maker, among a long list of Al Qaeda, including one American terrorist Anwar Awlaki with a drone strike into Yemen.

However, as Glenn Greenwald wrote yesterday, the collateral damage burns, as it does in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regions. The other side of than coin is that if people associate themselves with bad actors, bad things will eventually happen. But killing Awlaki’s teenage son, due to the indiscriminate nature of drone attacks, is unsettling.

That’s what fighting the “war on terror” is all about, which is why many voted for Barack Obama, because he was going to be different from George W. Bush.

I remain unimpressed by the Administration’s lack of imagination and continued one note militarism. A Republican could have done many of the same acts of carnage, though I shed no tears for Osama or Gaddafi. Anwar Awlaki is a bit more troublesome. There’s something unsettling about offing an American citizen on foreign soil.

Hey, but that’s picking gnat crap out of pepper for Pres. Obama’s biggest fans, as well as his progressive and Democratic allies.

The bad news for team Obama and the President is there still isn’t anything positive to log on the American economy. Presidents can’t do a lot in the current situation, but when things get worse on your watch, you’re the one who looks bad.

…until the next Republican debate.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Obama Deploys 100 Troops to Uganda

By on 15 October 2011

**bumped**

By end of 2011, SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command] estimates its forces will be in 120 countries, up from 60 under President Bush. #NotBreakingNews – Jeremy Scahill (via Twitter)

We’ve been engaged in Uganda for years, but one hundred troops? Seriously?

In an update to his report, Jake Tapper adds: A Defense Department official tells ABC’s Luis Martinez at the Pentagon that the U.S. troops will be in Africa “for a few months in an advisory role.”

Oh. My. God. People are so ignorant they don’t realize what can be triggered from “an advisory role” position.

How many military engagements has Pres. Obama launched? I’ve lost count.

Hey, but at least he notified Congress this time, evidently getting the message, at least in part.

Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army

The president in his letter noted that Congress passed “the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” signed into law on May 24, 2010, in which, the president said, “the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.” [...]

When the president signed that letter in May 2010, he said the bill “crystallizes the commitment of the United States to help bring an end to the brutality and destruction that have been a hallmark of the LRA across several countries for two decades, and to pursue a future of greater security and hope for the people of central Africa. The Lord’s Resistance Army preys on civilians – killing, raping, and mutilating the people of central Africa; stealing and brutalizing their children; and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Its leadership, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, has no agenda and no purpose other than its own survival. It fills its ranks of fighters with the young boys and girls it abducts. By any measure, its actions are an affront to human dignity.”

Log this one under the same humanitarian emotionalism that convinced Pres. Obama to bomb Libya.

All of those Democrats and progressives who utilized candidate Obama’s anti Iraq war speech to elevate him above all of the other Democrats really do look foolish today.

At this rate, Iran will be next. We’re in the conservative throes of a presidential election season where the Democratic president and his people think his best card is military. I mean, really.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Netanyahu Negotiates Deal with Hamas

By on 12 October 2011

I don’t know if the cliché applies, that this is Mr. Netanyahu’s China moment, but I bet a lot of people never thought they’d read a headline like the one above.

However, I am reminded of a variation on Lawrence O’Donnell’s line, which is that the negotiated swap for Gilad Shalit isn’t done until it’s actually done.

If it’s completed this is a big moment for the new Egypt, whose involvement was reportedly central to the outcome.

From the New York Times:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told his nation in a live address on television that the soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was captured in June 2006 at the age of 19, could be home “within days,” ending what has been widely seen in Israel as a national trauma.

In Damascus, Syria, Khaled Meshal, the political leader of Hamas, said in a televised address that the negotiations had been “very, very difficult” and called the deal “a national accomplishment” that augured well for the Palestinians, who he said hoped to “cleanse the land, and liberate Jerusalem, and unite the Palestinian ranks.”

It was unclear what drove the two to accept a deal that had been on the table for years. But both stand to benefit politically and had reasons to distract attention from the efforts of Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, as he circles the globe seeking votes for his bid to gain United Nations membership for a state of Palestine.

Jeffrey Goldberg brings up a good point: If Marwan Barghouti is released as part of the exchange that will be some deal for Hamas.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 02 October 2011

Good morning and welcome to Sunday.

On this day in history, October 2, 1967 my favorite Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, was sworn in to sit on the nation’s highest Court.

Some interesting news and tid-bits from around the net:

~Congress has suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority as punishment for their UN bid. Apparently Bibi Netanyahu asked them not to do this because he knows that it could jeopardize the security cooperation between the PA security forces and Israel and lead to more violence.

~Wall Street is pointing their big guns at Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

~Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial disclosure oversight needs to be investigated.

~The targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki has generated some debate (also see here, here and here) about the legality of targeting known/suspected terrorists who are American citizens abroad. Among politicians, libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul is the only one willing to raise the legality issue. Clearly he hates America.

~The administration is pushing back against the criticism of the legality of targeted assassinations by leaking information to the Washington Post explaining why such assassinations are legal based on an internal review the administration did. The rationale given by a slew of anonymous officials is eerily similar to those given by the Bush administration for various constitutionally questionable actions. Basically, we are at war everywhere against anyone deemed a threat so in the name of security, we can do whatever we want.

~Fox News still thinks President Obama is very weak on terror.

~Newt Gingrich thinks that the repeal of DADT demonstrates President Obama’s anti-military prejudice. Newt who?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussing Egypt the other day with Al-Hayat TV:

~Since when did public protests where people exercise their First Amendment rights become such an annoyance to everyone in this great land of ours? The mainstream media has largely been criticizing if not outright mocking the Occupy Wall Street protests and Mayor Bloomberg really feels bad for Wall Street and says “we’ll see if the city will allow Occupy Wall St. to continue.” What?

~You would think the police might be a little more sympathetic to the Occupy Wall St. protesters.

~I’m a big Barbara Ehrenreich fan and so I was glad to see her commentary in the WaPo where she calls out the media and other elites for turning America’s millionaires and billionaires into victims of class warfare.

~Is Iran really an existential threat to Israel and the U.S.? This particular CIA veteran and counter-terrorism expert says no.

~Anti-gay marriage organizations are targeting lawmakers up for re-election in NY who support gay marriage by implying that such support was what sank Democrat Dave Weprin’s campaign in the NY-9 special election.

~Bank of America still sucks. The law Congress passed to limit unfair practices regarding bank/credit card fees is useless b/c the banks just add new fees/charges onto other services. It never ends.

~Our great ally Bahrain has sentenced 20 medical professionals to 15 year jail sentences for providing first aid to wounded protesters. Of course, that’s not the reason Bahrain gave, but that’s essentially what happened. Congress is currently approving the sale of $53 million worth of weapons to our great ally.

~Congratulations America, research shows that when compared to all the other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations, we come in dead last when it comes to worker protections.

~Montana Governor Schweizer is moving to enact single-payer health coverage in his state. Good on him.

~The Palestinians are waging a full frontal diplomatic assault on Mideast Quartet head Tony Blair. There have been revelations in British newspapers and television about possible financial conflicts of interest related to his diplomatic work in the Middle East which make the Quartet look even worse than it already does.

~The California Attorney General has reportedly rejected the massive foreclosure fraud settlement that would essentially reward the big banks/mortgage companies for wrongdoing leading to the collapse of the real estate market. The Obama administration has been leaning hard on states to support the settlement.

~Here is a video and transcript of President Obama’s speech before Human Rights Campaign last night.

~Justice Scalia continues to demonstrate that judicial ethics isn’t his strong suit. Church and State? What’s that?

~Speaking of the Supreme Court, their new session begins Monday and the issues on their plate for this term will have significant impact on issues including privacy rights, the health care law, affirmative action, the rights of gay adoptive parents and the limits (or not) of federal power.

~Congress has slashed the State Department budget because, you know, who needs diplomacy?

~Obama approved a controversial weapons sale to Israel and people still are running around claiming he’s anti-Israel.

~Chelsea Clinton on her father’s announcement that he would run for President 20 years ago.

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Mullen: Pakistan Exporting Violence to Afghanistan

By on 23 September 2011



This was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen’s last testimony before retiring. It’s SecDef Panetta’s first appearance in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, with the video via C-SPAN.

From ABC News (yesterday):

[...] Mullen even went so far as to say that Pakistan is “exporting violence” and that Pakistan’s intelligence agency provided the Haqqanis with support for their recent terror attacks in Kabul.

Mullen went further than defense officials who’ve said that the Haqqani Network was responsible for the recent terror attacks in Kabul prior to former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani’s assassination, although the bomber’s affiliation has yet to be determined.

The Haqqanis are “veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency [ISI],” he said in opening remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that it had provided the Haqqanis with support to conduct the Kabul attacks.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted the truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Mullen said of the recent attack on a base in Wardak that wounded 77 U.S. soldiers. “We also have credible intelligence that they were behind the June 28 attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

Both Mullen and Panetta described the turn to high-profile attacks in Afghanistan as a shift in tactics because insurgents are losing on the battlefield. Mullen said they are “as much about headlines and playing on the fears of a traumatized people, as they are about inflicting casualties, maybe even more so.”

He added, “We must not misconstrue them. They are serious and significant in shaping perceptions but they do not represent a sea change in the odds of military success.”

Mullen said Pakistan’s government has chosen to “use violent extremism as an instrument of policy,” which jeopardizes its relationship with the United States and its role as a player in the region.

Former Pres. George W. Bush had a “Musharaff policy,” as it came to be known, which did us no good at all.

After Pres. Obama gave the go ahead for Seal Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden, who had obviously been protected by factions inside the Pakistani government, as well as the ISI, our relationship became even more tense.

Mullen’s accusation doesn’t surprise anyone and the blunt assessment is something that’s been obvious for many years, even amid billions and billions of dollars of U.S. aid.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Rick Perry Can’t Untangle his Own Sentences

By on 23 September 2011

**UPDATED**

After the debate, one of Frank Luntz’s panelists lost his train of thought when trying to give an answer. Luntz immediately responded by saying, “Ladies & gentlemen, Gov. Rick Perry.” Laughter ensued. That encapsulated the whole debate.

…and this is a first. Not only does the Republican audience applaud death, but they even boo soldiers who happen to be gay. It gives new meaning to ugly Americans.

Many of the Luntz panelists also changed their minds on Perry, the majority moving to Mitt Romney. He even received adjectives like “Reaganesque” & “elegant” this time around. Having run this gauntlet before, Mitt Romney is relaxed, even unflappable, just keeping his stride steady and it’s working.

That’s partially because Perry continues to stumble. In one segment, Perry tried to deliver a clever rejoinder to attack Romney on flip flops but he couldn’t even follow his own train of thought. It was painful to watch, especially when Romney started in making Perry look like an amateur. As for Perry’s answer on Pakistan and the Haqqani network, I have no idea what he was trying to say and neither did he.

But nothing came close to Perry’s “illegal immigration” problem in the GOP primary. Luntz’s panel was livid about one comment he made, when Perry said anyone who doesn’t think his solution for immigrant children and college tuition isn’t correct doesn’t have a heart. I don’t see how Perry survives this subject by next year. The incoming is just brutal.

Rick Santorum had his best moment when he cornered Perry on the immigration issue, saying it’s not about allowing children of immigrants to go to college, it’s about “subsidizing” them. Perry had no retort.

Gary Johnson had the best line of the night, but it was borrowed from Rush Limbaugh today (h/t Michael Calderone via Twitter, as I didn’t listen to Rush):

RUSH: My dogs have created more shovel-ready work than Obama has (chuckling) just this week alone. The new puppy. Honest to God. More shovel-ready work for me this week than Obama has created all two and a half years.

I didn’t know Herman Cain had survived stage 4 colon and liver cancer. That’s the mother of all fights. The man’s got grit, no doubt about it.

Jon Huntsman, who has gained in New Hampshire recently, had a good night.

Newt made his pitch for Iowa, announcing he’s got a new contract on American he’ll announce next week.

As for Michele Bachmann, I wouldn’t normally make a comment on her fashion, but on our widescreen HD TV her neon orange suit was not only distracting, but blinding. She did fine, but if she was helped it is because of Gov. Perry’s poor performance.

Ron Paul is Ron Paul, which just isn’t good enough.

Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner through all the flavors of the month entries, with Gov. Rick Perry simply not able to perform on his feet in any debate, managing to actually fade with each one.

If you can’t unpack your own talking points you’re not going to best someone like Mitt Romney who’s been through the presidential gauntlet and has learned his lessons. He just keeps hitting Barack Obama, while making it all look so effortless.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Who is More Pro Israel?, the Ongoing Saga

By on 19 September 2011

Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand? – The Tsuris, by John Heilemann

For those who don’t have the time to look it up, “tsuris” means trouble, which for Heilemann goes very well with his alliteration “tsunami of tsuris,” while invoking Pres. Obama’s 1967 border policy. Remembering also that it came “with land swaps,” mimicking everything that’s come before.

Obama was furious with Netanyahu, who in choosing to ignore the crucial qualifier about land swaps had twisted Obama’s words beyond recognition—the kind of mendacious misinterpretation that makes the presidential mental. The seniormost members of Obama’s team felt much the same. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, Bill Daley, the former Mideast-peace envoy George Mitchell: All were apoplectic with the prime minister, whose behavior over the past two years had already tried their patience. “The collective view here is that he is a small-minded, fairly craven politician,” says an administration source deeply involved in its efforts to push the parties to the negotiating table. “And one who simply isn’t serious about making peace.”

I wrote well over a year ago that Israel would be a 2012 election year issue, which NY9 proved it can be in certain areas, among a minority of Jewish voters.

As for PM Netanyahu, Thomas Friedman said it very well yesterday:

O.K., Mr. Netanyahu has a strategy: Do nothing vis-à-vis the Palestinians or Turkey that will require him to go against his base, compromise his ideology or antagonize his key coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an extreme right-winger. Then, call on the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear program and help Israel out of every pickle, but make sure that President Obama can’t ask for anything in return — like halting Israeli settlements — by mobilizing Republicans in Congress to box in Obama and by encouraging Jewish leaders to suggest that Obama is hostile to Israel and is losing the Jewish vote. And meanwhile, get the Israel lobby to hammer anyone in the administration or Congress who says aloud that maybe Bibi has made some mistakes, not just Barack. There, who says Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a strategy?

Meanwhile, former PM Tony Blair is the one trying to head off catastrophe and convinced Mahmoud Abbas that the vote for Palestinian statehood at the U.N. is a colossal mistake. So far it’s not going very well.

“I gulped,” Mr Shaath said. “This was the statement that was supposed to persuade President Abbas not to go? Mr. Blair doesn’t sound like a neutral interlocutor. He sounds like an Israeli diplomat sometimes.” – Palestinian statehood bid: Tony Blair ‘like an Israeli diplomat’

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Rick Perry on the Record

By on 15 September 2011

Gov. Rick Perry’s interview with TIME magazine.

On Social Security, he’s obviously not worried GOP primary voters think calling Social Security a “ponzi scheme” is a problem.

But you know there’s concern among the Karl Rove crowd. Team Obama is going to love this answer:

There may be someone who is an established Republican who circulates in the cocktail circuit that would find some of my rhetoric to be inflammatory or what have you, but I’m really talking to the American citizen out there. I think American citizens are just tired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing around important issues. They want a decisive leader. I’m comfortable that the rhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on. Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme has been used for years. I don’t think people should be surprised that terminology would be used.

No one gets confused about the point I was making, that we have a system that is now broken. We need to make sure that those on Social Security today — and those approaching it — know without a doubt it will be in place. It will not go away. We’ll have a transitional period for those in mid-career as they’re planning for their retirement. And our young people should be given some options. I don’t know what all of those options need to be yet, but they know instinctively that the program that is there today is not going to be there for them unless there are changes made.

I don’t get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken. If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it’s a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it’s broken –they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation. Don’t try to scare the senior citizens and those who are on Social Security that it’s somehow going to go away with the mean, old heartless Republican.

How would you change Social Security? Would you consider private accounts or raising the retirement age?

We are having a national discussion now about a lot of different options: raising the [retirement] age, doing it in a structured way for the younger worker, some options from the standpoint of private accounts — all of those ought to be on the table. The idea that we’re going to write a Social Security reform plan today is a bit of a stretch from my perspective. I have accomplished one of the things that I wanted to do by talking about it. Americans are paying attention.

On Afghanistan:

What should happen next in Afghanistan?

I think we need to try to move our men and women home as soon as we can. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Iraq as well. And we’ve got to continually reassess our objectives. We need to make strategic decisions based on consultation with our military leaders on the ground, rather than just some arbitrary political promises.

Our objective should be clear. We’ve got to support the Afghan national security forces as they transition into the role of being the stable and appropriate force to sustain that country. Our overall objective has to be to serve that process and to drive out those who would do harm to our country. I think we’ve done that in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have substantial ways to continue to put the pressure on the bad guys, if you will, and I don’t think keeping a large force of United States uniform military in Afghanistan for a long period of time is particularly in the interest of the U.S., or for that matter, in Afghani interest.

But that was his answer with TIME.

Josh Rogin has a piece on Perry and Afghanistan, and this is from First Read:

In his VFW speech, He also has seemed to be for muscular interventionism — “We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home.”

But then in the very next sentence, he seemed to be against it — “I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism. We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened.”

Rick Perry is obviously confused. He’s not shown himself to be a very adept debater and he’s totally unable to think on his feet about complex issues. His discernment factor is zero.

Remind you of anyone?

Rick Perry is a 20th century man at a time when our challenges are very complex. But he’s outpacing Mitt Romney right now, because he comes off authentic, something Mitt couldn’t manage in a million years.

So far, regardless of Pres. Obama’s problems, and he’s got a lot of them, none of the Republican candidates have impressed enough for anyone to believe any of them can beat Candidate Obama, who’s a whole different beast than his weaker alter ego, Pres. Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

FT: Obama’s Planned Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security **UPDATED**

By on 14 September 2011

The Financial Times lays out what has been talked about for months and months, with Pres. Obama set to deliver a speech on deficit reduction on Monday.

It begins with the way the U.S. government measures inflation, which would deliver “a less generous chained-consumer price index,” to quote FT.

This decision alone would devastate elderly women, as I’ve written before.

Research from IWPR has shown the current Social Security program is a mainstay for women, and these findings have been supported by research from other organizations. Adult women are 51 percent (27 million) of all beneficiaries, including retirees, the disabled, and the survivors of deceased workers (52.5 million). Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become permanently disabled. Moreover, due to the recession many women have lost home equity and savings to failing markets. Older women—and older low income populations in general—have become more economically vulnerable and dependent on Social Security benefits. – IWPR

To give you an idea of the story framing at FT, they call Medicare and Medicaid “large government healthcare schemes for the elderly and the poor.”

As for Social Security, we just learned that according to the U.S. Census the only group not being dragged into poverty in the Obama era is senior citizens. There’s only one reason why, but our Democratic President thinks it’s time to “reform” their reality.

Soaring Poverty Casts Spotlight on ‘Lost Decade’

… Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the period from 2001 to 2007 was the first recovery on record where the level of poverty was deeper, and median income of working-age people was lower, at the end than at the beginning.

“Even before the recession hit, a lot of people were falling behind,” he said. “This may be adding to people’s sense of urgency about the economy.”

The suburban poverty rate, at 11.8 percent, appears to be the highest since 1967, Mr. Sherman added. Last year more Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty has also swallowed more children, with about 16.4 million in its ranks last year, the highest numbers since 1962, according to William Frey, senior demographer at Brookings. That means 22 percent of children are in poverty, the highest percentage since 1993.

Too bad the poor and children don’t squawk as loud as seniors, aren’t represented by AARP, but also don’t vote in as large numbers.

It’s funny how Republicans and now even Democrats are so courageous about putting the people’s safety net on the block, but these same politicians turn yellow when it comes to making real choices about military overspending, extravagance and waste, as if our military footprint around the globe isn’t a huge part of our economic problem.

But I’m reasonable.

So, I can be convinced to make serious entitlement reform, but something else has to happen first.

Get out of Iraq and begin a much more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan, because Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is scattered and broken apart; at the same time redeploy our troops from Germany and Okinawa, for starters, with an assessment begun by a committee filled with national security, military and Pentagon busting experts (like Winslow Wheeler) not currently attached to the Pentagon or having lobbyist ties, to ascertain the other countries from which we can remove U.S. forces, based on U.S. strategic interests.

Do all of these things then come to me and ask about entitlement cuts reform.

UPDATE – 9.15.11: Under pressure, today the White House pushed back on the FT story, with reports in the Washington Post and the WSJ reporting Pres. Obama will not tinker with Social Security. The problem for Pres. Obama is that he’s already floated these ideas, so whether he does it on Monday or not it’s in the political water, bolstering the Right’s passion for pulverizing the U.S. social safety net.

The last time President Obama negotiated with Republicans about overhauling the nation’s social safety set, he put several significant and politically explosive proposals on the table.

This time, it may be different.

As Obama prepares to present Congress on Monday with a detailed plan for taming the nation’s debt, a pivotal question is whether he will again propose raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and propose cuts in Social Security benefits.

Over the objections of members of his party, the president had agreed to those changes as part of an unsuccessful effort to strike a debt deal this summer with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). But Obama’s aides say the plan being released Monday would not represent that sort of compromise.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Kabul U.S. Embassy Attacked by Taliban

By on 13 September 2011

From The UK Telegraph

Live coverage over at the UK Telegraph, with photos of the action.

This from the New York Times report:

Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday, pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

At last night’s GOP debate the mantra to get out of Afghanistan remained a powerful message for Republicans if the establishment on the Right can get on board.

Secy. Clinton had an entirely different message on behalf of the Administration:

Americans will not be cowed and will continue to work in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday after Taliban gunmen attacked the US embassy in Kabul.

“The civilians who serve… will not be intimidated by this kind of cowardly attack,” Clinton said, adding there were no casualties among US personnel “a number of Afghan civilians have been hurt.”

Of course we do not want Americans to be “cowed” by the Taliban, but the continued obstinate response from the Obama administration on Afghanistan’s never ending resource drain is infuriating.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

The Cost of Fear: Osama Won

By on 11 September 2011

by NOLA LOPEZ

“The dangerous trend in Pakistan,” he said, “is that there is far more hate for America now than there was ever love of Osama.” – Mission Unfinished, BY JILL ABRAMSON – In the twilight of America’s decade-long, multibillion-dollar intervention, Afghanistan remains highly unstable, the Pakistanis trust us less than ever, and it is not at all clear how “the big things are going to turn out.”

As the man who gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden fights for his reelection amidst horrific economic times, there can be only one conclusion. We blew it.

Osama bin Laden’s purpose in targeting the financial heart of the United States was to bring the body of our economic engine to its knees.

Mission accomplished.

There’s little doubt, as Pres. Obama’s new SecDef decides troops should stay in Iraq, while Mr. Obama continues to make the case for endless engagement in Afghanistan, while our economic health is on life support, we’ve lost sight of creating our own destiny by looking forward instead of back.

Once the airlines opened after 9/11, I took a very long flight to a family wedding. We hopscotched across the country, we lonely 8 in the plane, after we each were searched within an inch of our lives, which began the unraveling of what America means, because fear had gripped our soul.

Then we did the unthinkable, the most un-American of acts: we tortured.

In “The Making of a Man,” which I wrote 11 years ago after Pres. Bush’s eloquent speech at the National Cathedral, I never suspected what his Administration would plot next.

Former Pres. George W. Bush and V.P. Dick Cheney have a lot for which they should be made to answer, however, instead they’ve both enjoyed a rehabilitation.

Preemptive war in Iraq on the wings of the new U.S. policy of regime change, while keeping the costs off the books, was one of the single worst economic wounds to be dealt to this country.

The drum beat to war singled the death of American journalism, with uncritical thinking, access and cowardice the media’s chosen path.

It allowed Afghanistan to weaken, with candidate Obama inspired to label Afghanistan the “good war” from which it seems we shall never be freed.

Today our economy is hobbled, with the response from Wall Street to 9/11 being greed and recklessness, while our politicians, no matter the party, looked the other way for fear their campaign coffers wouldn’t be filled.

All of this was laid on the ground of fear. The fear that terrorists would hit us again. That sacrificing civil liberties was the cost. That solidifying our future in the global, 21st century economy wasn’t the priority.

A grateful China kept busy.

Our leaders believed that keeping us safe had everything to do with militarism, but forgot the most important part of our national security strength is our economic prowess and the ability to build, compete and challenge nations whose armies are secondary, because the U.S. is the global policeman on which they can rely.

This is no longer F.D.R.’s America. It’s not even John F. Kennedy’s anymore.

Our economic weaknesses today were laid on the foundation from Pres. Bush, who said to go shopping, while he plotted to attack Iraq, a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It came after a decade of peace and prosperity that handed him a surplus which he blew through with the reckless abandon of a drunken teenager with an unlimited credit line.

…and Pres. Obama and the Democrats simply shrugged and said we need to move on, while ignoring the legacy of Bush-Cheney, which was an economy on its knees.

You can call this politics.

I call it truth.

He may be dead, but he drove our leaders to distraction that led to the collapse of our economy, which was his main goal 10 years ago today.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

9/11 Commemoration: Three Presidents, Different Perspectives

By on 10 September 2011

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

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

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

From Politico, the politics of 9/11.

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

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

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

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

By on 04 September 2011

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

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

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

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

So, take yourself back…

It’s 9/11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: OK..

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

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

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

CLINTON: No let’s talk about–

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

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

Clinton takes on Fox News bias:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

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

WALLACE: Right

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

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

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

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

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

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

I want to know how many people you asked…

WALLACE: We asked — we asked…

CLINTON: I don’t…

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

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

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

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

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.

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

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: No, I want to finish this now.

WALLACE: All right. Well, after you.

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

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

CLINTON: Absolutely, they did.

WALLACE: … when he bombed the two embassies?

CLINTON: And who talked about…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 04 September 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry puppy, this cat is so over you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The End.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Obama, Jobs and Economic Uncertainty

By on 25 August 2011

President Barack Obama receives an economic briefing from Brian Deese, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, in Chilmark, Mass., August 24, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

From Reuters:

The president is widely expected to repeat his calls for an extension of a payroll tax cut, push for patent reform and bilateral free trade deals, and suggest an infrastructure bank to upgrade the country’s roads, airports and other facilities.

Retrofitting schools with energy efficient technology would allow the government to directly hire for labor-intensive work and also give a boost to the clean energy sector that Obama has said could be an important U.S. economic motor.

Other measures being considered, according to economists who have advised the White House, include tax credits for firms hiring more workers, funds for local governments to hire teachers, and retraining help for the long-term unemployed. Steps to boost the ailing housing market are also under review.

Complicating the fall outlook, however, is an article circulating from the UK Telegraph with a heart-stopping headline that could change everything:

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Back to the Future

By on 24 August 2011

We’re doomed.

From David Limbaugh, via Politico.

p.s.: The problem with this picture and why I wrote “we’re doomed” has nothing to do with Obama’s reelection or whether Perry could win (which I still don’t believe, unless his running mate is someone groundbreaking, aka Rubio). It’s because if this is where the argument for 2012 is held it dooms this country to a pitifully small narrative based on nothing real amidst challenges we face that won’t be addressed.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Thanks the Gods John McCain Never Got Near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

By on 23 August 2011

“The end of the Qadaffi regime in Libya is a victory for the Libyan people and for the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world. This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower. [...] – Senators McCain and Graham

Boy, the day Pres. Obama got Osama bin Laden, I bet Cindy had to pull John McCain off the ceiling.

Now, I remain against the notion that regime change is smart U.S. foreign policy. But one thing you cannot call what is happening in Libya is “failure.”

The only thing I did agree upon when Pres. Obama launched his Libyan gamble was letting Pres. Sarkozy take the lead, along with PM Cameron. It’s the only thing that made sense out of the operation.

Lawrence Korb was on with Melissa Harris-Perry last night, who is subbing for Lawrence O’Donnell (and doing a brilliant job as she always does). Mr. Korb rightly criticized McCain and Graham, using Iraq to do it, while saying Obama’s “patience” paid off. This is a ridiculous statement, because it’s not like Pres. Obama had a choice when Gadhafi didn’t quit when “days, not weeks” turned into 6 months, which isn’t a minor point.

But anyone watching the news can tell that what Obama, Clinton, Power, Rice, et al. hoped and intended would manifest is currently unfolding. There was likely a collective exhale and some satisfaction on what the Obama administration’s decision ended up meaning for the rebels, because this story just as easily could have gone the other way.

I’m a “what’s next?” type of foreign policy type. It’s like getting all excited about getting married, but not thinking about the day after when you have to live with the person you’ve chosen and what comes next. Day to day living can be tedious and tough, too. So, I am cautiously hopeful, while thrilled watching the news of the Libyan rebels, knowing this isn’t close to being over, with many minefields ahead.

There also remains a danger that the regime change that is occurring in Libya will be considered smart U.S. policy, because like Bush, Obama chose that route, too, but did so with a country not in our strategic interest. We’ve also now made Libya just that, a strategic interest, but we won’t be able to affect what’s going on. This continues to make the situation precarious for us, but this isn’t about us and never has been.

But calling the results a “failure” because of lack of airpower? This is simply wrong.

An added benefit that made me smile is that Pres. Assad of Syria has got to be feeling a bit queasy about the news coming out of Libya.

Not bad for $896 million.

Regime change is now what we do.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Libya, the Unraveling

By on 22 August 2011

**UPDATED**

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power dissolved with astonishing speed on Monday as rebels marched into the capital and arrested two of his sons, while residents raucously celebrated the prospective end of his four-decade-old rule. – Jubilant Rebels Control Much of Tripoli

Pres. Obama said when he first decided to engage in Libya militarily that Gadhafi would be gone on “days, not weeks,” with it actually taking months, but developments there are now happening very fast.

As Col. Jack Jacobs said on MSNBC, what happens next, the security situation, especially where Gadhafi’s weaponry is concernced, is going to make a lot of people nervous over the next days, weeks and months.

What happens next is even more important to U.S. strategic interests than what is happening now.

UPDATE 2: Glenn Greenwald finds the “the everything-is-justified-if-we-get-a-Bad-Guy mentality,” which is a destructive vein in fan politics, as reprehensible as I do:

The towering irrationality of this taunt is manifest. Of course the U.S. participation in that war is still illegal. It’s illegal because it was waged for months not merely without Congressional approval, but even in the face of a Congressional vote against its authorization. That NATO succeeded in defeating the Mighty Libyan Army does not have the slightest effect on that question, just as Saddam’s capture told us nothing about the legality or wisdom of that war. What comments like this one are designed to accomplish is to exploit and manipulate the emotions surrounding Gaddafi’s fall to shame and demonize war critics and dare them to question the War President now in light of his glorious triumph.

UPDATE: Steve Clemons:

But as in the case of those who cheered the downfall of the dictator Saddam Hussein and didn’t ask questions about the bigger consequences of that event, it’s important that after rejoicing that a monstrous dictator is on the run that folks get serious about a playbook that will keep the hopes and aspirations of the Libyan people moving forward rather than backward.

Even more so than in Egypt, Islamists are a powerful undercurrent in Libyan society and despite the apparent success of the partnership thus far between Libya’s Transitional National Council and Western allies, these Islamists — who were jailed, tortured and sometimes killed by Qaddafi — will have a claim on power and are suspicious and opposed to a strong Western stake-hold inside Libya.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Obama Administration to Assad: Time for You to Go

By on 18 August 2011

The Obama administration has been reluctant to call on Assad to step down because the next question would be what it plans to do about it. The recent experience in Libya, where similar calls from the United States and others have been ignored, has also led some to urge caution. As violence has increased in recent weeks, beginning with the military’s siege on the restive city of Hama and then spreading to other cities, the White House decided it was time to take the next step. Republican presidential candidatte (sic) Mitt Romney said today Obama should have acted sooner. – Obama Calls on Syria’s Assad to Step Down, Freezes Assets

Pres. Obama released a statement earlier today.

[...] As a part of that effort, my Administration is announcing unprecedented sanctions to deepen the financial isolation of the Assad regime and further disrupt its ability to finance a campaign of violence against the Syrian people. I have signed a new Executive Order requiring the immediate freeze of all assets of the Government of Syria subject to U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the Government of Syria. This E.O. also bans U.S. imports of Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products; prohibits U.S. persons from having any dealings in or related to Syria’s petroleum or petroleum products; and prohibits U.S. persons from operating or investing in Syria. We expect today’s actions to be amplified by others. …

This comes as the backdrop of Afghanistan looks grim, Iraq remains volatile, while Pres. Obama’s power is at its lowest since his presidency began and thinking about becoming enmeshed further militarily makes most sane people nervous.

That would not count Rick Perry who comes from the yeehaw! neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

This final decision to challenge Assad’s brutality has been a long time in the making, with Pres. Assad telling the U.N. secretary general just yesterday that the carnage had been halted, which was a lie.

Don’t look now, but the Middle East just got hotter.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. For months, the world has borne witness to the Asad regime’s contempt for its own people. In peaceful demonstrations across the nation, Syrians are demanding their universal human rights. The regime has answered their demands with empty promises and horrific violence, torturing opposition leaders, laying siege to cities, slaughtering thousands of unarmed civilians, including children.

The Asad government has now been condemned by countries in all parts of the world and can look only to Iran for support for its brutal and unjust crackdown.

This morning, President Obama called on Asad to step aside and announced the strongest set of sanctions to date targeting the Syrian Government. These sanctions include the energy sector to increase pressure on the regime. The transition to democracy in Syria has begun, and it’s time for Asad to get out of the way.

As President Obama said this morning, no outside power can or should impose on this transition. It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders in a democratic system based on the rule of law and dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sect, or gender.

We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle, and we respect their wishes. At the same time, we will do our part to support their aspirations for a Syria that is democratic, just, and inclusive. And we will stand up for their universal rights and dignity by pressuring the regime and Asad personally to get out of the way of this transition.

All along, as we have worked to expand the circle of global condemnation, we have backed up our words with actions. As I’ve repeatedly said, it does take both words and actions to produce results. Since the unrest began, we have imposed strong financial sanctions on Asad and dozens of his cronies. We have sanctioned the Commercial Bank of Syria for supporting the regime’s illicit nuclear proliferation activities. And we have led multilateral efforts to isolate the regime, from keeping them off the Human Rights Council, to achieving a strong presidential statement of condemnation at the UN Security Council.

The steps that President Obama announced this morning will further tighten the circle of isolation around the regime. His executive order immediately freezes all assets of the Government of Syria that are subject to American jurisdiction and prohibits American citizens from engaging in any transactions with the Government of Syria or investing in that country. These actions strike at the heart of the regime by banning American imports of Syrian petroleum and petroleum products and prohibiting Americans from dealing in these products.

And as we increase pressure on the Asad regime to disrupt its ability to finance its campaign of violence, we will take steps to mitigate any unintended effects of the sanctions on the Syrian people. We will also continue to work with the international community, because if the Syrian people are to achieve their goals, other nations will have to provide support and take actions as well.

In just the past two weeks, many of Syria’s own neighbors and partners in the region have joined the chorus of condemnation. We expect that they and other members of the international community will amplify the steps we are taking both through their words and their actions.

We are heartened that, later today, the UN Security Council will meet again to discuss this ongoing threat to international peace and stability. We are also working to schedule a special session of the United Nations Human Rights Council that will examine the regime’s widespread abuses. Earlier this week, I explained how the United States has been engaged in a relentless and systematic effort with the international community, pursuing a set of actions and statements that make crystal clear where we all stand, and generating broader and deeper pressure on the Asad regime.

The people of Syria deserve a government that respects their dignity, protects their rights, and lives up to their aspirations. Asad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for him to step aside and leave this transition to the Syrians themselves, and that is what we will continue to work to achieve.

Thank you all very much.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Perry’s Brand of Birtherism

By on 15 August 2011

Gov. Rick Perry said something that mimicked what Herman Cain said last week. Cain was defending himself against charges he doesn’t have foreign policy experience by questioning, “and he has?”, speaking of Pres. Obama. My response via Twitter went like this: Just saw Cain’s “He’s got foreign policy experience?” As commander in chief, Obama gave order SEAL Team 6 executed that killed OBL. You?

This is a direct attack on Pres. Obama as commander in chief utilizing the deadly virus of birtherism and division that Americans are sick to death of hearing from the Right.

Tea Party secessionist Rick Perry, a former military man, thinks this is what America wants to hear today:

“One of the reasons, one of the powerful reasons that I’m running for the presidency of the United States is to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of this country respects highly the president of the United States.” – Gov. Rick Perry (Waterloo, Iowa)

You can win a wingnut primary battle through this sort of despicable dog whistle, but you’ll never win the general election on it. Mr. Perry’s brand of birtherism won’t hunt in 2012.

Some Republicans know this and are scared to death. And you know what, any Republican who wants to beat Obama should be.

“You don’t want these candidates moving so Right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it will become a self-defeating message in the primary. People want to win. They don’t want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November.” – Karl Rove

Read full story · Comments { 10 }