Taylor Marsh - News, Political Analysis, Foreign Policy, and Independent Political Opinion on Progressive Politics
Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.
Tag Archives | national security“I’m within my First Amendment rights, and I’m being taken out,” Fox shouted as he was led away. – Josh Fox arrested at hearing, Politico
Josh Fox is an Oscar-nominated filmmaker. His documentary “Gasland” helped expose the dangers of unregulated natural gas fracking.
…and so continues Newt Gingrich’s very bad day.
He can take heart on one thing. DNI James R. Clapper Jr. has added fuel to Gingrich’s Iranian rhetorical fire, which will make the Republicans day. From the Washington Post today:
U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.
Maybe that will take the sting out of Mrs. Reagan’s slap.
Few reporters have better sources inside Reagan World than NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who goes way back. With Mrs. Reagan still alive and undoubtedly very protective of the Reagan legacy as she sees it, there was little doubt that Newt’s claims wouldn’t go unchallenged.
Calling himself “the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement,” Newt Gingrich recently cited a 1995 speech by Nancy Reagan in which the former First Lady said that her husband “passed on the torch” to him.
… But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports, Gingrich appears to be taking that comment out of context.
Sources close to Nancy Reagan said the speech itself was written by the host at the Goldwater Organization – where Mrs. Reagan delivered the remarks – and that she was referring generally to Congress and not specifically to the former Speaker, Mitchell reported on her MSNBC program.
Mrs. Reagan isn’t going to let anyone use Ronnie’s legacy for their own aggrandizement, certainly not a political grifter like Newt, with his hangers-on like Sarah Palin.
What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.
But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.
Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.
That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.
Of course, we understand that there are differences that are of historic and cultural importance in many places around the world. And many of those we respect, and we try to be very sensitive to the legitimate concerns that people have about protecting what they value in their own societies. But there are certain actions that are beyond any cultural norm. Beating women is not cultural, it’s criminal, and it needs to be addressed and treated as such. (Applause.) – Secy. Clinton
It was a tremendous speech and a very important one. I tweeted many of her best sound bites, but there were so many. Secy. Clinton also announced an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, for which Pres. Obama deserves credit.
We all know that this focus on women as part of U.S. foreign policy is being guided by Secy. Clinton, who began this push as first lady that is the foundation of my book (now in print). It is part biography of Clinton, part autobiography as well because of the trajectory of my life and its link with the modern feminist movement and Hillary’s rise, which follows 20 years of politics.
It is another example of the Hillary Effect, with Clinton’s position at State solidifying the importance of women in United States foreign policy under Pres. Obama, which has never been given the focus it has before.
Farah Pandith, special Representative to Muslim Communities for the State Department, attributed this goal to the “Hillary effect,” a phrase that has come to describe Clinton’s contagious enthusiasm. Pandith applauded Clinton for her 2008 presidential campaign, citing “15 million cracks in the glass ceiling.” – Clinton inspires Barnard students at State Department (h/t Daniel Aubry)
That is why this morning, President Obama signed an Executive Order launching the first-ever U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security – a comprehensive roadmap for accelerating and institutionalizing efforts across the United States Government to advance women’s participation in making and keeping peace. This plan builds on the President’s national security strategy, and it was jointly developed by the Departments of State and Defense, USAID, and others with guidance from the White House. I also want to take a moment to recognize all our partners in civil society and the private sector who contributed, many of whom are here today. Without your on-the-ground experience, your passionate commitment, and your tireless effort, this plan would not exist, and we look forward to working just as closely together with you on implementing it.
…It’s true that the question of just how women contribute to peace and security, aside from the high-profile woman who sits at the table, or the nation’s leader that makes the peace, what it is that women themselves across the board can do? Well, this does deserve far more quantitative research and rigorous study. That’s why Georgetown’s plan to establish an Institute for Women, Peace, Security, and Development, to support scholarship and research, as well as outreach, will help us elevate public understanding of this important matter. It will be a home for primary source material such as oral histories, and quality analysis that will help activists and leaders as well. I can’t wait to see it up and going. A new push on research and data collection will be particularly useful for us as we implement our own National Action Plan.
Republicans believe that after weeks of taking a pounding from Obama over the payroll tax issue, they finally found a rallying point over the Keystone pipeline. “Everybody sees the president’s delay on the Keystone pipeline [for] what it is: He doesn’t want to choose between his political base, labor and environmentalists,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who heads up the Republican Conference’s 2012 efforts. But even though Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas support the pipeline project, top Senate Democrats are confident they’ll remove “extraneous” GOP provisions. – Politico
Right-leaning The Hill news outlet has a different take.
For House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), there’s nothing like a presidential veto threat to make his job easier.
Pres. Obama delaying his decision on the Keystone Pipeline is like everything he does, it’s about his reelection and motivated by politics.
But while Republicans won’t tax millionaires, they are also trying to cut federal unemployment insurance benefits substantially too, as almost 1 million people are about to see the end to the aid in January.
So this is a very interesting development with the Keystone gambit smart for Republicans if they’d give on the millionaire surtax, but they won’t. It would also provide Pres. Obama an out, something that’s always appreciated by any politician.
If he caves on Keystone, it’s like what he did last year on extending the Bush tax cuts, but lately Obama doesn’t seem to be in that same mood. In 2010, he’d just come off a brutal shellacking in the midterms. Looking at Republicans today, Newt at the top of the ticket, with Santa coming early giving Obama reelect The Donald’s Apprentice debate (if it still happens, because most aren’t showing up), Pres. Obama is in the power position.
Nothing counts unless the Senate can pass the bill. But if they do, something that doesn’t happen often these days, and it comes to Pres. Obama’s desk, will he actually veto it?
In the background is what Barack Obama would likely do in a second term, with no political threat left. I believe he’d okay the Keystone Pipeline, because he’d be safe to rack up what the White House would call accomplishments. This isn’t Yucca Mountain, which I lived through out west. There’s a lot of ignorance about the environmental dangers of Keystone, with Democrats like former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell saying that people will be protected environmentally from the dangers of what the Keystone could bring.
So, imagine a Cordray recess appointment, coupled with an Obama veto on a bill that extends the payroll tax and unemployment insurance, because of Keystone is included.
It would be an interesting way to end the year, with Obama cornering Republicans on raising taxes just as 2012 rolls in.
The headlines have already started and they’re unlikely to stop.
The Hill: GOP debate: Gingrich divides himself from pack on immigration.
Politico: GOP debate: Newt Gingrich beats back immigration.
Gingrich doesn’t have Mr. Romney’s discipline. Pivoting on immigration, he made what could be a fatal error in the debate last night. Showing the compassion of a general election candidate, which has no relationship to what can win the nomination among hard right conservatives, Mr. Gingrich made his pitch for compassionate immigration based on family values.
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we have various penalties for employers, but i urge you to look at the Krieble Foundation plan. The party that says it’s the party of the family is not going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families who have been here a quarter century. I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.” – Newt Gingrich
Romney’s team is already slamming him on it:
“Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake, by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today,” Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty.”
The Washington Examiner reporter also got into a real back and forth with both Romney, then Gingrich, aides that was absolutely brutal, not to mention inconclusive, on what could be done with immigrants inside our country that have no path to documentation. It is hilarious in that Republicans make no sense on immigration sort of way.
Mr. Gingrich was good last night, the best on the stage at times, the crowd loving him. But you may remember last spring on “Meet the Press” when screwed up and insulted Paul Ryan and dissed his budget proposal, which threw his campaign into free fall. All these months later, he gave the bookend to his spring Ryan gaffe, when he showed his compassionate conservative side on immigration. It doesn’t matter if he thought channeling Reagan on immigration was a good idea, because this crowd wouldn’t nominate the Gipper today.
Mitt Romney has it drilled into his political being that he has to win the nomination first, so discipline on appealing to the core beliefs of primary voters is his plan. Sticking to it has been the most impressive part of Mr. Romney’s campaign. Knowing that he’s got serious challenges with Tea Party and right wing conservatives, he’s not going to antagonize them through general electioneering, because he can’t afford to lose a single point. Mr. Romney just doesn’t do foreign policy well, but all he has to do is sound sober and serious, which is his political DNA to a fault. With his strongest competition to date handing him a cudgel, you can bet he’s going to keep wielding it.
This is what Gingrich’s said after the debate, when the dust started to fly about his immigration comment, coming first from team Bachmann, via TPM:
“Newt has a commitment to human dignity,” Tina Ramirez, Gingrich’s National Security adviser, told TPM. “He has that commitment across the board with people around the world, not just with people who are immigrants here in America. He’s supported religious freedom in Egypt for instance, and he’s been speaking out in — if you look at his nine days that change the world in Poland, he talked about the rule of communism was brought down by the understanding of religious freedom and dignity.”
Now we’ll just have to wait and see if Newt Gingrich takes a hit in the polls for his family values immigration stance.
If he doesn’t, then Mitt Romney’s team will be dropping into Iowa and carpet bombing the voters with attack ads, because Mr. Gingrich had game last night that could make him the alternative to iron man Mitt.
Sad truth is that this was really amateurish overall. Where was the serious discussion about the costs of war and peace (except from Ron Paul)? Nuclear weapons responsibilities and challenges? North Korea? Sudan? Piracy? The complications and challenges of the Arab Spring? – Steve Clemons
Well, if it’s Tuesday it’s another Republican debate. This one is on foreign policy.
With 1% Newt in the lead, the level of bellicosity could be epic, especially if Mitt gets going on Iran.
But it’s the automatic trigger cuts on defense spending after the supercommittee epic fail that could become the topic of the night.
Wonder if Republicans consider economics a foreign policy issue considering what’s happening in Europe?
Tonight’s debate is carried on CNN and hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. It’s a neocon reunion for these guys.
A network spokeswoman, Sonya McNair, said its livestream had been overwhelmed by an unexpectedly large audience, and brushed off complaints. The final half-hour had been added, she said, for the benefit of South Carolina viewers. “We weren’t programming it for reporters in Washington D.C.,” she said, even as it emerged that — in an unusual breakdown between network and affiliates — none of the four CBS stations in the state actually carried the last half hour. – CBS panned for Republican debate performance
The bullshit Olympics we’re witnessing needs to stop.
Please, for everyone’s sake.
No, wait. The Scott Pelley and CBS debacle was not a debate or a discussion.
Anyone else have whiplash?
Last night we had politicians who think they can be commander in chief actually say we should cut off aid to Pakistan. NO, really (emphasis required).
It was Rick Santorum who rebuked that notion. Rick. Santorum. He joins Jon Huntsman on one issue.
My head is spinning.
It would also be nice if we all understood that these individuals, for whatever crazy reason, actually do think they could run this country. That’s a serious thing to say.
I respect the ode to ideology, really I do. But Italy just went down. Italy.
Love them or hate them, these sincere people on the stage auditioning for the GOP nomination, since the process has become so vaudevillian, are taking up a lot of political air space, which I’m sure thrills the Obama administration and OFA, but there are potentially big developments going on all around us, and we need a better option than what we’ve currently got.
As I pointed out just yesterday, many Democrats not only passively acquiesce to Obama’s continuation of core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but enthusiastically cheer it as proof that they, too, can be Tough and Strong (manly virtues demonstrated by how many human beings their leader kills from afar). So here you have Think Progress heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is literally the most radical power a President can seize: the power to target — in total secrecy and with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution: specifically, assassination-by-CIA. – Glenn Greenwald
What’s the difference between Republicans and Pres. Obama on foreign policy, waterboarding?
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy platform seems to be slam taught, in a way similar to W., so it’s coming off more ideological than something moored in intellectual understanding.
I may disagree with Ron Paul, but Herman Cain’s foreign policy vacuousness scares the crap out of me. What he’s proposing to the U.S. economy is even worse.
Machine gun Q&As are worthless. Of course the candidates need more time. So apportion a set amount of time to each person. Then keep a clock on how much time each candidate has utilized, with a maximum of 4 minutes at one time. They’ll have to learn to use their time with discretion and choose the topics on which they want to pontificate more carefully. Oh, and the candidates with the higher poll numbers get more time. You can even give points for straw poll wins the debate immediately after the polling.
Or at the very least find moderators and producers who know what the hell they are doing.
Scott Pelley was a terrible moderator. He treated the men who might be the next commander in chief like schoolchildren, cutting them off in mid-sentence, lecturing them to answer his questions. He even lectured Newt Gingrich on policy, telling him that killing “terrorist suspects” is “not the rule of law.” Big mistake. Newt smacked him down, explaining that we are at war and in war we are allowed to kill the enemy without a court order. This was CBS’s first and only debate — and it showed. – The Big Loser of the Night: CBS
If Major Garrett hadn’t been sitting next to Scott Pelley and assisting him the entire debate would have been unwatchable.
Mr. Pelley was not only a huge distraction, but his time keeping duty took precedence over actually keeping time correctly. Very early, he interrupted Romney well before his time was up and had to apologize to him for it. It got worse from there, with one cringe-worthy moment from Pelley having him scold the crowd that he’d not accept any booing. The serial interruptions of the candidates, whom voters were trying to hear, bordered on the absurd.
Whoever scheduled this travesty at such a ridiculous time and day is obviously clueless to the habits of normal people. Or perhaps they knew Scott Pelley wasn’t capable of moderating a debate.
Pelley’s performance last night was an embarrassment for CBS News, but maybe CBS will get lucky and Michele Bachmann’s tantrum will take most of the oxygen out of the reviews.
In the email string, CBS News’ political analyst John Dickerson said that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions during the debate and she’s nearly off the charts,” a reference to the Minnesota congresswoman’s low standing in the polls. … After the debate Stewart said that CBS News was guilty of “a bias” against Bachmann. “I inadvertently received an email where CBS made it clear that Michele was going to receive fewer questions than the other candidates. Clearly this is a problem,” Stewart said. – GOP Candidates Blast CBS News’ for ‘Disgraceful’ Bias at South Carolina Debate
Ron Paul wasn’t happy either.
I remain struck that Jon Huntsman, who just hasn’t been a good national candidate, really would turn a lot of heads if he’d ever make it to the general electorate.
Mitt Romney continues to skate by each debate without a glove landing on him, so these debates aren’t serving conservatives at all who want him challenged.
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
CBS News and the National Journal team up for tonight’s debate. Live streaming is here.
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.
NJ has compiled terrific cheat sheets on the GOP candidates’ foreign policy dossiers.
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.
“The protests that are trying to destroy the jobs of working people in this city aren’t productive,” Bloomberg said in his weekly radio appearance with John Gambling. Taking a swipe at “some of the labor unions participating,” Bloomberg added that “their salaries come from – are paid by – some of the people they’re trying to vilify.” – Mayor Bloomberg: Occupy Wall Street ‘Trying To Destroy the Jobs of Working People’
Why Occupy Wall Street? Watch the video above. I’d like to see Scott Brown do what Elizabeth Warren does in the video above, from DC Douglas.
Tech President reports from Wall Street and why some people just aren’t getting what’s going on.
In other news, Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech. Spencer Ackerman’s plea? Give me something to work with here, Mitt.
…and speaking of Mitt Romney, one of Perry’s backers calls Mormonism a “cult.”
Laura Rozen writes on McChrystal and what he has to say as we commemorate 10 years in Afghanistan: Ten years on, U.S. goals in Afghanistan only “fifty percent” met.
An “Ides of March” review from the New York Times. Another review mentions Jay Carson, someone I’ve met and spoken with on many occasions, but also adds color to the melding of reality and movie making:
As for the Morris handlers — Stephen Myers, played by Ryan Gosling; and Paul Zara, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman — it is impossible not to find traces of political strategist Jay Carson in their characters. A former campaign press secretary and adviser, Carson is CEO of the C40 Clinton Climate Initiative, which combines programs started by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former President Bill Clinton.
While on the campaign trail with Howard Dean and others, Carson was joined by Beau Willimon, a staff associate. Willimon later wrote a play on which The Ides of March is based, with substantial changes by Clooney; Willimon; and the other writer, Grant Heslov.
“Beau, George and Grant really get it,” Carson said recently. (more at the link)
And in case you missed it, essays on Bill Clinton’s presidency are now online in celebration of when he announced, 20 years ago last week. This video offers a flashback, too.
Jared Bernstein on the jobs report: “Shaky Stability.”
AP reports prostate cancer screenings for men are out.
Herman Cain catapults 20 points ahead of Mitt Romney in a new Zogby poll.
Happy Friday night!
Mr. Christie has to know that the minute he changes his mind the blush will go off his New Jersey… er… whatever. See the Daily Caller for proof.
The Solyndra imbroglio didn’t keep the Obama administration from offering more clean energy loan guarantees.
Energy Department approves $1 billion in solar energy loan guarantees
DOE announced a $737 million loan guarantee to help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve.
The Energy Department said the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs.
“If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a news release. “Solar generation facilities, like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, help supply energy to local utilities and create hundreds of good, American clean energy jobs.”
What we really need is a president with vision and a Congress who takes clean energy seriously. We have neither.
So, what got your attention today? This is interesting.
It’s not getting any traction, but it’s a moment that reveals the gulf between GOP primary voters and the Republican establishment. It’s also a battle of extremism vs. solutions.
GOP immigration debate shows rift between party establishment and conservative grassroots.
With Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry under attack for supporting tuition breaks for children of illegal immigrants, former Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday offered some solidarity by calling a similar proposal in Florida “fair policy.”
In 2001, Perry signed the first state law in the country that allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates. Former Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata said the Texas law was “the model” for legislation that he repeatedly—but unsuccessfully—pushed in his state. Two of his key allies then are now among the GOP’s most sought-after stars: Bush, the subject of perpetual draft movements to run for president, and his fellow Floridian, Sen. Marco Rubio, a sure bet for the GOP’s vice presidential shortlist in 2012.
“I think that is a fair policy,” Bush said in an e-mail to National Journal on Tuesday, adding that the students who benefit from the tuition breaks find themselves in the United States through “no fault of their own.”
Mitt Romney is having none of this (see video above, which Romney is promoting on Twitter), because he’s already vulnerable on so many other issues he can’t afford it. He’s being practical for the primaries.
As for Rick Perry, his debate performances have been so atrocious I’m doubtful he can come back. The immigration issue is also so hot among the far right who vote in the primaries that they may not allow him to.
It will make things very interesting if (when) Marco Rubio is being considered for the Republican vice presidential spot.
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.
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.
Incoming from Arabia.
The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.
Which “special relationship” is more special?
Strategic interests abound, domestic politics prominently weighing down the inevitable awkwardness and the predictable conclusion.
“If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else,” he said. “If you want someone who will raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama.” – Romney gets in heated exchange with hecklers at Iowa State Fair
The exchange came on the same day as what’s being billed as a big Republican debate before the ridiculously overrated Ames straw poll. Now that Romney’s being defined as a “fragile” or “tentative” frontrunner, he’s going to have to take his campaign out of coast.
As he did so he ran headlong into a tree of the activist variety. They’re the Citizens for Community Improvement and they made Romney’s day a lot more complicated than he wanted it to be.
Democrats are rightly jumping all over Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, which illustrates why the establishment hasn’t backed him yet. It’s not just tone deaf but an offensive thing to say with 10+ double-digit real unemployment. Anyone thinking sticking up for corporations in the current atmosphere is a winner is hopeless.
For any Democrat or progressive, what Romney said is red meat. It’s also fodder for the Obama campaign if Romney’s the nominee, but he isn’t yet.
However, if you’re a Republican who hasn’t quite warmed to Romney, I’m not so sure this clip is bad for slick Mitt.
It’s the first relaxed, un-weird and unscripted moment that comes with a pretty good punch line for Republican primary voters. He doesn’t come off as afraid to mix it up and commits himself strongly, even if he’s wrong about, well, just about every policy issue, unless you include his move to raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts to lure S&P to raise his state’s credit rating.
However, all of this is a great set up for Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance.
Still, Romney actually showed some life and real humanness today amidst it all, moments that have been very few for him.
I’m starting to think that what was missing from Romney’s campaign was a little healthy competition.
Rick Perry getting in the race may be the best thing that ever happened to Mitt Romney, because he clearly can’t be as nonchalant with Perry poised to enter. But all the hoopla with Perry is reminiscent of what Fred Thompson engendered before he jumped in and landed on his face. Perry’s not Thompson, but he’s also not Chris Christie, who fits the times much better.
Though why anyone would think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney is beyond me, though the “cowboy” thing in the era of Obama could seduce the neocons.
For Republicans outside the Perryverse, his approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive… all of the traits Republicans see as lacking in the Obama’s foreign policy.
“He’s a cowboy,” said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain’s presidential campaign. “You have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later — which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy.”
Yee-haw.
Pres. Obama has already telegraphed that he’s ready to work with Republicans, as the Administration prepares to privatize education, while changing the public school system under the mantel of “reform.”
Matt Damon played offense recently and he effusively heaped praise on the teachers who don’t get paid enough and take way too much grief for what they are paid.
But this is when Austerity’s grip, the need for more and better schools, and partnerships with businesses wanting to help offer more options tend to make some people simply ask Why not?
It’s not about qualified teachers with experience getting a living wage and some control over the task they’ve been asked to do.
Over to you.. …
I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.
William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:
“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”
Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:
“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”
Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:
…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.
“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.
“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”
Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.
“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”
[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.
Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.
Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:
There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:
But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.
First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.
Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.
Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.
Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.
Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.
Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:
”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”
Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:
“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”
On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.
…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules (n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).
The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.
The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.
“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”
Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.
*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.
“Tell your henchman to stop saying nice things about me,” McConnell, the Senate minority leader, told Reid earlier this week, according to people familiar with the conversation. “It hurts me.” Even as he’s sought to project immovable unity with House Speaker John Boehner, the prospects for an eleventh-hour deal rest largely on McConnell’s shoulders. For weeks, he’s kept an open line of communication with Vice President Joe Biden, with whom he struck a deal with in December to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and he heard from President Barack Obama on Saturday, too. In the meantime, he’s been trying to keep anxious Republican senators at bay. – Mitch McConnell’s moment: Debt ceiling deal maker or deal breaker?
All eyes are on Sen. Mitch McConnell, since he “conceded” the point that no deal can happen without Pres. Obama, who is now fully engaged in the final stage. McConnell is also Speaker Boehner’s lifeline, with the letter signed by 43 Republican senators saying Reid’s bill is dead quid pro quo for Reid’s letter on the Boehner bill.
The details of what’s going on between McConnell and Boehner are being kept among a select few. Let’s face it though, McConnell cannot be trusted by Democrats or the White House, a point that is close to irrelevant at this late moment, which is exactly why McConnell waited so long to get involved. He wants to force Pres. Obama into a situation where he feels he has no choice but to make deals no Democrat should make.
So, McConnell and Biden are talking, while anyone watching this spectacle can see Reid and McConnell are not.
Sen. Mitch McConnell’s original plan is now part of the Reid bill, with the triggers at issue on how to force a second round of budget cuts if the bicameral congressional committee being concocted to work on the austerity plan can’t come to an agreement. As Politico and other outlets are reporting, many Democrats believe McConnell is pushing for the second round as a set up for the inevitable and planned breakdown of any committee, so he can get more cuts upon failure. Republicans also want to make Social Security part of their triggers, which went over with a thud, with Chuck Todd reporting there are other triggers beyond entitlements.
Democrats want the trigger to include tax increases, but that’s a line House Republicans won’t cross, so it all depends on finding moderate Republic—, yeah right. Only four senators refused to sign McConnell’s letter stating Republicans intend to vote down Reid’s bill, a vote which was scheduled for 1:00 a.m. Sunday, but that was moved because Sen. Reid was told the White House talks are progressing.
God only knows what that means.
The target is $1.6 – $1.8 million in cuts before year’s end.
[...] The Democrats bigger worry is Boehner, who shows signs of simply running-out-the-clock, playing hard-to-get with Obama and hoping the White House will give into his demands. The speaker and McConnell are in regular contact, but having pushed the fight this far, the GOP has reason to fear it will lose support from its traditional business allies if there isn’t more progress before markets open Monday, one day before the threat of default. – GOP leaders ‘fully engaged’ with W.H., but Dems skeptical on debt deal
No doubt you’re sick to death of reading this from me, but the 14th Amendment remains a shot for Pres. Obama, regardless of the legal imbroglio that would follow. Because what people keep forgetting in all their prognostications is that Pres. Obama simply cannot allow the U.S. to default. One can only guess the fight that would ensue over which House Republican would serve up impeachment if it happened.
With the tension building and the last moment approaching, as McConnell bet on all along, which is why he offered up his devious plan in the first place, the bigger worry for Democrats is that Pres. Obama will offer any number of compromises to stave off a dismal Monday on Wall Street.
So, the question is how much further to the right will the McConnell-Boehner-Reid bill have to go before the White House cries “uncle”? …and will House Democrats balk for the first time and channel their own inner Tea Party rage if what comes back to the House is political poison on entitlements?
The painful negotiations to resolve the crisis have caught the attention of troops in Afghanistan, where Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quizzed repeatedly on Saturday by soldiers and Marines worried about their paychecks. In Kandahar and Helmand Provinces, Admiral Mullen said it remained uncertain where money would be found if the government defaulted. Regardless of budget talks in Washington, the mission for American troops in Afghanistan would not halt, he said. – New York Times
