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 | torture

Obama and the Boiling Middle East

By on 07 February 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Newsweek Asks Correct Question, Gives Wrong Answer

By on 16 January 2012



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

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

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

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

I’m not either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He’s not alone.

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

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Waterboard Sunday

By on 13 November 2011

That’s the Huffington Post‘s front page this morning.

The party of “family values” and “Christian” principles believes torture is ethical, moral and something for which the United States should be known. No wonder Jon Huntsman doesn’t have a chance in this party. It’s all just so retro.

Enjoy your Sunday. We started out with deer in our back yard. It’s a beautiful, crisp fall day, great for football, planting bulbs, movies and just hanging out.

What are you reading this morning? Link it up in the comments.

Tomorrow’s our big day, my e-book is released. There will be some wonderful news to go along with it, too. Stay tuned…


Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Brutal Beating Videos from Syria Spread Online

By on 12 September 2011

From The Lede, which has much more…

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, gave a staggering death toll from the violence in Syria as she addressed the opening session of the human rights council in Geneva on Monday. “With regard to Syria, let me note that, according to reliable sources on the ground, the number of those killed since the onset of the unrest in mid-March 2011 in that country, has now reached at least 2,600,” she said.

[...] The death of a human rights activist, Ghiyath Mattar, while in custody last week came after that report was published and drew forceful condemnation from the United States.

… The State Department said of the detention and death of Mr. Mattar:

Ghiyath Mattar’s courage in the face of the Asad regime’s brutal repression is well known in his home of Daraya and across Syria. His brave commitment to confronting the regime’s despicable violence with peaceful protest serves as an example for the Syrian people and for all those who suffer under the yoke of oppression.

According to a statement from the Local Coordination Committees on his death, the 26-year-old “was waiting for two births: the birth of his daughter who won’t have the chance to lay on his arms, and the birth of the new free, just and democratic Syria.”

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

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 }

Ahmed Wali Karzai Assassinated, U.S. General Reportedly Wanted him Burned

By on 12 July 2011

From the New York Times:

For years, the American military has believed that public anger over government-linked corruption has helped swell the Taliban’s ranks, and that Ahmed Wali Karzai played a central role in that corruption. He has repeatedly denied any links to Afghan drug trafficking.

According to three American military officials, in April 2009 Gen. David D. McKiernan, then the top American commander in Afghanistan, told subordinates that he wanted them to gather any evidence that might tie the president’s half brother to the drug trade. “He put the word out that he wanted to ‘burn’ Ahmed Wali Karzai,” one of the military officials said.

The gnashing of teeth over Ahmed Wali Karzai is because of the vacuum he leaves.

Also in Afghanistan, the man who mutilated Aisha, part of the torturers who cut off her nose, has been released. All sorts of excuses are being used, but the reality is that all the U.S. military might and money cannot change the culture of Afghanistan to save the women.

Now, with Pres. Karzai’s half brother dead, someone who was corrupt and also had an important role in negotiations with the Taliban and others, a dead end for the U.S. in Afghanistan seems even more apparent.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

’1776′ John Adams: One Useless Man is Called a Disgrace; Two are Called a Law Firm; Three or More Become a Congress

By on 04 July 2011


… Lincoln saw an unresolvable tension between the Constitution of a democratic republic and the policies of aggrandizement and intemperate self-interest that lead from the manners of freedom to the slavish love of power. He spoke of the difference between the work of establishing a constitutional republic and the longer task of maintaining it. But maintaining it against what? Lincoln’s answer was always the same: against the internal pressure of greed, and the external pressure of war. The predicament of the country in 1861, he said, “forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’”

We are now ten years into a policy shared by two successive administrations to plant a new understanding of the spirit of the laws in America. That policy has pretended there is a “trade-off” between liberty and security, and that in a time of crisis, security ought to have the upper hand. The Cheney-Bush and Obama administrations have accustomed us to laws and language concerned above all with the “protection” of citizens — as if there were something higher or more worth protecting than the liberty that is guaranteed by our laws and the framework of laws, the Constitution. [...]

To Maintain a Republic, by David Bromwich

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

E. J. Dionne’s Nostalgia for Bush Meets Enemies List

By on 16 June 2011

A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him. Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war. – Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic



E.J. Dionne has written a whopper today by trying to be clever, but just comes off as daft analysis combined with negligence for uttering such blather. His a weird little column about his nostalgia for George W. Bush seems instead like a love letter to encourage Republicans. It’s all predicated on this week’s GOP debate, because he’s scared of Michele Bachmann, forgetting that Obama and the Democrats helped create her, while the Tea Party started as a reaction to George W. Bush on his watch.

That’s why I felt nostalgia for Bush, especially the guy who was a candidate for president in 2000. Unlike this crowd of Republicans, Bush acknowledged that the federal government can ease injustices and get useful things done.

At least he admits Bush’s debacle in Iraq is “why Bush nostalgia takes you only so far.”

This is the kind of stuff that’s written when you don’t hold a president accountable for his unspeakable acts, starting with war in Iraq and Abu Ghraib, but also allowing his vice president to run the show, while the man who killed over 3,000 people got away. A man who kept wars off the books and broke our economy with tax cuts, which Pres. Obama embraced with both arms. This man Mr. Dionne is nostalgic for was a failed businessman, prodigal son and duty dodging Guardsman, ran a race-baiting campaign in South Carolina against John McCain, all of while conspiring with Roger Ailes and one of his relatives on the Fox payroll who was primarily responsible for the Bush won theme that developed on election night.

From Rolling Stone magazine, a president who used Roger Ailes as an adviser, that’s who Mr. Dionne is getting wistful about today:

[...] After Bush took office, Ailes stayed in frequent touch with the new Republican president. “The senior-level editorial people believe that Roger was on the phone every day with Bush,” a source close to Fox News tells Rolling Stone. “He gave Bush the same kind of pointers he used to give George H.W. Bush – delivery, effectiveness, political coaching.” In the aftermath of 9/11, Ailes sent a back-channel memo to the president through Karl Rove, advising Bush to ramp up the War on Terror. As reported by Bob Woodward, Ailes advised Bush that “the American public would tolerate waiting and would be patient, but only as long as they were convinced that Bush was using the harshest measures possible.”Fox News tilted the electoral balance to George W. Bush in 2000, prematurely declaring him president in a move that prompted every other network to follow suit. It helped create the Tea Party, transforming it from the butt of late-night jokes into a nationwide insurgency capable of electing U.S. senators. …

Bush ignored warnings about Al Qaeda and bin Laden, with the list of economic incompetency lingering in a legacy that has us still suffering from it economically today.

Mr. Dionne conveniently forgets there was a set-up for all this and it began with Pres. Obama and Democrats not making their own case for what the Democratic Party believes government can do, but instead adopted Republican economic theory that got us into this mess in the first place.

Now we find, unsurprisingly let me add, that George W. Bush wanted to target Juan Cole because of his effectiveness at criticizing the Iraq war.

Suck on that morsel from Mr. Dionne’s nostalgia pie.

However, the pathetic part about E.J. Dionne’s nostalgia is that it’s not his fault. This absurd nostalgia for Bush should be laid at the door of Congress, when Speaker Pelosi refused to strip the bark off a president whose malfeasance and recklessness was the worst since Nixon. When a president turned the C.I.A. into his own personal misinformation center on a war that we’re still fighting in a country that never attacked us.

It’s this same presidential hubris that inspired Barack Obama to bomb Libya and many other things he’s done to mimic the imperial presidency of George W. Bush. Glenn Greenwald keeps a running list if you’ve forgotten.

That Pres. Obama had to tape Afghanistan back together because of Bush’s negligence, which evolved into a nightmare scenario of unending occupation is another example of why nostalgia for anything George W. Bush is simply a pathetic case of selective amnesia. Bush’s Pakistan strategy part of the disaster that allowed the ISI to likely shelter him all these years.

But Bush nostalgia really owes a debt of thanks to the Democrats. They’re the ones who allowed former Pres. Bush to ride into the sunset and set up his rehabilitation tour that never should have been allowed, let alone have history rewritten by he and Rumsfeld, with Cheney’s tome about to drop.

E.J. Dionne adds his piece of rewriting history to make 2012 Republicans look bad, by positing that George W. Bush was not a nightmare. His case falls apart as he ties himself in knots trying to prove a case that only could have been suggested by one of his Republican bosses trying to save the GOP from themselves.

I wish the gods could save us from amnesiac political writers in the traditional press and the partisan hacks who suck it up, but it seems people are suckers for stupidity.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

TIME: Grand Jury Investigating CIA Abu Ghraib Torture for War Crimes

By on 14 June 2011

The ghosts of Bush-Cheney-Rummy torture still hangs over the C.I.A., no matter what Leon Panetta has done to infuse the agency with honor. From TIME magazine:

Manadel al-Jamadi

It has been nearly a decade since Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner known as “the Iceman” — for the bungled attempt to cool his body and make him look less dead — perished in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. But now there are rumbles in Washington that the notorious case, as well as other alleged CIA abuses, could be returning to haunt the agency. TIME has learned that a prosecutor tasked with probing the CIA — John Durham, a respected, Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney from Connecticut — has begun calling witnesses before a secret federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., looking into, among other things, the lurid Nov. 4, 2003, homicide, which was documented by TIME in 2005.

TIME has obtained a copy of a subpoena signed by Durham that points to his grand jury’s broader mandate, which could involve charging additional CIA officers and contract employees in other cases. The subpoena says “the grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving War Crimes (18 USC/2441), Torture (18 USC 243OA) and related federal offenses.” [...]

I’ll never understand the sense in allowing former Pres. Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to walk out of Washington without a serious hearing on the malfeasance surrounding their prosecution of the Iraq war. I never wanted impeachment hearings to be the primary goal after he won reelection, but there’s something craven about the Democratic cowardice to hold our own leaders culpable by investigating their actions when in office. It’s one of Speaker Pelosi’s gravest errors in judgment.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Assad’s Evil Regime, No One is Safe

By on 31 May 2011

Hamza al-Khateeb was 13 years-old. The details are horrifyingly shocking. From Al Jazeera and be prepared if you’re going to read on:

Arrested during a protest in Saida, 10km east of Daraa, on April 29, Hamza’s body was returned to his family on Tuesday 24th May, horribly mutilated.

The child had spent nearly a month in the custody of Syrian security, and when they finally returned his corpse it bore the scars of brutal torture: Lacerations, bruises and burns to his feet, elbows, face and knees, consistent with the use of electric shock devices and of being whipped with cable, both techniques of torture documented by Human Rights Watch as being used in Syrian prisons during the bloody three-month crackdown on protestors.

Hamza’s eyes were swollen and black and there were identical bullet wounds where he had apparently been shot through both arms, the bullets tearing a hole in his sides and lodging in his belly.

On Hamza’s chest was a deep, dark burn mark. His neck was broken and his penis cut off.

There is now a Facebook page simply dedicated to saying We are all Hamza Alkhateeb. The YouTube comes with login filter because of the graphic nature.

Obama’s intervention policy now lies in shambles. Libya was good enough for humanitarian reasons, but because of where Syria resides we do nothing. Now, I’m not for intervention in either country, because I’m against the U.S. being the world’s policeman alone. But Pres. Obama intervened militarily in Libya on human rights grounds, so what of Syria at this point? Interestingly, tomorrow Rep. Dennis Kucinich is going to get a floor vote that pulls the trigger on the War Powers Act of 1973. You have to admire the man’s idealism, as if anyone in Congress would challenge the Executive Branch fully.

While all this is going on the Assad regime is reportedly butchering children. The international community must not stand by while he does.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Tax Increases Mixed with Death Blow for Progressives

By on 11 April 2011



Coming off a scene reminiscent of Oliver Stone’s “Nixon” at the Lincoln Memorial on Saturday (see video above), Pres. Obama has made some momentous decisions that will take us where we’ve never gone before. Inspired by the traditional media fanfare of Paul Ryan’s “brave” budget proposal, Pres. Obama has accepted the challenge to step out on the coming economic battles for 2012 to offer his own ideas to the mix. Knowing how Obama abhors the vision thing, because sticking his neck out just isn’t his thing, this will be a defining moment. Pres. Obama will be swinging for the fences of history, with no eye whatsoever on Democratic Party foundation, its roots or traditions, taking the party away from liberalism forever.

The Republican plan includes a shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a more comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers, cuts to military spending, savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and unspecified changes to Social Security. – Obama to Call for Broad Plan to Reduce Debt

It’s easy to predict the usual traditional media response, especially on cable, which will be positive on raising the retirement age. The rationale is that we’re living longer, it won’t hit anyone over 50 and it must be done. Talking heads will scoff that someone 35 shouldn’t have to work until they’re 68 or 69, keeping it just below 70, because it’s longevity reality. What it will mean is that what’s already happened to the Democratic Party message will be solidified in something far away from what it meant in the 20th century, with the principles that guide liberals and progressives not only irrelevant, but seen as too expensive for 21st century America.

Pres. Obama is betting there are still plenty of Democrats who will support him no matter what he does, especially seen against the alternative, while being certain that his plan to take on entitlements, including “unspecified” changes to Social Security, will solidify Independents securely, because of the midterm message he heard and intends to heed. That’s a bet his entire reelection team will take, because it’s a very good wager.

The reported tax increases mentioned in the Wall Street Journal today are what he should have done in December and is good news, though like everything Pres. Obama does, he just can’t ask too much of the wealthy. From “Obama puts taxes on the table”:

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

Couple the budget compromise with “unspecified” Social Security changes, add in serving up poor women’s freedoms in D.C. that goes along with making women jump through hoops in the health care bill fro reproductive services, and what you’ve got is a Democratic President making his final moves away from the traditions of party and recalibrating the Democratic Party into something different.

Outside the budget but very much part of this whole shift, making matters worse as well, is Obama’s war in Libya, with a stalemate that could morph into something much larger with SecDef Gates poised to leave soon. Because with Obama committed he can’t be seen to lose the war, so boots on the ground to keep this from happening is a very real possibility.

Pres. Obama’s already committed himself to an imperial presidency, with actions on military tribunals closely tied to that of his predecessor George W. Bush, and the treatment of Bradley Manning now widely seen as “inhumane.” Not even criticism of the policy from esteemed lawyers like Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School, Yochai Benkler of Harvard Law School, Lawrence Tribe and many, many others has made a dent.

With Republican power entrenched in the Tea Party extremes it makes what Pres. Obama is about to do more possible while seeming smart and moderately centrist, because what they want is so “draconian,” one of the Democratic talking points no doubt decided in the elite chambers of power.

The outcome is the country and our politics will move another rightward step, putting helping people further into the private sector column, with progressives and liberals needing a completely different political party. They won’t have any less success than if they stay attached to the Democratic Party, which no longer has a place for liberals, doesn’t speak for the working class anymore, and has no idea or interest on how to create jobs, which is actually hurt by starving the economy.

Now Democrats will have to decide if they’d rather see Democratic ideals cut away by someone who runs as a Democrat, and support him doing so, or by Republicans if they win in 2012, assuming they’ll have a decent candidate, which is still anything but certain.

Triangulation has a big brother, but this one is on chewable steroids.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Obama’s ‘Are You In?’ Question

By on 07 April 2011

Photo by Pete Souza

The biggest issue facing Obama’s reelection team is whether Obama’s base will show up and if they do in what numbers and with what level of enthusiasm. This is the story and why Obama embarrassingly asked “Are you in?” when he launched his reelection campaign. Not even the President and his team are quite sure of the answers.

Responding to Glenn Greenwald’s critique of “the impotence of the loyal partisan voter,” Adam Sewer accidentally reveals the problem with the Democratic base.

Democrats are less liberal than Republicans are conservative because there are fewer self-identified liberals in America. Democrats rely more on the votes of moderates, and so they can’t afford to be as strident ideologically. – Adam Sewer

While Republicans are politically certain and self-righteous, Democrats and progressives tend to be politically self-loathing.

It’s hard to know the purpose of progressives if they’re going to regurgitate the conventional media wisdom about the country and right-wing talking points about Democrats, like Sewer did, in order to make an argument against “loyal partisans” being “impotent.”

If they weren’t they would have long ago gotten fed up with Pres. Obama’s rightward lurch.

If extending the Bush tax cuts didn’t do it, then intervention into Libya should have, and if not that surely reversing his decision on military tribunals would have; that is if making private insurance deals and codifying Hyde hadn’t done it off the top. On Libya, a favorite of Democrats during George W. Bush’s imperial presidency, Bruce Fein, has prepared an article of impeachment against Pres. Obama over his decision to attack Libya, because of his own imperial overreach. It’s absolutely preposterous to imagine progressives being consistent on this anymore than they were when Pres. Obama flipped on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s civilian trial.

When Greenwald was on with Lawrence O’Donnell this past Tuesday, it was an interesting back and forth, but neither of these good gentlemen went anywhere near what progressives must do to cure their impotence. When it’s obvious that Social Security and other safety net services will be up for grabs after 2012, you’d think everyone would understand that healing progressive self-loathing is a matter of urgency, because it comes down to whether Obama gets to change the FDR legacy or a Republican does, because that’s where we’re headed right now.

Lawrence O’Donnell said the two party system is the problem.

Funny how that isn’t stopping the Republican Right from forcing Speaking Boehner to push Democrats into caving on budget cuts, or the Tea Party caucus from forcing their leaders to make deals with them.

In contrast, look what the so called congressional progressive caucus did in the months before the 2010 midterms. They acted like they had no power against Obama and Pelosi, calmly caving on health care, but also women’s rights in the bill itself, and rarely do you hear any of them rise up in complaint of Pres. Obama’s constant rightward march or, heaven forbid, refuse to support what’s being done as they ponder their own purpose, long ago forgotten.

There hasn’t been one single moment when Pres. Obama or his team were in danger of losing control of their compromise and capitulation agenda because the progressive caucus refused to cave on principle.

The Tea Party is taking progressives to school right now on the budget by showing them how it’s done. Nobody but Lawrence O’Donnell seems to realize that Pres. Obama and the Democrats have already handed the Republicans a big budget win.

More from Glenn:

One thing is for certain: right now, the Democratic Party is absolutely correct in its assessment that kicking its base is good politics. Why is that? Because they know that they have inculcated their base with sufficient levels of fear and hatred of the GOP, so that no matter how often the Party kicks its base, no matter how often Party leaders break their promises and betray their ostensible values, the base will loyally and dutifully support the Party and its leaders (at least in presidential elections; there is a good case that the Democrats got crushed in 2010 in large part because their base was so unenthusiastic). [...] Joan Walsh yesterday urged progressives not to organize for Obama until next year while nonetheless vowing to support his re-election, which (though well-intentioned) strikes me as merely reinforcing this dynamic. But what I do know is that Rachel’s optimistic proclamation that “only the base itself will ever change” this dynamic cannot be fulfilled without giving the Party and its leaders a true reason to pay attention or care about disenchantment (and, some day, to fear alienating their base). For those who are hopeful that this will happen, what do they envision will cause it? What would ever make Democratic Party leaders change how they view this dynamic?

I’ve been writing about this for months. That Democrats and progressives almost always come home, because the alternative is seen as worse.

But you’ve got to ask what difference it makes if progressives get Obama or the generic Republican, because they’re not going to get anything out of it either way.

The fall back answer is Supreme Court picks, but it sounds lame to me when you’re looking at the future of the Democratic Party and what it means if, more likely when, Pres. Obama takes on Social Security in order to “save it.”

In the Obama era the Democratic Party stands against the Republican Right, even as Pres. Obama’s capitulation to the Right moves the country in their direction. But what does the Democratic Party under Obama stand for and what exactly does it mean for progressives if they join Obama’s reelection team?

I haven’t a clue and no progressive yet has convinced me they do either.

At the end of Glenn’s column he asks a simple question about Obama and the Democratic Party kicking the base: What would ever make Democratic Party leaders change how they view this dynamic?

The answer is simple and everyone knows it, even if people don’t want to discuss it on TV and no politician of importance wants the role.

Democrats and progressives would have to take on Barack Obama’s imperial presidency and the Democratic Party’s enabling of it through a primary challenge. They won’t, even though their very relevancy is proved moot through their reluctance to do so.

(This column was originally posted at 7:11 a.m.)

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

What Obama Caving on KSM Trial Says About Us All

By on 05 April 2011

In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn’t just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It’s about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others. – Dahlia Lithwick

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“You cannot say that a man is ‘evil’ and ‘anti-American’ in effect and then adopt his policies.” – Joe Scarborough

After a rousing discussion, Joe Scarborough agreed with the decision to keep the trial of KSM at Gitmo. His main concern was that candidate Obama had pronounced these policies of Bush-Cheney “evil” and “un-American.” Meanwhile, Mika Brzezinski and John Heilemann made the ludicrous argument that Obama’s moral compass remains on course while taking issue with Scarborough over whether Obama ever said anything close to what Joe was claiming. Evidently it’s not enough to adopt the very Bush-Cheney policies you railed against and said you’d change.

Being as aware as anymore who covered the ’08 election cycle, including the “Game Change” author(s) John Heilemann, there is no doubt that candidate Obama implied that Bush-Cheney policies on Gitmo were in fact “evil” and “un-American.” It was the wink and nod between Obama and his die hard fans, as well as skeptical progressives who voted for him, including myself, as Obama pledged that he’d have a different type of presidency.

Mika then turned the subject away from Obama’s responsibility to do better by asking whether Obama would have opened Gitmo in the first place. It reveals the bankruptcy of his apologists on KSM’s trial, because this has absolutely nothing to do with the cowardice of the Obama administration to rubber stamp Bush-Cheney policies where the rule of law is concerned.

Of course, Joe Scarborough has no problem in theory with these same policies, mind you, he just wants Obama supporters to eat it and admit what Obama channeling Bush means looking backward.

There you have it, folks. In a nutshell, this is why we don’t do the brave thing, the right thing, the moral thing and stand up for what this country represents. But we sure are good at paying lip service to American principles when we don’t have anything to lose, like when a candidate for president runs for office. Just don’t let the test of the meaning of American values come inside your own neighborhood.

We are only as strong as our most fearful link. That link was exposed on “Morning Joe” today, but they have a lot of company.

A.G. Eric Holder whined that Congress made him cancel civilian trial plans for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The Obama administration says they had no choice, when in fact Pres. Obama simply wouldn’t make the case and take on Congress, with the President’s loyalists sticking up for him.

The New York Times whines about Senators Chuck Schumer and Joe Lieberman, also saying “the final blow came from Mayor Michael Bloomberg” on why the public trial of KSM had to finally be moved.

America is now a pass the buck society.

It’s always the fault of someone else when we choose to do the un-American thing.

We don’t have anyone willing to stand up and do what’s right regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us or the expense of doing it.

That is not a leading quality of the American spirit, but it has become our driving force.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Stepping on Your Message, Blowing Off Your Base

By on 04 April 2011

Morning headline and story: Obama launches reelection campaign.

Afternoon headline headline and story: In a Reversal, Military Trials for 9/11 Case:

The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as it once planned. –

I’m still trying to figure out why in the world Pres. Obama would launch his reelection, then allow A.G. Eric Holder to step all over it by announcing the Administration is flip-flopping on Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, with his trial now to be a military tribunal.

If these two contrary moves weren’t colossally clumsy they would have to be seen as a giant tell. It’s one or the other.

Obama isn’t worried about anyone’s reaction to his flipping on his decision about KSM’s trial, because he doesn’t care what progressive Democrats think. This isn’t news, but seen in these two colliding moments today they presented a stark political picture.

For a man who’s running for reelection the naked ambivalence he has for his political base would be truly stunning if we weren’t talking about Barack Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Get Military Commission

By on 04 April 2011

Oh, the irony.

Few things are more representative of the Obama presidency than on the same day Obama announces his reelection campaign Attorney General Eric Holder is reportedly going to also announce the Administration’s wholesale cave on civil liberties, as well as their pledge to try KSM in civilian court.

From CBS:

Attorney General Eric Holder today will announce that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in a military commission, the CBS News Investigative Unit has learned. A source says the commission will be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Holder is expected to announce the decision in a news conference today at 2 p.m.

Trying Mohammed in a civilian court and closing the Guantanamo prison were once some of the Obama administration’s top priorities, but political realities have hamstrung both goals.

I’m just a political analyst out here trying to make sense of this mess of a Democratic message, but I sure don’t envy the job of movement progressives who have to dress up Pres. Obama’s latest move as something other than a monumental cave on principles Democrats used to cherish.

The move illustrated Mr. Obama’s acknowledgment that he will not be able to fulfill his promise to close the prison any time soon — Mr. Obama said on the 2008 campaign trail that he would close Guantanamo within his first year in office. Still, Mr. Obama said last month that he remained committed to trying terror suspects in federal courts.

This is really something.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

The Sunday Early Bird News Round-Up

By on 27 March 2011

Good morning early birds and welcome to Sunday!

On this day in history, March 27, 1513, Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon set his eyes on what is today known as Florida.

I’ve rounded up some links so you don’t have to:

~Coalition airstrikes against Gaddafi on Saturday provide enough cover for the rebels to retake the city of Ajdabiya in the East.

~A quarter of a million people take to the streets in London to protest the government’s draconian “austerity” measures. Just as in the U.S., the British banking system received billions in bailouts and now the people made to suffer are the usual suspects- the middle and lower classes.

~Protests in Syria turned violent after government forces gunned down dozens of unarmed protesters.

~You would think that the cable news media could walk and chew gum at the same time given it’s a 24 hour news cycle which gives them more than enough time to cover more than one or two stories non-stop. For example, one would think they could cover the military action in Libya and the ongoing crisis in Japan. If you thought that, you would be wrong. Since the initiation of military action in Libya, coverage of the continued problems with the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan has slipped off noticeably. Luckily print/web media is still covering the crisis.

~This seems to becoming more and more of a frequent occurrence- NATO air strikes kill more civilians, including children.

~On a similar note if you haven’t seen the documentary, The Pat Tillman Story by Amir Bar-Lev, go run out and rent it. There have been several documentaries about his death, but this one is the best by far- I know it’s been available on DVD for some time now but I just watched it last night and it was incredible- and enraging. It’s all the more relevant given what has gone on in Afghanistan since Tillman died- it’s incredible to see just how many of the top brass involved in the cover-up failed upwards and not only were not held accountable, but got promotions. Of course, the people doing the promoting (in the Bush administration) seemed to also be involved in the cover-up.

~Hamas announced that Gaza militants had agreed to stop launching rockets into Israel if Israel would stop launching strikes against targets in Gaza in return. That seems unlikely. Tensions are rising daily and I can’t help but have the feeling that we are about to see the Second Act of Operation Cast Lead. I hope I am wrong.

~In today’s NYT Thomas Friedman tries to put a positive spin on the outcome of the Iraq War which he supported and argued for in 2002 and 2003 and argues, unconvincingly in my view, that the wonderful democracy that flourished there bodes well for the Arab Spring.

~While polls show that more and more Americans are supporting equality for gays and lesbians on a variety of fronts, it looks like the all of the likely GOP hopefuls are decidedly anti-gay. So, who is outside the mainstream now?

~What is it about some small government conservatives loving big government in our bedrooms?

~European countries seem to be getting fed up with the United States’ primary role in the Mideast Peace process (or lack thereof). They want the United Nations to take over the peace negotiations and I can’t help but wonder if this is related to a) Angela Merkel’s extraordinary phone call with Bibi Netanyahu where her aides described her as being “furious” with him, b) the revelations in the Palestine Papers, which received much, much more coverage in Europe and other parts of the world than they did in the U.S. and c) the U.S. being the only country to veto the Security Council resolution condemning settlement expansion? Here’s the thing, the U.S. won’t hand over its leading role in “mediating” negotiations and coming up with a solution because Israel wants us in that position- in fact, Bibi doesn’t want anything to do with the Quartet. I’ve believed for a long time that the international community needs to play a larger role in all of this because it’s clear that due to domestic political considerations, the U.S. is incapable of being an objective, honest broker, which is what is necessary if the conflict is ever to end.

~Is this NJ nuclear reactor an accident waiting to happen?

~Glenn Beck has a new documentary (*yawn*) which I guess came out some time in February 2011 and guess what it’s about? **spoiler alert** Basically, the world is ending and those evil Muslims, socialists and atheists are responsible. It seems to focus a lot on Iran getting a nuclear weapon in the next 10 minutes and it contains a lot of commentary from people who have made a career out of fear-mongering and being a little bit crazy. Media Matters has some good information on Beck’s chosen “experts.” Sorry if I ruined it for you. Here’s a little taste:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NVBVG5--c]

~War-monger John Bolton has a swell idea- war with Iran. And soon. This is nothing new of course because I don’t think Bolton could name a single country in the Mideast region (other than Israel) that he doesn’t want to bomb. I’ve noticed something about neoconservatives- they seem to treat U.S. troops like expendable chess pieces on board which they control. If we end up in another war I think it will be time for a draft. Or how about a war tax since all this sh*t costs money? I think we’ve become an entitled, lazy nation that expects only about 2% of the population to sacrifice anything when it comes to war and thus it’s much easier to support something when most of us have no skin in the game. Remember back in the old days when our leaders demanded sacrifice from ALL Americans, not just service members and their families? Women worked in the factories and joined WAVES, certain food items and products were prohibited because they were needed for the war effort, people bought war bonds and people signed up for service in droves. These days what do our leaders ask us to do in a time of national crisis and war? They ask us to go shopping. Who doesn’t like shopping?

~Hey, it’s almost tax time, how much do you owe in federal income tax? If it’s more than $1 you owe more than Bank of America does. It’s called failing upwards. Where is the MSM (television, preferably) on this? The hypocrisy of the small government, budget-cutting, anti-tax crowd is unbelievable- Middle America is being the only one asked to sacrifice economically while the nations largest corporations (not just in banking) not only pay ZERO federal income tax, but receive BILLIONS- yes, billions- in tax relief while they use offshore accounts to dodge tax federal tax laws. Now there’s a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon that needs fixing. But nowhere in this budget debate is any of this being discussed. Now, not all corporations pay no taxes of course, but the idea that we actually have a truly free market system with all these corporate subsidies is a myth- and that’s without even bringing up the issue of bailouts.

~Yemen’s long-time President is possibly stepping down sooner rather than later.

~Over at Foreign Policy there is an interesting and somewhat critical commentary about Angela Merkel’s economic and foreign policy leadership.

~Whether one agrees or disagrees with military intervention in Libya there is no denying that very real and very important questions are being raised about its foreign policy implications. For example, this commentary asks why, if the intervention in Libya is based primarily on humanitarian grounds, the world and UN have largely ignored the growing violence and murder of large numbers of civilians in Côte d’Ivoire by the ruthless Laurent Gbagbo.

~Speaking of questions being raised about the foreign policy implications of military intervention in Libya, here Mark Sheetz arguing that Europe (and in particular France) alone should have handled this one. Agree or disagree, he raises some interesting questions.

~Careful what you wish for Floridians, you just might get it. Howie Klein of Down with Tyranny has a great post up about how Florida Governor Rick Scott has a plan to make Florida one of the states most hostile to public workers/unions, the poor and pretty much every living thing except large corporations. And given what’s been happening in Wisconsin, that’s quite an achievement!

~Speaking of Wisconsin and union-hating political leaders, Governor Walker has decided that following court orders is for lesser humans and the GOP is going to go ahead and ram the anti-union bill into effect. So much for being a law and order Republican. I keep wondering when middle America, including conservatives, are going to wake up and smell the hypocrisy. When ever you hear the Tea Party crowd talk about a) transparency, b) small government, c) cutting spending and d) the importance of the Constitution and the Rule of Law, be sure you read the fine print because there is a long list of self-serving exceptions to all of the above.

~Does the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning raise the possibility that despite Barack Obama’s executive order prohibiting torture, it is still being used at the discretion of the DoD/CIA? Why has the MSM not asked hard questions about this, particularly given the fact that Obama’s executive order has exceptions that have been interpreted to mean that torture is permissible in certain circumstances. Also, given the firing resignation of State Dept. spokesman PJ Crowley several weeks ago, you would think the MSM would connect some of the dots. I guess that’s just to much to ask of David Gregory, John King and others.

Baby Cheetah:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnXRyO84TH4]

~On Monday Der Spiegel published shocking photos of US troops posing by dead Afghan civilians whom they had killed. The photos are graphic and horrible. The US soldiers involved are on trial for murder (one of them just sentenced to 24 years) but I am wondering, did I miss something or has the US media largely ignored this story (there were a few reports including the AP) and if so, are they doing so at the request of the US government?

~Thank goodness for Nicholas Kristof, who in today’s NYT is bringing more attention to the horrific story of the Egyptian women who were subjected to torture and a “virginity test” by the very same Egyptian military that the U.S. has been lauding for being so restrained and professional.

~It’s looking more and more likely like there will be a government shutdown.

~Kathleen Parker has an interesting piece in the WaPo about Nikki Haley and internal South Carolina politics.

~Dana Milbank mocks a Haley Barbour presidential run.

~Defense Secretary Gates said in a pre-taped interview (to air today on Face the Nation) that Gadhafi may be moving dead bodies in an attempt to claim that coalition air strikes have killed lots of civilians.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

My $0.02/Saturday Reads and a few words from Dr. Seuss

By on 19 March 2011

Morning, everyone. As I drafted this post on Friday, news broke that a Wisconsin county judge has blocked Walker’s collective-bargaining law.

Other than that, not much happy news to report, so I’ve included some uplifting words from Seuss at the end of my Saturday picks below. Also, see photo to the right for reason to keep hoping against hope.

Onto the rest of the headlines…

Japan and Nuclear Energy

The number of dead and missing from Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami has now topped 16,000. It is the deadliest natural disaster to hit Japan in nearly a century.

For example, here’s a little line-up of TEPCO lies:

  • In 2002, Michael Zilenzieger reported that top officals TEPCO were forced to resign “after admitting that the company had covered up safety violations and falsified records at three of its largest nuclear power plants”.
  • In 2006, the government demanded that TEPCO “check past data after it reported that it had found falsification of coolant water temperatures at its Fukushima Daiichi plant in 1985 and 1988, and that the tweaked data was used in mandatory inspections at the plant, which were completed in October 2005.”
  • And in 2007, TEPCO reported that it “had found more past data falsifications, though this time it did not have to close any of its plants.”

Then there were some minor matters of building on fault lines that they claim not to have known about and releasing radiation into the atmosphere. And so on.

Distrust of government has also helped nurture anti-nuclear sentiment. As Flynn’s study found, the yawning gap between expert and public views on nuclear risk owes largely to a lack of trust in government and industry officials to manage the hazards safely. In the United States, the old Atomic Energy Commission was widely viewed as secretive and deceptive before its dissolution in 1974. Perhaps this explains why the two industrialized countries that have had the most success in allaying nuclear fears are France and Japan, cultures that are largely comfortable with leaving the task of governing to technocrats. (Though, admittedly, in Japan, confidence in the government and nuclear utilities had come under strain even before Fukushima.)

Why are we playing Russian roulette with the American people for nuclear plants whose principal objective is simply to boil water and produce steam? This is technological insanity. It presents national security problems, for every nuclear plant is a prime target. It affects our civil liberties. It endangers our workers. It is an industry that cannot be financed by Wall Street because it’s too risky. Wall Street demands 100 percent taxpayer guarantees for any nuclear plant.

So I suggest that people listening and watching this program to pick up the phone and dial the White House comment number, which is (202) 456-1111, (202) 456-1111, and demand the following: that there be public hearings in every area where there’s a nuclear plant, so the people can see for themselves what the hazards are, what the risks are, how farcical the evacuation plans are, how costly nuclear power is, and how it can be replaced by energy efficiency, by solar energy, different kinds of solar energy, by cogeneration, as Amory Lovins and many others, Peter Bradford, have pointed out.

We must no longer license any new nuclear plants. We should shut down the ones like Indian Point. How many people know that Hillary Clinton, as senator, and Andrew Cuomo, as attorney general, demanded that Indian Point be shut down? That doesn’t matter to the monetized minds in Washington, D.C. We also should prepare a plan where, apart from the aging plants, which should be shut down, and apart from the earthquake-risk plants—should be shut down—for the phase-out of the entire industry. We’re going to be left with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, for which there is no permanent repository. This is institutional insanity, and I urge the people in this country to wake up before they experience what is now going on in northern Japan: uninhabitable territory, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands at risk of cancer, enormous economic loss. And for what?

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

OBAMA CENSORS STATE – PJ CROWLEY OUT

By on 13 March 2011

P.J. Crowley, spokesperson for the State Dept., has been shit-canned by the White House after honestly stating that PFC Bradley Manning’s treatment “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

Oh ri-ight, Crowley resigned. Got it?

From CNN:

P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.

Crowley will step down as early as Sunday afternoon, the officials said, because White House officials are furious about his suggestion that the Obama administration is mistreating Manning…

[...] But Crowley has told friends that he is deeply concerned that mistreatment of Manning could undermine the legitimate prosecution of the young private. Crowley has also made clear he has the Obama administration’s best interests at heart because he thinks any mistreatment of Manning could be damaging around the world to President Obama, who has tried to end the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners.

This is Pres. Obama’s decision, but the White House’s lack of trust in Mr. Crowley was telegraphed when Obama’s NSC spokesperson, Mike Hammer, was sent over to State.

Obama’s claims that the Pentagon has “assured” him that Manning is being treated under basic standards is laughable and insulting to our intelligence.

The move to silence Crowley is being done to deflect from the torturous treatment Manley has reportedly been under.

Manning’s lawyer also says the young private recently had to sleep in the nude because defense officials thought there was a suicide threat and decided to take away his boxer shorts.

PJ Crowley served as National Security Council spokesman for Pres. Bill Clinton.

Matt Stoller said it perfectly via Twitter: The WH thinks governing means a mix of PR and enforcing petty corrupt social norms. That’s it. That’s really it.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Rep. Peter King Praises Obama on Gitmo Order

By on 09 March 2011

“I commend the Obama Administration for issuing this Executive Order. The bottom line is that it affirms the Bush Administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities. This is clearly another step in the right direction.” – Rep. Peter King

Pres. Obama and his Administration must be thrilled. Bipartisanship rules, even on anti-American policies. Maybe the Right will finally quit calling Barack Obama a secret Muslim.



Obama Bolsters Gitmo… was TIME magazine’s headline.

ACLU blasts: President Obama Issues Executive Order Institutionalizing Indefinite Detention.

In a statement accompanying the order, Obama said he remained committed to closing the prison, a pledge he made on his first full day in office. That pledge, enshrined in his first executive order, was widely seen as a repudiation of the detention system his predecessor built. But the new order suggests that Obama’s original pledge was more about dismantling a facility than a system. – ProPublica

I don’t play a lawyer when I write, but I do have a highly keen interest in all things surrounding the law, especially where the Executive Branch is involved. Many legal eagles and political writers have weighed in, with opinions varying. The bottom line in Pres. Obama’s Executive Order is that we’ve known this was coming and nothing in it is remotely surprising.

It’s highly embarrassing, as far as I’m concerned, when Democratic apologists pen cover stories for the Administration on the thinly veiled excuse arguing that Obama has not channeled George W. Bush in his Executive Order. Adam Sewer occupies this perch:

The new policies don’t amount to a “reversal” on the issue of whether Gitmo should be closed. Republicans are eager to portray Gitmo staying open as a “vindication” of the prison’s usefulness, but the fact that the indefinite detention order is limited to detainees currently at Gitmo means that the administration won’t be reopening the facility to new detainees, as Bush apologists have suggested doing.

Gitmo isn’t open because the administration doesn’t want to close it, although its efforts in this area are ripe for criticism. It’s still open because Republicans in Congress successfully frightened Democrats in Congress out of giving the administration the necessary funds to close it when they had control of Congress.

Deborah Perlstein over at Balkinization stands on the Sewer side of the argument:

Probably most unfortunate about the reporting so far is that it obscures (in lower paragraphs at best) what has been and remains the single greatest obstacle to the closure, or even amelioration of the situation, at Guantanamo: Congress. In 2008, both presidential candidates and their parties embraced the need to move toward closing the detention facility. In 2008, efforts by Congress even to conduct hearings into detention-related matters were still met with the criticism by some that Congress was interfering in matters properly left to the executive branch. Since then, Congress has become engaged up to its eyeballs in micromanaging the executive’s handling of a handful of detainees, and is otherwise devoting its Guantanamo-related energy to preventing the President from bringing criminal charges in our own courts against men who the President and Congress believe have committed crimes. We are through the looking glass.

Segue to Glenn Greenwald:

President Obama yesterday signed an Executive Order which, as The Washington Post described it, “will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay” and “all but cements Guantanamo Bay’s continuing role in U.S. counterterrorism policy.” The Order — which codifies a system of charge-free indefinite detention and military commissions once ostensibly scorned by Democrats — was captured perfectly by this headline from Time… None of this is the slightest bit unexpected. The new Executive Order has been previewed for months and merely codifies what has long been Obama’s policy: “long” in the sense of “since he’s inaugurated” — not, of course, “when he was a Senator and presidential candidate.” I’m writing about this merely to address the excuse from the White House and its loyalists that the fault for this policy, this inability to “close Guantanamo,” lies with Congress, which forced the President to abandon his oft-stated campaign pledge. That excuse is pure fiction.

It is absolutely pure fiction.

The spirit of Gitmo was never going to be squashed, even if the off shore detention facility was closed. Housing detainees in the United States, something that should have been done a long time ago, wouldn’t have changed Obama’s military commission, indefinite detention, holding people without charging them policy.

It was Barack Obama’s position — not that of Congress — that detainees could and should be denied trials, that our court system was inadequate and inappropriate to try them, and that he possessed the unilateral, unrestrained power under the “laws of war” to order them imprisoned for years, even indefinitely, without bothering to charge them with a crime and without any review by the judiciary, in some cases without even the right of habeas review… – Glenn Greenwald

Once again, Pres. Obama quenches his thirst for bipartisanship, but this time embraces the Bush-Cheney era with both arms.

Rush Limbaugh said gleefully yesterday on his show that with this Executive Order on Gitmo he could no longer tell the difference between Dick Cheney and Pres. Obama. There’s little evidence to argue otherwise, though Obama loyalists and Democratic sycophants will try.

In the short run, and within US politics, there is little choice but to support Obama and the Dems as the lesser evil, at least as regards domestic policy. – from Crooked Timber

We’ve gone from “Change we can believe in” to “Vote Obama-Biden – The Lesser Evil.”

Read full story · Comments { 14 }