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

Barack Obama Stumps on Education with Jeb Bush

Sounding like a man on his 2012 reelection tour, Pres. Obama is in Florida talking about education.

I’ve been out all day, so below is some of what’s going on, but feel free to jump in on anything that’s catching your attention.

What’s going on with Charlie Sheen today? …besides for the Piers Morgan interview with him being replayed on CNN tonight? James Wolcott takes on Morgan:

Piers Morgan was made to measure. He had attitude in spades. Not for him an Eve Harrington show of faux humility, the glistening hope that America would accept him into its heart, adopt him as one of its own. As befits the Season Seven winner of Donald Trump’s tragic charade party Celebrity Apprentice, Morgan adopted the master of major lip as his mentor-model, talking himself up as if ready to take his rightful place in the Manhattan skyline, a landmark head. Like Trump, Morgan practiced pugnacity for maximum P.R. effect, announcing that Madonna would be banned from his show and baiting her as an old gray mare that ain’t what she used to be: “Lady Gaga is half her age, twice as good-looking, twice as talented, and twice as hot.” Morgan also reveled in Twitter slap-fights, boasting that he would mop the floor with doubters and detractors such as John Schiumo, the 24-hour cable news channel NY1’s prime-time news host, whom he warned, “You’re like Stephen Baldwin and Vinny Pastore—they thought they were big shots in NY too until I wiped them in Celeb Apprentice.” Yes, those were quite a pair of titans he toppled.

Right-wingers won’t vote for the spending bill if it doesn’t completely defund Planned Parenthood. These anti-women Republicans are hiding behind their pro-Taliban tenets, which is against supporting the lives of women for some ideological fantasy that federal funds for Planned Parenthood have anything to do with abortion services. They don’t.

On that note, Gov. Rick Perry is preparing to sign an anti-women sonogram bill, because Texas Republicans think women are stupid and can’t be trusted to take care of themselves.

Domestic terrorist Jared Lee Loughner has been indicted on 49 counts.

Rep. Sam Arora is catching serious incoming on breaking his promise to the gay and lesbian community.

The reports on what’s happening to PFC Manning are hair-raising.

And talk about stupid, Gov. Rick Scott has stiff-armed Obama’s highspeed rail pitch. These 20th century Republicans are going to be the death of America to catch up and join the 21st century.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Pres. Obama: ‘I think history will end up… in the situation in Egypt we were on the right side of history.’

NBC’s Chuck Todd got under Pres. Obama’s skin when he asked “What was the point of the fiscal commission…?” Obama was visibly annoyed: “Still provides a framework for a conversation… You guys are pretty impatient.”

“I definitely feel folks pain,” Obama said in response to tough budget cuts. “It’s frustrating.”

On Egypt:

“… I think history will end up that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt that we were on the right side of history. What we didn’t do was pretend that we could dictate the outcome in Egypt, because we can’t. So we were very mindful it was important for this to remain a Egyptian event. That the United States did not become the issue, but that we sent out a very clear message that we believed in an orderly transition, a meaningful transition, and a transition that needed to happen not later, but sooner. And we were consistent with that message throughout. …” – Pres. Barack Obama

Minefield alert: “… particularly if you look at my statements. I started talking about reform 2 weeks or two and one-half weeks before Mr. Mubarak ultimately stepped down, and at each juncture I think we calibrated it about right. … …in a complicated situation we got it about right.”

I guess that’s true if you ignore Sect. Clinton’s “stable” comment, as well as V.P. Biden’s embarrassing PBS interview, with Pres. Obama himself moving very slowly towards freedom breaking out, with the real crux being that few others could have been prepared due to longstanding U.S. policy.

However, let’s also remember that Pres. Obama continues rendition to places like Egypt as he speaks.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Cheney Called ‘War Criminal’ at CPAC



Amidst wild applause, Ron Paul supporters got rowdy. When it got quiet, a shout of “war criminal” could be heard.

When Donald Rumsfeld started speaking, as recipient of the “Defender of the Constitution” award, a laughable honor to bestow on this man, according TPMDC and other reports, some in the Paul contingent walked out.

“Uh, Defender of the Constitution?” Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld’s speech. “Let’s see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act.”

“[Speaking] as a libertarian, that’s not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution,” he added.

The Tea Party is doing many things for the Republican Party, some of it Sharraon Angle-esque, with Sarah Palin’s part giving it celebrity. However, the main mission of the Tea Party initially came from Ron Paul and his people back during Bush’s reign. Republicans who actually resemble real conservatism instead of the neoconservative bastardization that dragged us into Iraq, of which Cheney and Rumsfeld are the bookends.

As much as I enjoy seeing Cheney and Rumsfeld hear pointed dissent amidst large applause for what the engineered under their watch, I’m also reminded that it’s a small minority against the dangerous right-wing that still champions Cheneyism, which is championed by Rush Limbaugh and his wingnut band.

The events at CPAC on Thursday are put into perspective through Donald Trump’s bluntness about Ron Paul’s chances to win the presidency, which also reveals the bottom line for all Republicans looking to 2012. They are only interested in someone who can beat Obama, with no one so far coming close to proving they can. Via The Hill:

“By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry to tell you,” Trump said at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday. “I like Ron Paul, I think he’s a good guy, but honestly he just has zero chance of getting elected.”

Donald Trump may not be taken seriously by the Republican insider and intellectual elite, but he’s certainly taking himself seriously. How delicious it would be if he actually jumped in.

CPAC is just getting started, with more fun to come.

Oh, and as an aside, CNN has brought Tea Party activist Dana Loesch, talk radio host and editor-in-chief of Big Journalism, on board. It’s all in the name of giving voice to all sides, proving that 2012 will be a much bigger circus on the Right than anything they could muster in ’08.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

What Will Pres. Obama Do Next?






Pres. Mubarak shutting down Al Jazeera in Cairo is going directly against what Pres. Obama said needed to be done by the Egyptian President, which poses a real opportunity and thorny challenge for our President that didn’t need another one.

Now, ElBaradei is part of the picture in a real way, the National Coalition for Change, which includes the Muslim Brotherhood, wanting him to negotiate with the Mubarak regime.

What ElBaradei has talked about so far is some sort of coalition government, saying today that there is “no going back.” Blake Hounshell verbalized my feelings: U.S. should NOT endorse ElBaradei, contra some chatter on the Internets tonight. His dropping in from outside Egypt to now be standing at the center of the protests brings back one parallel to the Shah of Iran back in ’79 coming in to save the day, which didn’t end well at all. That said, Middle East analysis is that he’s an important symbol, figure head, direct challenge to Mubarak now also having aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. ElBaradei offers another strong sign to the military that Mubarak isn’t going to be around much longer.

Nick Kristof tweets: Until now, ElBaradei has been all stature, no support. But defying curfew, speaking in Sq, gives him street cred he needs.

The Obama administration has been struggling in plain sight all week. Pres. Obama’s speech late Friday was better, but a westerner can’t try to have it both ways in the Middle East and come out a winner or respected, especially in today’s global multi-platform media smorgasbord. America has slowly become part of the story attached to Mubarak and now also Suleiman, which is further complicating matters for Obama.

Jane Mayer reminds us that Mr. Suleiman was at the center of U.S. rendition policy.

Technically, U.S. law required the C.I.A. to seek “assurances” from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn’t face torture. But under Suleiman’s reign at the intelligence service, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. officer who helped set up the practice of rendition, later testified before Congress, even if such “assurances” were written in indelible ink, “they weren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.”

But even as frightened as people are at the memories of Iran and the Shah dancing in their heads, or elections under Bush’s push that delivered Hamas into power, what the people of Egypt have done this past week is make history in a new era. What’s happened this week is worlds apart. The advent of Al Jazeera, Twitter, Facebook and Wikileaks transparency, which I wrote about earlier this week, made the Egypt protests a multi media event.

If ever there was an American President who should have been able to unhesitatingly penetrate the Egyptian protests with American purpose and stand with the people, however cloaked in diplo-speak at first, it should have been Pres. Barack Obama and his administration. His Cairo speech held these possibilities.

Now the foreign policy community is taking the lead, along with the leaders of UK-France-Germany, pushing Obama to a position that was once hinted to be a natural inclination for him to make. Instead he seems permanently afflicted with the inability to take a jump and lead, which in a situation as fraught as the collapse of Mubarak is more obvious.

Carnegie Endowment:

Only free and fair elections provide the prospect for a peaceful transfer of power to a government recognized as legitimate by the Egyptian people. We urge the Obama administration to pursue these fundamental objectives in the coming days and press the Egyptian government to:

* call for free and fair elections for president and for parliament to be held as soon as possible;
* amend the Egyptian Constitution to allow opposition candidates to register to run for the presidency;
* immediately lift the state of emergency, release political prisoners, and allow for freedom of media and assembly;
* allow domestic election monitors to operate throughout the country, without fear of arrest or violence;
* immediately invite international monitors to enter the country and monitor the process leading to elections, reporting on the government’s compliance with these measures to the international community; and
* publicly declare that Hosni Mubarak will agree not to run for re-election.

We further recommend that the Obama administration suspend all economic and military assistance to Egypt until the government accepts and implements these measures.

Martin Indyk

At this point, facing by far the biggest foreign policy crisis of his presidency, Obama cannot afford to backtrack. Yesterday, he came out publicly on the side of the Egyptian people, insisting that Mubarak undertake significant reforms. But it is surely clear by now that the people will settle for nothing less than the removal of Mubarak. So Obama’s options are narrowing. He will soon have to decide whether to tell Mubarak that the United States no longer supports him and that it’s time for him to go.

Fortunately, Mubarak’s appointment of Omar Suleiman, the head of Military Intelligence, as his vice president and successor, has made it more possible for Obama to pursue this option with less fear of the potential destabilizing consequences. The United States has a good deal of leverage on the Egyptian military because we have trained, equipped and paid for their armaments. They now hold the key to a positive resolution of this crisis. Mubarak may have appointed Suleiman to shore up military support for his presidency, but he is now dependent on the same military for his survival and they may be willing to abandon him to ensure their own.

That’s the door on which Obama now needs to push. Suleiman needs to be encouraged to take over as Egypt’s new president, order the military to prevent looting but not harm the demonstrators, and announce that he will only serve for six months until free and fair elections allow for a legitimate president to form a new government. If he can put this understanding in place, Obama then needs to call Mubarak and tell him gently but firmly that for the good of his country it’s time for him to go.

Even understanding the double-edged sword of the choices, as well as the unfairness that the culmination of decades of bad American policy has landed on Pres. Obama’s desk, it’s not like he tried to right it on his own terms.

One cut is better than foreign policy catastrophe by a thousand.

The ever shifting, first using backward looking language, trying to correct it, then having Biden push harder backwards before Pres. Obama starting leaning in, all of it has finally ended in a better message today by Sect. Clinton, but it’s not been particularly pretty to watch.

However, anyone saying there is anyone who could have handled it better under the circumstances is lacking the humility for the situation, which renders their analysis moot.

That Pres. Obama has the job at a time when the consequences for U.S. are immeasurable, as well as Israel, which we are constantly reminded, also means this one is on him. Whatever he does or doesn’t do will matter to world history.

There isn’t one foreign policy expert who is ignorant to the type of regime Mubarak has had, as well as the treatment handed down on Egyptians who dared cross him, much of the torture economic hardship and poverty. The U.S. has known about the torture in this country for decades, even utilized it while turning the other way. Omar Suleiman is part of that legacy.

It’s a sick thing we’ve done, our country’s leaders and the people, because U.S. citizens are part of the problem, as is our pitifully inept national media, for looking the other way when our partnerships are with torturers, which in today’s Al Jazeera – Twitter – Facebook – Wikileaks world ends up with the citizens rising up and blaming us, too, for their oppression, as well as the armament that reins down on them.

Now ElBaradei has dropped in and stepped out to challenge Mubarak and Suleiman directly in honor of Egypt’s future, giving the protesters a face that might lead to a bridge to a different life.

Everyone is waiting to see what Pres. Obama does next, which is being directed by the Egyptian protesters and their President who has made a move directly opposed to what Pres. Obama said was needed.

Obama’s made a tough situation worse through his own Middle East foreign policy. Tactical and reactive responses aren’t a substitute for a regional strategy grounded in what America stands for in the Middle East. Now everything depends on playing it by ear as the situation develops. It’s a risky way to run the world.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

This Week in Headlines













































Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Nader and Grayson Interviews Show Much

Yeah I’m not a big Nader fan. He cost Gore likely 2000. He was a great consumer advocate in the 60s and 70s achieving major reforms to protect Americans. But of late I’ve seen his remarks and cant help but find them resonating. He asks where is labor? Where is the fight? When was the last time you heard the Democratic Party push for a minimum wage increase? Chris Hedges talks with Nader on what is going on and I’m starting to agree- we got to fight in ways we haven’t had to since the 60s.

Another news item is Grayson’s NYT interview. He gets it. Maybe he will be the one who will help lead the progressives of America to a brighter future.

Hedges:’ The Left Has Nowhere to Go’

“The more outrageous the Republicans become, the weaker the left becomes,” Nader said when I reached him at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. “The more outrageous they become, the more the left has to accept the slightly less outrageous corporate Democrats.”

Nader fears a repeat of the left’s cowardice in the next election, a cowardice that has further empowered the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, maintained the role of the Democratic Party as a lackey for corporations, and accelerated the reconfiguration of the country into a neo-feudalist state. Either we begin to practice a fierce moral autonomy and rise up in multiple acts of physical defiance that have no discernable short-term benefit, or we accept the inevitability of corporate slavery. The choice is that grim. The age of the practical is over. It is the impractical, those who stand fast around core moral imperatives, figures like Nader or groups such as Veterans for Peace, which organized the recent anti-war rally in Lafayette Park in Washington, which give us hope….

Nader hits on several other very important notes. One is on the notion the Left has nowhere to go and how that meme is perhaps doing great harm to the progressive movement.

“The left has nowhere to go,” Nader said. “Obama knows it. The corporate Democrats know it. There will be criticism by the left of Obama this year and then next year they will all close ranks and say ‘Do you want Mitt Romney? Do you want Sarah Palin? Do you want Newt Gingrich?’ It’s very predictable. …They don’t understand that even if they do not have any place to go, they ought to fake it. They should fake going somewhere else or staying home to increase the receptivity to their demands. But because they do not make any demands, they are complicit with corporate power. …

Ah but there has been a vast difference in the Bush/GOP POTUS years than the Obama ones right? I’m leaning towards no in many policy areas shall we say:

There is no major difference between a McCain administration, a Bush and an Obama administration. Obama, in fact, is in many ways worse. McCain, like Bush, exposes the naked face of corporate power. Obama, who professes to support core liberal values while carrying out policies that mock these values, mutes and disempowers liberals, progressives and leftists. Environmental and anti-war groups, who plead with Obama to address their issues, are little more than ineffectual supplicants.
Obama, like Bush and McCain, funds and backs our unending and unwinnable wars.
…The private military contractors, along with the predatory banks and investment houses, suck trillions out of the U.S. Treasury as efficiently under Obama. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus, have not been restored. The public option is dead. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts, adding some $900 billion to the deficit, along with the reduction of individual contributions to Social Security, furthers a debt peonage that will be the excuse to privatize Social Security, slash social services and break the back of public service unions. Obama does not intercede as tens of millions of impoverished Americans face foreclosures and bankruptcies. The Democrats provide better cover. But the corporate assault is the same.

I’m glad to see this critique- of the labor unions leaders who have caved and caved while their members pay the price. Aka Richard Trumka. Nader notes labor has the resources and field troops to organize and fight for the Left against the corporate overlords. Look at the Korea NAFTA crap. Obama cuts this horrid deal and most of labor gave a muted response. No organizing in the streets to save thousands of jobs. Nope because Obama says it will be ok trust me. And this is shockingly is enough for faaar to many Democrats these days and its killing us.

..“The left has disemboweled itself,” Nader said. “It doesn’t even have a strategy every four years like a good poker player. The best example is Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO. Obama has given them nothing. Therefore, they are demanding nothing. They huff and puff. They make tough speeches. But Trumka hasn’t even made Obama’s campaign pledge of a $9.50 minimum wage by this year an issue. If you want to increase consumer demand, what better way to do it than to unleash $300 billion in wages? The card check for unionization, which Obama pledged as his No. 1 sop to the labor unions, is dead. The unions do not even demand a hearing. And now wait till you see what they will do to the public employee unions. Part of it is their own fault. They are going to be crushed. Everybody is ganging up on them. You have new class warfare. It is non-unionized lower income and middle class taking it out on the unionized middle-income public employees. It is a classic example of oligarchic manipulation. It will start playing out big time …”

The banishment from the corporate media, Nader argues, has been one of the major contributors to the demoralization and weakening of the left. Protests by the left, which get little national or local coverage, have steadily dwindled in strength across the country. The first protest gets little or no coverage and this leads to movements, as well as the voices of activists, being diminished and finally suffocated. …

Labor could today be doing what it supposed to do! Out in the streets leading the way for worker rights, for good jobs etc.. Instead their leaders play veal pen too often with the White House. I mean watching labor leaders ok a tax impacting union members with the hcr bill was criminal. Labor must become more independent I think and fight either party when needed and aggressively.

..“Every major movement starts with field organizers, the farmers, unions, and the civil rights movement,” Nader said. “But there is nothing out there. We need to start learning from what was done in the past. All over the country people are pissed off. They hate Wall Street. They know they are being gouged. They know they are slipping behind. They know their kids will not be as well off as they were, and they were not that well off. But no one is putting it together. Who could put a thousand organizers in the field, besides George Soros? The labor unions. They have the money. They have a lot of cash. These idiots are going down. The UAW is a paradigm of a suicidal, supplicant labor union. It is disgusting. They are a puppy dog of GM, Ford and Chrysler. They have huge reserves. The labor unions could organize the country, but they are into their own emoluments and high salaries. The union leadership has so distanced itself from the rank and file that it is ashamed to do anything controversial.

And here is what I keep telling myself every day as a frustrated agonized progressive: how much more will we the people be able to swallow and choke before folks snap? What will it take to get people to stand in the streets for their Social Security, Medicare, their teachers and own children facing a greatly diminished nation?

“The black swan question is whether something will erupt that is rare, extreme and unpredictable,” Nader said. “It is amazing that it hasn’t happened in any pockets of the country. How much more can the oppressed take before they revolt? And can they revolt without organizers? These are the two important questions. You have got to have organizers, and as of now we don’t.”

Another quick news story in progressive Dom is Rep. Grayson’s NYT interview. He is very right on the Democratic Party and Obama’s lacking credibility on most issues.
From NYT:

During the long conversation, Mr. Grayson, a 52-year-old father of five, faulted Democrats for failing to deliver for some of their most potent constituencies, among them labor unions and antiwar voters.

“What did the environmentalists see over the last two years?” he asked. “A proposed monumental increase in subsidies for nuclear power industry and offshore drilling.”

As for gay voters, he said: “What they got to see was a judge order that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ no longer be enforced and a Democratic president appeal that decision. That is what that constituency saw before Nov. 2.” (The law was repealed in the final hours of the 111th Congress.)

By Election Day, Democratic voters in many districts felt that they had no real choice, Mr. Grayson said.

“If you want people to support you, then you have to support them,” he said. “You have to think long about what you did for people who voted for you, made phone calls for you, who went door to door for you.” …

And Grayson does not rule out running for Congress in 2012.

He is annoyed with Democratic senators for waiting until now to challenge the procedural rules that, he said, allowed a determined group of Republicans to use filibusters to stymie much of the president’s agenda.

And he bemoaned what he said was President Obama’s reversal on a campaign pledge to let the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

“I try to keep my promises,” he said, adding that Mr. Obama’s evolving views on the matter “will not help his credibility.”

The remarks carry special weight because Mr. Grayson has become a darling of many on the left.

….To fight the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he produced cardboard posters detailing how the richest 1 percent of Americans could spend their tax savings. “Buy 20,000 jars of their favorite mustard, Grey Poupon,” was one suggestion.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

Can the Warmongering Torture Crowd be ‘Christians’?

A White House review of President Obama’s year-old Afghan war strategy concluded that it is “showing progress” against al-Qaeda and in Afghanistan and Pakistan but that “the challenge remains to make our gains durable and sustainable,” according to a summary document released early Thursday. – Washington Post

In the week that the latest Afghanistan war propaganda drops, we had Sen. Jon Kyl taking to a microphone to question Sen. Harry Reid’s respect for Christmas. While 60% of the public say it’s not been worth fighting.

If there was ever any doubt, Sen. Jon Kyl has now proved conclusively he’s a sanctimonious gas bag. If he’s going to be outraged about anything perhaps it should be how the Obama administration is allowing Bradley Manning to be treated. From Glenn Greenwald:

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day — for seven straight months and counting — he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he’s barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he’s being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed (he is not and never has been on suicide watch). For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Lt. Villiard protested that the conditions are not “like jail movies where someone gets thrown into the hole,” but confirmed that he is in solitary confinement, entirely alone in his cell except for the one hour per day he is taken out.

But this doesn’t matter to Kyl, because Republicans dig extreme punishment. Now so do Democrats, who have also remained silent.

Mr. Kyl’s offensive statement this week wreaks of hypocrisy.

“It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing — frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff.”

Who is a better Christian?, Kyl challenges. Considering the policies practiced by the U.S. Senate of both parties, I’d say the Congress falls woefully short. Millionaires and billionaires are getting tax breaks, but nobody is particularly bothered about the poverty rate in this country or that the “99ers” have no way out from a further downward spiral. Nobody in the Senate or White House cared enough to make sure DADT didn’t come down to the last day in 2010 either. Nobody in the Congress has the moral high ground on Christianity, never mind that Congress shouldn’t be worried about anyone’s religion, because it’s none of their fricking business.

However, this drivel coming from a war mongering Republican like Jon Kyl, who would rather risk nuclear disaster than take on the importance of a new Start Treaty, or look at the realities in Afghanistan, from Karzai’s ineptitude and corruption to the signals Gen. McChrystal’s implosion reveals, is really the height of hypocrisy.

As our troops sit on the front lines of Iraq, a war that’s clearly finished, but also Afghanistan, which has been proven in 2010 is no longer simply about al Qaeda, but has turned into a nation building exercise that Gen. McChrystal proved isn’t amounting to much, Sen. Jon Kyl bitching about working at Christmas is nothing short of offensive.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Wikileaks Diplo Docu Dump



Italy’s Foreign Minister Frattini called the Wikileaks release the “Sept. 11 of world diplomacy.”

Republicans are jumping on the leak, as expected, because transparency scares the bejeezus out of the Right. Rep. Pete Hoekstra using hyperbole to say what allies might ask, “‘Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?’”

Americans have grown accustomed to being kept in a state of permanent stupid on foreign policy. That’s how Iraq happened, but it’s also how dangerous moves in the Middle East towards Iran can be sanctioned through a simple sound bite.

Few news organizations bother to cover the Mideast, which is one reason I hailed Al Jazeera English when it came available in the Beltway area some time ago. Years of covering Israel without any way objectivity, along with Iran, has left Americans with a stilted view of American foreign policy. What’s worse is that the collective American ignorance about other countries and our involvement in their inner workings has given neoconservatives and traditional hawks the playing field, because our foreign policy is always presented as militaristic movements being strong, diplomacy is weak. When you have people like Rep. Eric Cantor making religious based Middle East foreign policy pronouncements, as well as people like Sen. Jon Kyl inventing the Cold War 2.0, circa 21st century, it shows just how vulnerable our foreign policy is to tilts in presidential domestic power, especially when Democrats don’t fight on their own ground.

Unclassified and not marked secret, 251,287 cables were provided to The Times by “an intermediary on the condition of anonymity.” Below are some stand out elements of what was released, with a fascinating look into Saudi King Abdullah’s advice to Pres. Obama equally interesting. However, the first standout element of the documents take us to Israeli and Saudi worries about Iran, but also fuller information about the Iranians long-range missile capacity.

There was little surprising in Mr. Barak’s implicit threat that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. As a pressure tactic, Israeli officials have been setting such deadlines, and extending them, for years. But six months later it was an Arab leader, the king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, telling the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

His plea was shared by many of America’s Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.

The cables also contain a fresh American intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile program. They reveal for the first time that the United States believes that Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow and help it develop more formidable long-range ballistic missiles.

The Right is making a lot of ruckus about the Saudi comments while pointing fingers at Arabists utilizing the See Even Saudi Arabia Wants To Strike Iran. The Right’s anti Arabist sentiment is what scuttled Chas Freeman’s possible appointment. However, the Shia v. Sunni dynamic has been an amped up challenge ever since Pres. Bush let the neoconservatives run things, which began with the disastrous preemptive attack on Iran that altered the balance of power in the region. With shifts in Lebanon, the Shia state rising has as its most important godfathers George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, intended or not, something that has been forgotten. But the dynamics being used right now to make the case for Iran action aren’t a sudden revelation with these leaks, though that’s what’s being talked about on the Right.

From The Times:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Thinking about an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

¶ An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoyed supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he was undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignored his edicts.

¶ Arms deliveries to militants: Cables describe the United States’ failing struggle to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has amassed a huge stockpile since its 2006 war with Israel. One week after President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department official that he would not send “new” arms to Hezbollah, the United States complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group.

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

Pres. Obama is up against it politically right now, no doubt about it. His reelection map, with his support in the industrial Midwest wiped out, leaves him vulnerable in ’12, though no one should count him out. When Americans hear the Right saber rattling once again it will correctly make them revisit memories of Bush-Cheney and their disastrous foreign policy. But starting in the New Year the difficulty of Obama’s battle is immense compared to anything he’s ever faced before.

When you read about the leaked documents then think about a Republican in office, the possibilities on what could happen with a reflexive neoconservative in the White House should be a sobering thing to contemplate. If that person is a neophyte on foreign policy, which includes everyone running except Newt Gingrich, the dangers for this country jump exponentially. Just listen to the comments you’re hearing on Fox News, which is foreshadowing of more to come as the 2012 campaign on the Right revs up.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Bush’s Legacy of Torture Meets Obama’s Executive Power

After former Pres. Bush admitted he sanctioned torture, we now see the results of his policy on detainees. It’s kind of staring Pres. Obama in the face, as is the reality of what happen when terrorists are acquitted in civilian trial, but his policy demands they not be released.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted of all but one of 280 charges brought against him for the 1998 bombings of United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists. …

Because of the unusual circumstances of Mr. Ghailani’s case — after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was held for nearly five years in a so-called black site run by the Central Intelligence Agency and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the prosecution faced significant legal hurdles even getting his case to trial.

On the eve of Mr. Ghailani’s trial last month, the government lost a key ruling that may have seriously damaged its chances of winning convictions.

In the ruling, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, barred prosecutors from using an important witness against Mr. Ghailani because the government had learned about the man through Mr. Ghailani’s interrogation while he was in C.I.A. custody, where his lawyers say he was tortured.

As Glenn Greenwald rightly points out, with only one charge being sustained, because of Pres. Obama’s “post-acquittal detention power,” Ghailani can still be held for the rest of his life in prison.

A.G. Holder’s pronouncement that “failure is not an option” wafts over the trial, especially thinking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and whether to try him in civilian court. The notion of “justice” for anyone forever modified when you consider that no matter the verdict the U.S. Justice System will never let him go.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Remembering the Real George W. Bush on Veterans Day

It’s the advantage of a lesser mind that allows a man like George W. Bush to rewrite history and the legacy of his presidency through a glitzy, brilliantly designed book cover and ad campaign, which fog over the reality we left behind two years ago.

Unfortunately, because an irresponsible Republican leader has reentered the stage when his successor has plummeted from his pedestal makes people willing to invest in their gullibility to whitewash the economic and foreign policy recklessness that got us where we are today.

That it took Pres. Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats to ignore investigating Mr. Bush’s potential crimes as president, including torture that he has now admitted he ordered, should not go without mentioning.

Our Soldiers are still paying for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s decisions, with Iraq droning on for another year at least, the leader of VoteVets, Jon Soltz, about to redeploy to Iraq, while tens of thousands of our Soldiers in Afghanistan fight and die daily to legitimize Pres. Karzai.

With all the talk about debt and austerity, even Pentagon cuts, still no one is daring to touch the $2 billion a week we spend in Afghanistan, or that our job in Iraq is done, but yet 50,000 troops remain.

On this stage George W. Bush parades making the case that he was Decision Guy and doesn’t regret that he took this country to war on a lie, but ensnared our nation in disgrace through torture Bush himself now admits he sanctioned. Ironic that he’s passing the buck to “the lawyers” who told him it was legal.

Our leaders don’t take responsibility for anything anymore. Whether it’s Pres. Bush or his successor they talk about responsibility, but never do anything more than defend themselves, as if leading the United States is about the ego of the Executive Branch occupant.

For leaders and those who sacrifice we have to look to the best of our Soldiers.

Former Pres. Bush even did his best to ruin our fighting force, because by breaking faith with our soldiers by advancing a war that should have never been fought, disgracing this country through Abu Ghraib, it’s difficult to inspire people to enlist, our standards having to be lowered because of Mr. Bush, a man who sullied his own service through unanswered questions.

But to relive the full extent of Pres. Bush’s earned mantle of the worst president in U.S. history you have to relive the story of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, two patriots who Bush and Cheney, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, decided were expendable. Two true American patriots I have met and interviewed for whom respect is too small a word. For telling the truth Joe Wilson was hounded, his CIA wife cover blown and exposed, their lives upended and their family put in danger, all because Mr. Wilson dared to expose the facts.

On this Veterans Day, as Mr. Bush parades himself on TV, acting as if being the Decider in Chief when compared to the decisions he made is anything for which he should boast, we owe it to our Soldiers to remember the truth.

The leaders our Soldiers in the field have today don’t come close to measuring up to what’s deserved. There is no Harry S Truman, no John F. Kennedy.

Bush’s successor, Pres. Obama, has also broken faith with Soldiers, those gays and lesbians who serve, by refusing to move forward and honor all those who serve, with 70% saying repealing DADT is an idea whose time has come. This Veterans Day we find yet another president doing less for our Soldiers than they’ve earned.

How many more Soldiers will die for a lie in Iraq before we finally leave?

What is the mission in Afghanistan we are asking our Soldiers to accomplish?

There are no leaders to tell us.

Dedicated to my Uncle Dick who fought in WWII, my Marine brother Larry, who if John F. Kennedy had been George W. Bush would have ended up in Cuba, and to Jon Soltz, who is deploying to Iraq, as well as all the other women and men, straight and gay, Soldiers, who put their lives on the line every day. Hu-rah.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Nobody Should Give Money to This Crowd

Pres. Obama’s “the choice” election midterm mantra isn’t working out very well in one key area. Big Democratic donors have a choice and they’ve decided to sit out the midterms. Who’s shocked by this story?

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi compromised on health care without a fight. They did deals in the dark with the insurance companies, not to mention the Catholic Church, then shoved a mandate on health care down the rest of the Democratic Party’s throat, as well as the American public, while movement progressives screamed to high heaven what it would cost them.

See the Tea Party rise in 2010, which was a direct result of the inept leadership and lack of ideological fortitude of the Democratic elite. They passed stimulus with a big “D” on it that wasn’t what was needed, managing to get people furious about the spending, especially since it wasn’t enough to actually work. In other words, they failed to do their job, because they didn’t have the courage craft real stimulus that was actually needed and could have proved Democratic policies can work when they’re done the right way. Now, in one of the latest polls, people actually think Republicans will manage government better! That’s quite an “accomplishment” for Obama and the Democrats.

Pres. Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi decided that taking on the Bush era crimes of torture, intelligence tampering, as well as constitutional overreach, was not important for Democrats to take up, so not only did they let Bush-Cheney get away with what they did on the run up to the Iraq war, but the negligence of Democratic leadership, starting with Pres. Obama, has actually allowed for the rehabilitation of Bush-Cheney in some quarters. You didn’t have to impeach Bush to hold his administration accountable.

The latest insult, ducking middle class tax cuts, is just the latest cave-in by this crew, but it’s part of a powerfully long that has pushed big money Dem donors to pass on giving money this midterms. From the New York Times:

Many wealthy Democratic patrons, who in the past have played major roles financing outside groups to help elect the party’s candidates, are largely sitting out these crucial midterm elections.

Democratic donors like George Soros, the bête noire of the right, and his fellow billionaire Peter B. Lewis, who each gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in the 2004 election, appear to be holding back so far.

“Mr. Soros believes that he can be most effective by funding groups that promote progressive policy outcomes in areas such as health care, the environment and foreign policy,” said an adviser, Michael Vachon. “So he has opted to fund those activities.”

That last one is very important. Years ago I was on a closed conference call with Mr. Soros, getting a feel for what moves this man. It’s clear that he’s not interested in personality politics, which is what Barack Obama offers above all else. Not only is Mr. Obama not an ideologue, but his lack of conviction on the principles of good policy makes him a blank slate for donors like Soros whose passions ride along the line of issues. They simply don’t know which way Mr. Obama will blow at any given time.

The Catfood Commission is a prime example. The only reason this was set up is because Pres. Obama wanted it. We don’t need no stinking commission, because Congress is perfectly capable of taking care of Social Security, which means preserving it. However, like in all things, Pres. Obama wanted the cover of a commission so he could blame someone else on what he actually hopes to do: raise the retirement age; cut benefits; privatize elements of the plan. Pick one, or choose all. Why a Democrat would put in play a bipartisan commission on a signature Democratic Party issue that cemented the reputation of the party as working for financial security for all, specifically as Americans age, is something that few Democrats can stomach, myself included.

TM.com reader “Lynnette,” a teacher adamantly opposed to what Pres. Obama is doing on education, wrote the other day that what Pres. Obama is hinting at doing on Social Security (along with his education reform) “may be the final straw that keeps this life long Democrat from voting in the 2012 presidential election. That would be a first for me.” Lynnette has a lot of company.

There is a cluelessness among Democratic leadership in Congress that has forgotten their job and has them siding with the Executive Branch, because Pres. Obama is one of their own, even if he is calling open season on one of the signature Democratic policies that long time Democratic voters believe in, have worked for all of their activist lives, but is also one of the policies that signifies the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Pres. Obama has already sacrificed health care to insurance companies, putting forth a law that is disliked by the majority of the public, but also will be easy to dismantle by defunding its implementation. He’s mimicked George W. Bush on security issue after issue, while completely forgetting his promise to close Gitmo, with his promises on DADT weighing most gays and lesbians down in disbelief.

Now as the midterm elections rev up, we’re all being treated to ad nauseam word salads on cable yet again, which considering his almost two-year record in office is now ringing flat, the “fired up” rhetoric sounding worn out, because everyone is already already exhausted from his presidency and he’s not even into year three, and we know when the election is over it will be more compromises without a fight, as usual.

So why would anyone in their right mind give buckets of money to the Democrats right now? They shouldn’t and they aren’t, and small donations won’t cut it this time around, especially since they won’t be coming in like they used to. The days of 2008 are gone, baby.

Read full story · Comments { 29 }

At Least Obama Won’t Declare ‘Mission Accomplished’

–bumped–

As U.S. combat operations officially end this week and Washington’s reconstruction effort winds up, Iraqis complain that America is leaving little behind to show for an investment that President Bush promised in 2003 would parallel the post- World War II Marshall Plan in its scope and accomplishments. “I am very sorry because America spent a lot of money without any tangible results,” said Ali Baban, Iraq’s minister of planning, who is responsible for overseeing the projects now being handed over to the Iraqi government. “The Iraqi people heard a lot about American assistance, but really they didn’t touch it or feel it.” – A U.S. ‘legacy of waste’ in Iraq

If the “ending of combat operations in Iraq” tells us one thing it’s that a commander in chief can set an arbitrary date for withdrawal of military forces in a country, regardless of the situation on the ground, and pull the troops out for the good of the United States. Because no one should be under the illusion that Iraq has resolved, because it doesn’t have a cohesive government, with the wider landscape and the Iraqi populace in peril of violence, which will not abate anytime soon.

Vice President Joe Biden is in Iraq to commemorate the moment. It’s being reported that Pres. Obama may call former Pres. George W. Bush before his speech tonight. Republicans are calling for Obama to credit Mr. Bush for the surge in Iraq. But there is a whiff of accomplishment in Obama’s scheduling a primetime address. Oh, how quickly the Presidents Club indoctrinated the anti Iraq war candidate into banging his own drum on a war he claimed to have been heartily against.

The U.S. military was asked to do an impossible task in a country we never should have invaded, with all of those serving and sacrificing, including their families, deserving of our grateful appreciation for being forced to serve Pres. George W. Bush’s neocon fantasy, someone who deserves to go down in history as the most inept and ill equipped commander in chiefs in modern times. Unfortunately, since Pres. Obama doesn’t have the fortitude of candidate Obama’s rhetoric, something that was proved long ago, stay in Iraq we will.

For his presidential malpractice Mr. Bush’s entire administration should have been dragged on to the national carpet by the Democratic Congress and Pres. Obama, which could have been done even without invoking impeachment, then held accountable through investigations, at the very least, for the war crimes, torture, lies told to Congress and the American people, not to mention the meddling of intelligence data, with the lesson drilled home about what happens when American hubris meets foreign interventionism with an unlimited credit line.

That the U.S. military, as well as civilian diplomats and aide workers, had to prop up Pres. Bush and V.P. Dick Cheney’s neoconservative nightmare is something too many people have already forgotten. After all, with PPP’s poll showing Bush’s Katrina response held more favorably than Obama’s BP blowout response, it proves yet again that if politicians and political parties don’t drill facts home to people propaganda will always win the day. Both review outcomes, to name just two, were allowed to manifest because Bush’s successor doesn’t have a clue about modern political warfare and the importance of laying blame where it belongs. The war in Iraq should have been put on trial, otherwise history might not record it as the gigantic disaster it was, all of which began in the Oval Office of Pres. George W. Bush, but which his successor will continue to fund, capitulating to the Bush-Cheney footprint plan to leave American hands inside a country where we do not belong.

The LA Times piece from Sunday lists how American taxpayer dollars have been flushed, all because George W. Bush had the attention span of a gnat, but also didn’t appoint anyone who actually knew what they were doing, leaving Iraq an unfinished mess at the end of his presidency. Also see Afghanistan (where 22 soldiers have died in the last 4 days), a country Obama is investing his presidency in even as the American economy continues to crater, making it even more ludicrous that he is choosing to leave the largest U.S. embassy on earth operating, something no one is mentioning, while keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq, a country that will continue to explode.

So you’ll pardon me if I demure from the inevitable hoopla that will accompany the combat operations have ceased in Iraq spin that will come from Bush’s successor tonight. For a man who won the Democratic nomination on being against the Iraq war it doesn’t fill me with relief that we’ve either accomplished Bush-Cheney’s grandiose neocon mission or that Pres. Obama understands or really believes what getting out of Iraq means and how badly we now need to cut our losses now.

“We had military successes, but the Iraqis will decide whether it is a long-term success or not,” said Maj. Joseph Da SilvaIraq conflict leaves officers weary and humbled

“Six summers and $4.9 billion in U.S. taxpayer money later” our investment not only hasn’t been worth it, but considering the lives lost, those maimed and wounded as well, not to mention the growing power Iran has in Iraq, keeping the large footprint Bush began in Iraq, and Pres. Obama will continue, is proof that both national parties have forfeited their leadership role in American foreign policy.

Sorry to rain on everyone’s “I’ve Kept My Promise Parade,” but if Barack Obama was really anti Iraq war he’d pull all of our troops out, close down the embassy, and just scratch this one off as Bush’s debacle. However, candidate Obama was never committed to pulling out of Iraq completely. He still isn’t. Hillary Clinton never was.

The fairy tale that Obama would be lives on.

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

$41 Million Conservative Ad Buy

It’s the most expensive “on record” so far:

A conservative advocacy group Monday will kick off a huge ad campaign in 11 states and two dozen of the most competitive congressional races, slamming “wasteful federal spending.”

The $4.1-million ad buy from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation does not mention individual candidates in the November election. The script attacks Washington policies, describing the economic stimulus program as a failure and declaring that “wasteful spending must stop.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had a predictable response: “We say, ‘Viewer beware.’ These are sponsored by people who support the Bush economic agenda…. They are running these ads on behalf of GOP candidates who want to return to the Bush agenda and support efforts to export American jobs.”

This is the biggest problem with Democrats right now. Invoking Bush won’t get it done. The video here from Jon Steward is from June, but it says it all. Under Pres. Obama, the Democrats have not only let the Bush-Cheney administration off the hook for their malfeasance, but have also adopted some of the most nefarious aspects of their legacy where national security is concerned. Habeas corpus at Bagram, rendition, Gitmo, and targeted assassinations. Of course, Republicans approve of all these things, too.

That’s just one reason why many Democrats are demoralized. Whatever change candidate Obama promised to bring, in some of the darkest Bush policies he has not.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Establishment Boys Will Be Boys

“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” –Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette

Our establishment media helped get us in this mess. (I won’t get into what the media establishment did to Hillary Clinton for 18 years, which impacted her presidential run because today’s wider media establishment, including new media, aided by cable talking heads, even our brightest, joined in on the pile on.) But like countries around the world where women are not a major force so their country stumbles, our media is woefully unequal, which perpetuates the abysmal situation that now exists.

“Every blogger or writer who has ever offered an opinion is now on warning,” Sullivan wrote. “Your opponents will not just argue against you, they will do all they can to ransack your private life, cull your email in-tray, and use whatever material they have to unleash the moronic hounds of today’s right-wing base.” – Andrew Sullivan

Having Andrew Sullivan whine about privacy is sort of like hearing Republicans whine that Democrats are blaming Bush when they haven’t stopped blaming Bill Clinton.

Anyone been reading Sullivan on Sarah Palin since she hit the big leagues? Fake pregnancy fantasy ring a bell?

Between Sullivan vs. Breitbart, and David Weigel vs. everybody else, with a side of Ezra Klein’s listserv drama, I’m wondering if these self-important, puffed up males have any time to actually do any work.

At least Markos Moulitsas’ drama over his polling firm is actually a real issue.

You can bet Jeffrey Goldberg, and Joe Klein taking time out from his vacation to swat his favorite nemesis, Glenn Greenwald, isn’t the stuff of intellectual stimulation. It began out of Weigel’s resignation when Goldberg suggested “toilet-training” in a post that was embarrassing, but considering The Atlantic’s top writers it’s expected from that crew (saving Marc Ambinder, James Fallows). Later Goldberg said he “despise[s] violent keyboard-cowboyism,” trying to extricate himself out of his pissy potty post.

If you’re waiting to see where the girls fit in among this upper echelon establishment fight, we’re still outside looking in, even as traditional media outlets bring in more bloggers to raise their sagging status. So…

Jeffrey Goldberg, Joe Klein, Jonathan Chait and others went after Greenwald by manufacturing a lie about what he wrote, because the former got pissed they were called out for their Iraq war cheerleading, but also their Judith Miller-esque “reporting.” Greenwald got in trouble because he dared to have an intellectual exercise about our preemptive misadventure on Iraq with the pro-preemption crowd, citing the Kurds, while bringing in the historical fact that the Sudetan population welcomed the German invasion. This inspired Goldberg to invite Greenwald to sit down with the Prime Minister of Iraqi Kuridstan to explain to the Kurds in a sort of town hall why the Iraq invasion wasn’t good for them. Glenn gets at the larger point, which the establishment preemption boys cannot afford to consider:

Pointing to some happy Kurds who remained largely shielded from all of that destruction, and who even benefited from it, doesn’t erase the serial deceit of Jeffrey Goldberg’s pre-war “reporting,” and it certainly doesn’t justify the untold human suffering that was and continues to be unleashed.

Too bad we can’t get Patrick J. Buchanan to disabuse the three blind mice of mendacity, because it would be worth the words to watch Buchanan take Greenwald’s attackers down, with Buchanan on his side likely to make Glenn cringe. Reading Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War,” you can find any number of quotes to make Goldberg, Klein. etal look ridiculous; also remembering that even with Buchanan’s many philosophical faults he was able to see the bankruptcy of the Iraq war. Preemption made for odd foreign policy bedfellows.

But for bringing up Germany’s invasion of the “Sudetanland,” Glenn got a reaction from Goldberg that basically said “he’s an unpatriotic Kurd-hater who is comparing the U.S. to The Nazis!!!!!,” to quote Greenwald’s mocking of Goldberg, because Goldberg’s writing isn’t worth it. It all turns around the word “invasion” but also the incredible statement by this guy that “[t]here was no Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland, no invasion of Slovakia, hardly one of Austria and even less of Bohemia.” um… I guess this alleged historian thinks it’s a cute argument because we’re talking about Czechoslovakia and the Sudetan Germans, but that he won’t admit “invasion” doesn’t turn on any resistance thereof is one for the debate books. Nuremberg Military Tribunals, cited in this brilliant post, prove Glenn is correct, which anyone interested in history, while not thinking their own analytic ass saving for supporting preemption more important, would know.

The reason I go through this rundown for you is that it all gets down to why our government isn’t working. Think Thomas Jefferson’s views on the importance of a free, unfettered and independent press. Glenn links to a new study from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on torture and the media.

The current debate over waterboarding has spawned hundreds of newspaper articles in the last two years alone. However, waterboarding has been the subject of press attention for over a century. Examining the four newspapers with the highest daily circulation in the country, we found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding. From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture. In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator. In The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23) when another country was the violator, but in only 11.4% of articles (9 of 79) when the United States was the perpetrator. 2

You can also throw in Fox News channel in this how we got into this mess media misinformation. The torture crowd over at Glenn Beck central is the widest watched network on cable.

Think high school boys on Bush’s squad fighting over the last preemption pom pom.

It also tells you why when I turn to ask the real question about nation building after McChrystal’s revealing implosion no one, certainly not Pres. Obama or anyone blindly supporting the Administration, wants to take it up.

TM NOTE: I found the “kitty boxing” picture on Facebook, but I honestly don’t remember where.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Emasculating Democrats

If Bill Clinton was our first black president, as Toni Morrison once proclaimed, then Barack Obama may be our first woman president. [...] No, I’m not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed. – Obama: Our first female president

Save us from Pulitizer Prize winning females who don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to the politics of sex. Both Kathleen Parker and Maureen Dowd evidently missing Pres. Obama’s tough sacking of McChrystal, but also his appointment of Petraeus, which signals cagey triangulation where Afghanistan is concerned.

Bill Clinton was too randy. Now we’ve got both Kathleen Parker and Maureen Dowd making Barack Obama into — wait for it — a woman.

It’s the same old, same old from the usual suspects. Democrats are either too soft are too hard, as was their judgment of Hillary. But we all know what would happen if Pres. Obama showed his inner disgust at the stuff Republicans are pulling lately, everyone would be rising up against the “angry black man” in the White House. Showing his inner intellect now makes him either a “humanoid” or our “first female president.”

Parker hides her confusion by citing “evolutionary achievement.” Then she makes a preposterous remark about women’s alleged conformity: Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). Ah yes, Sarah Palin. …and on the Democratic side? But that’s nothing compared to her chatty Cathy comparison:

Obama is a chatterbox who makes Alan Alda look like Genghis Khan.

Then Ms. Parker goes on to confuse bad political judgment and poor management of BP to “rhetorical style.” Wrong, it was just bad leadership.

One of the things that allows Parker and Dowd to get away with this drivel is that Democrats aren’t showing any strength by using their majority like Republicans would. That’s actually the foundation of all of this. It’s interesting, however, that neither Parker or Dowd makes mention of Obama’s national security hawk decisions that mimic George W. Bush. Maybe these ladies don’t follow things like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Bagram, Gitmo, international assassination programs, etc.

Dowd also weighed in:

“He doesn’t connect when he could and he waits…His mother was an anthropologist and he has that anthropologist side of just waiting and looking, which isn’t really a male or female trait, it’s a problem,” Dowd told me on “GMA.” [...] “He‘s had to develop a lot of shields. He’s come up, you know basically as Michelle says he was raised by wolves,” Dowd said. “So you know he has a lot of shields so he’s thin-skinned.

Ms. Dowd has spent a career bitching about Bill Clinton’s sexuality, not to mention Hillary’s faults as a woman. Now she turns her gaze on Obama and completely ignores that being “thin-skinned” is a trait of ego, but also a result of Barack Obama being handled by the press with kid gloves during the 2008 election season.

Kathleen and Maureen are stuck in a 1950s time warp. We can be thankful, however, that at least Ms. Dowd won’t co-host a cable show, but it gives you an idea of the nonsense we’re going to hear on CNN once Spitzer and Parker’s new show hits the screen.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

The Water-Boarder in Chief Speaks

To the international community and many Americans it’s a war crime.

From the Texan who gave the order to have it done it evidently was simply an answer he got to his prayers. In Grand Rapids he was feeling very comfortable, with the picture saying it all. The smug arrogance remains.

“Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Bush said of the terrorist who master-minded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. He said that event shaped his presidency and convinced him the nation was in a war against terror.

“I’d do it again to save lives.”

After what we lived through with Pres. Clinton, I never wanted to see another impeachment. You’ll never convince me that Congress and the FBI being trained on Clinton’s zipper didn’t cost us, including 9/11.

However, if ever anyone deserved to be investigated for the lies his Administration perpetrated in the name of “national security” it was George W. Bush. From WMD lies, to subverting intelligence and the press, Democrats simply failed in performing the duties necessary to hold the Bush administration accountable. If the situation was reversed, Republicans would have delighted in doing to a Democratic president what should have been done to George W. Bush.

In fact, I’ve thought for a long time that Republicans taking over the House could portend a nightmare for Pres. Obama. Not because of any just reason, but because hunting Democrats is what Republicans do.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

If Kagan’s the Choice, Obama Is on His Own

The Kagan kerfuffle regarding Goldman Sachs isn’t what bothers me about the potential, many consider it likely, appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. There are far graver issues for me, one being her diversity hiring practices, which elevated white men over, well, everyone else, particularly qualified women. I’d no more support a Republican for SCOTUS with Kagan’s record than get behind a known anti women’s rights candidate. There are other issues as well.

However, progressive insiders aren’t really worried about Kagan’s conservative leaning, lack of diversity fetish. Matthew Yglesias on Twitter yesterday:

“Argument will be simple: Clinton & Obama like and trust [Kagan], and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama.”

Pres. Obama has not earned this wide open trust. To be blunt about it, progressives like Yglesias are part of the left’s problems. They bestow Pres. Barack Obama political prowess that he no longer deserves from those on the left.

It’s clear from Pres. Obama’s drive-by criticism of the great justices of the 1960s and ’70s that he’s less than appreciative of the importance the Supreme Court played in that era of liberalism to trust his judgment without a health dose of skepticism.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

Digby wrote yesterday that she’s being told that Kagan is “the only confirmable possibility.

Really? Well that is interesting. The Obama stalwarts pressing the White House line that they’ve already lost the push for a political alternative to the court’s right, for which Pres. Bush campaigned and won, before Obama’s battle for the next nominee has begun.

More of the Obama penchant for cowardice in the face of a potential ideological skirmish worth having, especially when we’re talking about the highest court in the land that is packed to the teeth with political animals who now offer split decisions on everything that comes before them. Kagan’s non-record offering no clues to her ability to bridge the court gap, something that is sorely needed, which is why I prefer Diane Wood or even the long, long shot of Jennifer Granholm.

It’s clear to me that the left needs an issue negotiator, not an executive branch facilitating conciliator.

Glenn Greenwald has a round up of links on Ms. Kagan, which will allow you to read for yourself.

Along with obvious diversity blindness, Ms. Kagan’s place in one particular arena raises the hair on the back of my neck. An article bank in April, of which Greenwald reminded me, raised then answered one question in my mind: Supreme Court Watchers Wonder: How Conservative Is Kagan?

[...] Steve Vladeck, a professor at American University Washington College of Law, has spotted subtle changes in the briefing of some lower court cases that may have been approved, if not devised, by Kagan.

For example, Vladeck said, the new administration has “all but abandoned” a key Bush administration argument that the president has inherent constitutional powers to take broad steps in the war on terrorism. Instead, in the case of Mohammed v. Obama in D.C. district court last year, the Justice Department based its claim of authority more narrowly on the post-9/11 congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force. “Obama has put all his eggs in that AUMF basket,” said Vladeck — a significant shift. Warren of the constitutional rights center agreed that Kagan may be offering different rationales for the administration’s actions, “but it doesn’t make much of a difference.”

Vladeck has also noted that the Obama administration in some cases has been “much more willing” to accept international law and law-of-war standards for detention of aliens. On the other hand, Vladeck said, the Obama Justice Department has vigorously argued against habeas jurisdiction at the Bagram internment facility in Afghanistan, arguing that it is in a “distant and active war zone” and is therefore different from Guantanamo, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of jurisdiction. Deputy Solicitor General Katyal argued against habeas rights at Bagram in the case of al Maqaleh v. Gates before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in January.

I’ve been a lonely feminist supporter of Obama on Afghanistan. I’ve also heard and had many conversations about Bagram in the last year. However, the unknowns on Kagan supporting Pres. Obama’s Bushesque belief in executive power, especially in war zones like Afghanistan, is even more alarming, especially given the hidden disasters inside Bagram that have yet to get the light of day.

On some things I trust Pres. Obama. However, when it comes to other things it’s clear he’s willing to bargain people’s rights away, because of expediency, convenience (see health care), or lack of passion and purpose to defend them.

See Attorney General Eric Holder’s latest “flexible” philosophy on the rights of suspected terrorists for more proof.

“The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective,” Holder told host Jake Tapper. “I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility — whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. … We’re now dealing with international terrorism. … I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda protections]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”

The Bush-Cheney era lives on.

No, thank you.

I’ve learned enough from what’s out there on Ms. Kagan, but also what’s left unknown, to simply be unwilling to help in this fight. If Kagan’s the choice, Pres. Obama is on his own.

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

Operation Target Rahm Continues

The conventional wisdom that current “stenographic” efforts of the Washington Post are directed by Rahm Emanuel inspires my inner contrarian automatically, even as I remain a Rahm agnostic.

So in yet another week we get another Rahm tale in the Washington Post. But getting beyond the knee jerk hatred of everything Rahm, there is no reason to believe Mr. Obama wouldn’t lean towards listening to David Axelrod, who is the one who got him into the White House. People like Axe, Val, Gibby and Dave, all very loyal to what the President’s priorities were as a candidate also believing that staying true to his non-ideological roots is the way back to where Obama’s remarkable story began. Besides, as many have learned, team Obama doesn’t take criticism or suggestions from members outside the original choir, where Rahm began.

However, it is interesting that the quotes below from Graham on Emanuel come on the day after the new political “odd couple” story was written for Politico. Perhaps one reason Jim VandeHei said flatly today on “Morning Joe” that he “would bet a lot of money” that Emanuel wasn’t part of the Post story today; the other reason being VandeHei is a former Washington Post man who’s got plenty of his own sources and likely wouldn’t “bet a lot of money” on tape if he wasn’t pretty sure.

It’s impossible not to acknowledge that the closing Gitmo drama, which likely got Greg Crag axed, is illustrative of the larger Democratic divide.

In December 2008, Obama, Emanuel and Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) met in Obama’s transition headquarters in Chicago to discuss detainee policy. According to Graham, Obama turned to him at one point and said, “I’m going to need your help closing Guantanamo Bay. . . . I want you and Rahm to start talking.” They did, and as the discussions progressed, Emanuel grew wary that closing the U.S. military prison in Cuba was possible without opening a slew of other politically sensitive national security problems. “This stuff is like flypaper,” Graham recalled Emanuel saying. “It will stick to you.”

In an ironic twist, Emanuel’s dissent is likely what stuck.

When you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz quoted directly, versus some anonymous Washington lip flapping tale, it should make anyone interested in Obama succeeding, which regardless of disagreements we should all agree is critically important, take notice.

Listening to Emanuel would serve “all our overall goals,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). “I think that Rahm’s considerable legislative experience translates into advice that the president should heed.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is as smart as they get.

But if you think I’m being obstinate on the whole Rahm is leaking issue, believing instead that there is real frustration with Pres. Obama and his closest campaign team who aren’t listening to anyone, which is the foundation of these Rahm articles. After all, there’s no better target than Rahm Emanuel, everyone’s favorite scapegoat and the easiest person to get fired. Maybe another reason the knives are out.

Ezra Klein does me one better. He’s pro Rahm and believes the problem is really Scott Brown, because if it weren’t for Brown’s victory in Massachusetts Dems would have actually passed health care weeks ago.

If not for Scott Brown’s unexpected victory in Massachusetts, it would have passed weeks ago. We’d be on our way to implementing a bill that would cover 30 million Americans, completely reform the insurance market, make a serious start on cost control, end the days when sick people couldn’t get health insurance, and create a new coverage infrastructure that could absorb the flood of refugees from the dying employer-based system. That deserves some weight in this discussion.

Whether health-care reform passes, what’s undeniably clear is that it could have passed.

This is a truly stunning assertion that comes with absolutely no proof whatsoever, though the use of the word “could” would also take us back to last July when Democrats could have passed health care then, too, if Obama would have led on the issue. Klein believing Obama’s whole problem is health care. While it’s symbolic of overall Democratic incompetence, the issue is larger.

If you put together Wasserman Schultz and Lindsay Graham’s comments you get a very wide telephone cord that has Rahm holding up the middle, with Pres. Obama standing on the outside getting creamed from all sides. Considering the general discontent with Mr. Obama from Democrats at this point it’s not a far stretch to say that Rahm may be the manipulative, backstabbing, Blue Dog loving, “f—ing retarded” attack dog that everyone loves to hate, but the fact remains that Obama is flailing.

If you stand back from the Rahm hysteria, what you see is a White House that doesn’t know how to govern. Just today we get yet another deadline date on health care. This time it’s Easter bunnies and chocolate eggs as opposed to Christmas trees, turkeys at Thanksgiving, August recess, spring to summer turned to Teddy’s death.

Perhaps Mr. Emanuel will end up being the fall guy for Obama’s first year failures, but there’s no evidence that firing him alone will solve the Democrats’ problems.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Tortured America

–updated below–

Newsweek was here first. Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman getting the story at the end of January.

DOJ official David Margolis has overruled the Office of Professional Responsibility, saying John Yoo and Jay Bybee were not guilty of misconduct on the Bush-Cheney era torture memos, they simply “exercised poor judgment”. Ya think?

From the Washington Post:

Bush administration lawyers who wrote memos that paved the way for waterboarding of terrorism suspects and other harsh interrogation tactics “exercised poor judgment” but will not face discipline for their actions, according to long-awaited Justice Department documents released Friday.

The decision rejects recommendations by the department’s ethics investigators. They had twice urged that allegations against John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee be sent to state disciplinary authorities for further action, including the possible revocation of their licenses to practice law. …

And the hits just keep on comin’.

The attorneys who concocted the logic and the legalize to make Cheney’s waterboarding dreams come true are getting off. The decision to overrule on Bybee and Yoo handing the Republicans a win on Bush-Cheney torture memos, in an election year no less, that will send the conservatives at CPAC into paroxysms of orgiastic euphoria.

UPDATE: Via Sam Stein, Sen. Patrick Leahy has announced hearings on the OPR reversal.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Brennan, and ‘Bomb Iran’ is Back

Some news that’s surfacing slowly is Iran’s new bluster on refining higher grade uranium. Russia and Israel seem to be talking the same language, while China still isn’t willing to sign on to harsh sanctions, something SecDef Gates is promising will come sooner rather than later. Even as it will take some time to reconfigure the Natanz facility to handle higher grade enrichment. Let’s call this one developing

Meanwhile, landing in front of hotel rooms across the nation, Brennan’s USA Today op-ed, as excerpted below. Brennan continues the campaign he began over the weekend on “Meet the Press.”

I have no idea why Scott over at Powerline has decided to channel Daniel Pipes in rebutting Brennan. Well, actually I do, it’s just it’s hard to take anyone seriously who believes hitting Iran is good for the U.S. That is what matters, right? Not to the right. Anyway, if you don’t know, he was the inspiration for Sarah Palin’s “declare war on Iran” (see video) advice to Obama on how he could “save” his presidency, with an Iran bombing also supposed to illustrate his “support for Israel.” Pipes going to great lengths in his article to illustrate the effectiveness of Obama hitting Iran.

And, no, these people aren’t kidding.

Now to Brennan:

Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.

The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one’s determination to resist cooperation.

It’s naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.

Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.

Pres. Obama’s approval rating on foreign affairs is high, even according to Gallup, is compared to Bush. Even without any real progress in the Middle East, the world thinks anything is better than Bush-Cheney.

Perceptions of U.S. leadership worldwide improved significantly from 2008 to 2009. The U.S.-Global Leadership Project, a partnership between the Meridian International Center and Gallup, finds that a median of 51% of the world approves of the job performance of the current leadership of the U.S., up from a median of 34% in 2008.

Unfortunately, not everyone is like me and votes on foreign affairs. It’s on the economy that Obama’s getting creamed (h/t Laura Rozen), which is what moves most voters. See Bob Herbert, an Obama loyalist who is not very happy anymore.

Obama_econdown
graph via Gallup

Read full story · Comments { 8 }