Excerpts from Washington Post article....
It hasn't taken long for the recriminations to return -- or for the Obama administration to begin talking about the unwelcome "inheritance" of its predecessor.
Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The "deepening economic crisis" that the president described six days after taking office became "a big mess" in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio.
"By any measure," he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster."
Obama's more frequent and acid reminders that former president George W. Bush left behind a trillion-dollar budget deficit, a 14-month recession and a broken financial system have come at the same time Republicans have ramped up criticism that the current president's policies are compounding the nation's economic problems
"What the administration is involved in now is the politics of attribution," said Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "Each week that goes by with falling job numbers and Republican criticism of the administration's flaws means falling approval ratings. What's the antidote? That the guilty party is George Bush."
"The trick," Jacobs said, "is how do you shift blame to George Bush and retain any credibility on the idea that you are looking past partisan warfare? This looks like a doubling down on a very partisan approach."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
"Enemy Combatants" .... the backstory
No More “Enemy Combatants” at Guantanamo
[Andy McCarthy - the Corner]
As usual Ed hits the nail on the head. I'll have more to say about all this in Tuesday's column — I'm flying to California later today, I'll be out there all week, so I am madly trying to pack and get outa here. But what is going on here is what's been going on since the first day of the Obama administration.
Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"
What Obama, Holder & Co. have done on "enemy combatants" is a somewhat more elaborate version of what they've done on Gitmo, rendition, state-secrets, interrogations, etc. Call it, as the editors of NRO have called it, "Change George Bush Could Believe In."
Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.
We're no longer going to rely on the President's Article II authority to detain these enem — er, whatever we're calling them (how about "undocumented freedom fighters"?) ... but we're not saying there is no such authority either — and meantime, we're relying on Congress's post-9/11 authorization to use military force and on international law principles that, under these circumstances, are so overwhelmingly valid that Article II is just icing on the cake (notwithstanding that it was our basis throughout the campaign for saying that George Bush was destroying the Constitution and the United States).
And we're going to tell everyone that, because we're much more careful vetters than that bad old administration, we're only going to hold onto undocumented freedom fighters who provided substantial assistance to al Qaeda ... even though we realize that this is exactly what that bad old administration meant, and did, when it held people who it said had provided plain old assistance to al Qaeda. (And, by the way, Obama reserves to himself the power to decide what constitutes substantial).
In sum, Bush's policies are validated, and Obama is banking that his base will be content with a few rhetorical crumbs. Of course they won't be — the ACLU, which is crazy but not stupid, is already blasting this move. That being the case, what I continue to be very concerned about is the likelihood that Obama — to meet or at least be close to his ill-considered one-year deadline for closing Gitmo — will start releasing droves of the remaining 240+ undocumented freedom fighters to countries where they will promptly rejoin the jihad. And, yes, I know we're not supposed to say jihad like it's a bad thing either, but I just don't think what these guys will be rejoining is an internal struggle for personal betterment.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNiMjQzODZiNWIwMDk2MjkwZmEyNmU5ZjYxYmYzNWY=
http://aclu.org/safefree/detention/39012prs20090313.html
Justice Department Adheres To Key Elements Of Bush Administration Detention Policy (3/13/2009)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – In a court filing today, the Obama administration argued that detention of prisoners held at Guantánamo is justified even if the individual is captured far from any battlefield and has not directly participated in hostilities. According to the definition offered in the government's brief, individuals who provide "substantial" support to al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be detained.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"It is deeply troubling that the Justice Department continues to use an overly broad interpretation of the laws of war that would permit military detention of individuals who were picked up far from an actual battlefield or who didn't engage in hostilities against the United States. Once again, the Obama administration has taken a half-step in the right direction. The Justice Department's filing leaves the door open to modifying the government's position; it is critical that the administration promptly narrow the category for individuals who can be held in military detention so that the U.S. truly comports with the laws of war and rejects the unlawful detention power of the past eight years."
[Andy McCarthy - the Corner]
As usual Ed hits the nail on the head. I'll have more to say about all this in Tuesday's column — I'm flying to California later today, I'll be out there all week, so I am madly trying to pack and get outa here. But what is going on here is what's been going on since the first day of the Obama administration.
Obama wants to have the advantage of — and take credit for the security provided by — the Bush post-9/11 policies. However, he has a rabid left-wing base that rejects the notion that there is a war and wants terrorism returned to the courts (and by the way, if/when that happens, that base will immediately go back to arguing that the court proceedings are inherently unfair, which is what it did for the eight years before 9/11). Throughout the campaign, Obama stirred this base — which consequently voted in droves for him — by trashing the policies he now wants to leave in place. So now he is in a quandary: "How do I keep these policies while preventing a revolt from these crazy people — er, I mean, my voters?"
What Obama, Holder & Co. have done on "enemy combatants" is a somewhat more elaborate version of what they've done on Gitmo, rendition, state-secrets, interrogations, etc. Call it, as the editors of NRO have called it, "Change George Bush Could Believe In."
Essentially, we're no longer going to call our captives "enemy combatants" ... but we're still going to detain people without trial, and Obama claims the unilateral authority to decide who gets detained.
We're no longer going to rely on the President's Article II authority to detain these enem — er, whatever we're calling them (how about "undocumented freedom fighters"?) ... but we're not saying there is no such authority either — and meantime, we're relying on Congress's post-9/11 authorization to use military force and on international law principles that, under these circumstances, are so overwhelmingly valid that Article II is just icing on the cake (notwithstanding that it was our basis throughout the campaign for saying that George Bush was destroying the Constitution and the United States).
And we're going to tell everyone that, because we're much more careful vetters than that bad old administration, we're only going to hold onto undocumented freedom fighters who provided substantial assistance to al Qaeda ... even though we realize that this is exactly what that bad old administration meant, and did, when it held people who it said had provided plain old assistance to al Qaeda. (And, by the way, Obama reserves to himself the power to decide what constitutes substantial).
In sum, Bush's policies are validated, and Obama is banking that his base will be content with a few rhetorical crumbs. Of course they won't be — the ACLU, which is crazy but not stupid, is already blasting this move. That being the case, what I continue to be very concerned about is the likelihood that Obama — to meet or at least be close to his ill-considered one-year deadline for closing Gitmo — will start releasing droves of the remaining 240+ undocumented freedom fighters to countries where they will promptly rejoin the jihad. And, yes, I know we're not supposed to say jihad like it's a bad thing either, but I just don't think what these guys will be rejoining is an internal struggle for personal betterment.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNiMjQzODZiNWIwMDk2MjkwZmEyNmU5ZjYxYmYzNWY=
http://aclu.org/safefree/detention/39012prs20090313.html
Justice Department Adheres To Key Elements Of Bush Administration Detention Policy (3/13/2009)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – In a court filing today, the Obama administration argued that detention of prisoners held at Guantánamo is justified even if the individual is captured far from any battlefield and has not directly participated in hostilities. According to the definition offered in the government's brief, individuals who provide "substantial" support to al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be detained.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"It is deeply troubling that the Justice Department continues to use an overly broad interpretation of the laws of war that would permit military detention of individuals who were picked up far from an actual battlefield or who didn't engage in hostilities against the United States. Once again, the Obama administration has taken a half-step in the right direction. The Justice Department's filing leaves the door open to modifying the government's position; it is critical that the administration promptly narrow the category for individuals who can be held in military detention so that the U.S. truly comports with the laws of war and rejects the unlawful detention power of the past eight years."
Friday, March 13, 2009
Dialing down the rhetoric ?
From Catastrophe to Not so Bad? [Victor Davis Hanson]
Washington is by nature an hysterical place. (Remember those who chest-thumped the fall of Saddam’s statue only soon to claim they never supported the war?)
Still, it is quite striking that in the space of a mere 50 days, Obama & Co. have gone from “We are in 1932 and things are getting worse—unless” to “Things are not as bad as we think,” with choruses from the likes of Larry Summers on the dangers of talking down the economy and sowing fear. This is one of the most schizophrenic moments in recent memory. What in the heck is going on?
a) Premeditation: Talk of the Great Depression was necessary to enact a massive spending bill with a $1.6 trillion deficit; then, once the European-like spending was in place, it was important to flip, drop the gloom and doom, and talk up the economy for the midterm elections to come.
b) Panic: After trashing the rich, Wall Street, the banks, George Bush, etc., promising massive new tax hikes, and shrilly forecasting the likelihood of impending near-depression, Barack Obama was quietly taken aside by his advisers (in response to the worries of now-troubled liberal financial icons) and told to cut it out—lest he create such a climate of financial uncertainty that we really do get the hard times of the 1930s. So he stopped on a dime and suddenly 1981, not 1932, is the new frame of reference.
c) Chaos: No one is in charge; things are made up and cobbled together as we muddle through each day. When the market dives, and banks totter, like the proverbial headless chicken, the inexperienced administration darts about as if we were doomed. Then, with a mere couple of days of good news from Wall Street, or the announcement that a few banks are okay after all, or that GM doesn’t need more handouts right now, suddenly we get “Things are not so bad.”
Or is at all of the above?
Washington is by nature an hysterical place. (Remember those who chest-thumped the fall of Saddam’s statue only soon to claim they never supported the war?)
Still, it is quite striking that in the space of a mere 50 days, Obama & Co. have gone from “We are in 1932 and things are getting worse—unless” to “Things are not as bad as we think,” with choruses from the likes of Larry Summers on the dangers of talking down the economy and sowing fear. This is one of the most schizophrenic moments in recent memory. What in the heck is going on?
a) Premeditation: Talk of the Great Depression was necessary to enact a massive spending bill with a $1.6 trillion deficit; then, once the European-like spending was in place, it was important to flip, drop the gloom and doom, and talk up the economy for the midterm elections to come.
b) Panic: After trashing the rich, Wall Street, the banks, George Bush, etc., promising massive new tax hikes, and shrilly forecasting the likelihood of impending near-depression, Barack Obama was quietly taken aside by his advisers (in response to the worries of now-troubled liberal financial icons) and told to cut it out—lest he create such a climate of financial uncertainty that we really do get the hard times of the 1930s. So he stopped on a dime and suddenly 1981, not 1932, is the new frame of reference.
c) Chaos: No one is in charge; things are made up and cobbled together as we muddle through each day. When the market dives, and banks totter, like the proverbial headless chicken, the inexperienced administration darts about as if we were doomed. Then, with a mere couple of days of good news from Wall Street, or the announcement that a few banks are okay after all, or that GM doesn’t need more handouts right now, suddenly we get “Things are not so bad.”
Or is at all of the above?
Enemy Combatants, North Korea and Stem Cells....
Just another day in Obamaville ...
Since its Friday night and I am tired, I will just put all 3 of the above topics in one post:
From LGF:
Obama Abandons 'Enemy Combatant'
US News | Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:55:03 pm PDT
The Justice Department says they will no longer describe the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as “enemy combatants.”
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant.
In court filings Friday, the Justice Department said it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
North Korea Announces Detailed Flight Plan
World | Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:41:52 am PDT
For today’s test of Barack Obama, North Korea has released plans for its ballistic missile launch. McKittrick has constructed a map of the flight path.
Connecting the dots between the launch site (orange triangle) and the two danger zones where the two stages will splash (red triangles), we can see where the missle could head —- again, according to the North Koreans themselves:
They indeed plan to overfly Japan, shedding the first booster in the Sea of Japan.
Depending on the range of the missile, the trajectory is making a bee-line for Hawaii.
Charles Krauthammer has been in favor of relaxing Bush administration limits on funding embryonic stem cell research, but he’s disturbed at the way Obama did it: President Obama and Stem Cells — Science Fiction.
President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned — and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived — human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.
On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.
Since its Friday night and I am tired, I will just put all 3 of the above topics in one post:
From LGF:
Obama Abandons 'Enemy Combatant'
US News | Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:55:03 pm PDT
The Justice Department says they will no longer describe the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as “enemy combatants.”
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is abandoning one of President George W. Bush’s key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant.
In court filings Friday, the Justice Department said it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
North Korea Announces Detailed Flight Plan
World | Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:41:52 am PDT
For today’s test of Barack Obama, North Korea has released plans for its ballistic missile launch. McKittrick has constructed a map of the flight path.
Connecting the dots between the launch site (orange triangle) and the two danger zones where the two stages will splash (red triangles), we can see where the missle could head —- again, according to the North Koreans themselves:
They indeed plan to overfly Japan, shedding the first booster in the Sea of Japan.
Depending on the range of the missile, the trajectory is making a bee-line for Hawaii.
Charles Krauthammer has been in favor of relaxing Bush administration limits on funding embryonic stem cell research, but he’s disturbed at the way Obama did it: President Obama and Stem Cells — Science Fiction.
President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned — and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived — human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research — a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.
On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of “science” and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Hopeychange Defined !
1. Hopeychange
noun: 1. A meaningless or undefined word used as a distraction, or to appeal to emotion rather than intellect.
example:
KO: Senator, if elected, how would you propose to solve the energy crisis?
BHO: Well Keith, its simple -- Hopeychange.
KO: Excellent answer, sir, EXCELLENT ANSWER!
noun: 1. A meaningless or undefined word used as a distraction, or to appeal to emotion rather than intellect.
example:
KO: Senator, if elected, how would you propose to solve the energy crisis?
BHO: Well Keith, its simple -- Hopeychange.
KO: Excellent answer, sir, EXCELLENT ANSWER!
More Problematic Obama Nominees / Appointees
This is getting old fast, isn't it ?
Smoothest Transition in History Update [Andy McCarthy]
As a third top Treasury nominee withdraws from consideration (see Mark's item, below) and Vivek Kundra, President Obama's Chief White House Information Officer, takes a leave of absence following the FBI's raid on his former office, the administration announces that attorney Tony West, who volunteered his services to represent John Walker Lindh (the so-called "American Taliban" convicted after making war against his country), is the president's choice to lead the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. The San Francisco Chronicle supplies a helpful profile, including this:
[West] also took part in the defense of Lindh, the Marin County man who was a 20-year-old Taliban soldier in Afghanistan when he was captured in November 2001. Lindh pleaded guilty in 2002 to serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
West, who ran unsuccessfully for a state Assembly seat in San Jose in 2000, has acknowledged that the Lindh case dampened his political prospects, but said it was the kind of work he believed in.
"I really believe that in working on that case, I was recommitting myself to those principles of due process, fairness - things that separate us from most nations in the world," he told The Chronicle in an interview last year.
West's wife, Maya Harris, is a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California who recently took a job with the Ford Foundation.
I gotta tell you, I could post 3 times as many items detailing troubling matters regarding Obama each and every day. Frankly, it's all quite depressing.
Smoothest Transition in History Update [Andy McCarthy]
As a third top Treasury nominee withdraws from consideration (see Mark's item, below) and Vivek Kundra, President Obama's Chief White House Information Officer, takes a leave of absence following the FBI's raid on his former office, the administration announces that attorney Tony West, who volunteered his services to represent John Walker Lindh (the so-called "American Taliban" convicted after making war against his country), is the president's choice to lead the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. The San Francisco Chronicle supplies a helpful profile, including this:
[West] also took part in the defense of Lindh, the Marin County man who was a 20-year-old Taliban soldier in Afghanistan when he was captured in November 2001. Lindh pleaded guilty in 2002 to serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
West, who ran unsuccessfully for a state Assembly seat in San Jose in 2000, has acknowledged that the Lindh case dampened his political prospects, but said it was the kind of work he believed in.
"I really believe that in working on that case, I was recommitting myself to those principles of due process, fairness - things that separate us from most nations in the world," he told The Chronicle in an interview last year.
West's wife, Maya Harris, is a former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California who recently took a job with the Ford Foundation.
I gotta tell you, I could post 3 times as many items detailing troubling matters regarding Obama each and every day. Frankly, it's all quite depressing.
Obama and the Redistribution of Wealth
That is, if we have any wealth left ....
Obama on the Constitution: Redistribute the Wealth [Michael Ledeen]
Obama told us he was going to use Congress to redistribute the wealth — explicitly. And he thinks it's in the Constitution. My friend Steve Schippert tried to call attention to this interview about ten days before the election, but few noticed. Free Republic reposted it today, and rightly so. First, the Harvard Law School grad disses the Consitution, calling it "a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
Never mind all that stuff about the common defense, etc.
Schippert goes on:
For Obama, the redistribution of wealth is a civil right that the civil rights movement failed to attain. To Barack Obama, the redistribution of wealth is basic "political and economic justice," and one segment of society has the basic right to the money of other segments of society. He's very straight forward about this.
And while in the interview he did not think wealth redistribution could be affected through the courts, he was confident that it could be attained "legislatively."
Obama is a man of his word.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php
Obama on the Constitution: Redistribute the Wealth [Michael Ledeen]
Obama told us he was going to use Congress to redistribute the wealth — explicitly. And he thinks it's in the Constitution. My friend Steve Schippert tried to call attention to this interview about ten days before the election, but few noticed. Free Republic reposted it today, and rightly so. First, the Harvard Law School grad disses the Consitution, calling it "a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
Never mind all that stuff about the common defense, etc.
Schippert goes on:
For Obama, the redistribution of wealth is a civil right that the civil rights movement failed to attain. To Barack Obama, the redistribution of wealth is basic "political and economic justice," and one segment of society has the basic right to the money of other segments of society. He's very straight forward about this.
And while in the interview he did not think wealth redistribution could be affected through the courts, he was confident that it could be attained "legislatively."
Obama is a man of his word.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/27/obama-wealth-redistribution-an-unattained-civil-right.php
When will Obama Explain Why He Wanted "Crackpot" Freeman in such an important position ?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33038_Washington_Post_on_Freemans_Crackpot_Tirade
Washington Post on Freeman's 'Crackpot Tirade'
Politics | Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:01:05 am PDT
A Washington Post editorial on Charles Freeman’s paranoid “Israel lobby” rant.
What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges — and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.
UPDATE at 3/12/09 8:19:38 am:
The New York Times, on the other hand, is defending Freeman and lending credence to his antisemitic lunacy: Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post.
Also see:Chas Freeman’s Paranoid Statement
National Intelligence Council Nominee: ‘What 9/11 Showed is That If We Bomb People, They Bomb Back’
Washington Post on Freeman's 'Crackpot Tirade'
Politics | Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:01:05 am PDT
A Washington Post editorial on Charles Freeman’s paranoid “Israel lobby” rant.
What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges — and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.
UPDATE at 3/12/09 8:19:38 am:
The New York Times, on the other hand, is defending Freeman and lending credence to his antisemitic lunacy: Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post.
Also see:Chas Freeman’s Paranoid Statement
National Intelligence Council Nominee: ‘What 9/11 Showed is That If We Bomb People, They Bomb Back’
Charles Freeman ... NOW that he's out, the NY Times is suddenly interested in the story
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
Lame Story by the NY Times (shocka, I know ...).
The Times narrative is that its the "Israel Lobby" whatever that is, that is responsible for the downfall of the horrendous selection of this Saudi funded hack.
Only at the very end of the story does the Times even mention this:
Critics also unearthed e-mail messages attributed to Mr. Freeman that seemed to support the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989, saying it was not “acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be.”
Left out were his comments blaming US policy for 9-11 (remember this guy is funded by the Saudis ... he sounds like OBL).
Yes, his anti-Israel views were reprehensible, especially for someone who would be in charge of things like the National Intelligence estimate. One only has to look into his history of ludicrous statements on a number of issues, including Israel, to see how terrible this guy and his possible appointment was.
This episode does raise other troubling issues, most notably this:
What does this say about the politics and judgement of one Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, who made this idiotic appointment (presumably w/ Obama's knowledge) ??
Goodbye and Good Riddance "Chas" !
Lame Story by the NY Times (shocka, I know ...).
The Times narrative is that its the "Israel Lobby" whatever that is, that is responsible for the downfall of the horrendous selection of this Saudi funded hack.
Only at the very end of the story does the Times even mention this:
Critics also unearthed e-mail messages attributed to Mr. Freeman that seemed to support the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989, saying it was not “acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be.”
Left out were his comments blaming US policy for 9-11 (remember this guy is funded by the Saudis ... he sounds like OBL).
Yes, his anti-Israel views were reprehensible, especially for someone who would be in charge of things like the National Intelligence estimate. One only has to look into his history of ludicrous statements on a number of issues, including Israel, to see how terrible this guy and his possible appointment was.
This episode does raise other troubling issues, most notably this:
What does this say about the politics and judgement of one Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, who made this idiotic appointment (presumably w/ Obama's knowledge) ??
Goodbye and Good Riddance "Chas" !
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Hypocrisy of the Left - an example
This speaks for itself. While he can be entertaining, Democratic Party strategist and TV talking head James Carville is one of the most morally bankrupt people in politics:
From The Corner today:
Jim Carville — whose done some railing against Rush Limbaugh for saying he doesn't want Obama's bad policies to succeed — wanted Bush to fail.
This is a contender, too, for worst bad-luck timing ever: He said it on the morning of 9/11, before the attack.
Bill Sammon writes:
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.
"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party
From The Corner today:
Jim Carville — whose done some railing against Rush Limbaugh for saying he doesn't want Obama's bad policies to succeed — wanted Bush to fail.
This is a contender, too, for worst bad-luck timing ever: He said it on the morning of 9/11, before the attack.
Bill Sammon writes:
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.
"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party
Bill Bennett comments about Obama and Education
1. First, the Senate passed the 410 billion dollar Omnibus Spending Bill last night by a vote of 62 to 35 with eight Republicans joining all but two of the Senate Democrats, Russ Feingold and Evan Bayh. Those eight Republicans were Lamar Alexander, Kit Bond, Thad Cochran, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Roger Wicker.
Sen. Jon Kyl noted this spending bill "adds an additional $410 billion onto a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, and a more than $10 trillion debt overall," but the Washington Post put it even more starkly in their news story: "The bill, which includes thousands of controversial earmarks…[will be] sign[ed by] [the president] despite having misgivings about the earmarks….Congress already has approved a $700 billion financial bailout and a $787 billion economic stimulus package. And Obama has said he is likely to ask for more money." "Many agencies would see big increases, in some cases 10 percent or more above fiscal 2008 levels."
But there is one, even larger reason to not support this legislation and it would be a courageous and bold move by the President to veto it:
2. That is the provision in the Omnibus legislation that strips funding for 1,700 poor and minority students in Washington, DC who receive federal aid to attend private schools. The DC Opportunity Scholarship program died in the Senate last night with the Omnibus vote, despite DC Superintendent Michelle Rhee supporting it and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stating he would like to see the students in that program stay in it. Keep in mind, the Opportunity Scholarship program currently helps two students attend Sidwell Friends School, where Barack and Michelle Obama send their two daughters, so it now looks like Sasha and Malia will have two less school mates in 2010 as a result of the vote yesterday. As Virginia Walden Ford said: "I’d like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his."
Only three Democrats voted to keep the Scholarships funded: Robert Byrd, Mark Warner, and Joe Lieberman. Mike Crapo, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snowe joined the rest of the Democrats in killing the program.
This program is so popular that there’s only one slot for every four that apply, and it costs the federal government less than 15 million dollars (a drop in the bucket compared to the 7.7 billion dollars in earmarks approved last night). Here’s what some of the students who benefit from this program have to say to the President about it. AUDIO.
On this part of the legislation, alone, President Obama should veto the bill. Especially given what he said about education to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce yesterday.
3. Yesterday, President Obama said it is time to end the "relative decline of American education," which he said "is untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy and unacceptable for our children." The Opportunity Scholarship program was a model for that, rescuing students from a school district where "more than 6,500 crimes were committed in the public schools…Estimates put the cost per student at over $14,000, while the cost per student through this program, which provides a much better education, is $7,500…and where half of all teenagers in the schools are in schools with enough crime incidents to be classified as persistently dangerous."
Like almost everything President Obama states with regard to policy, the angel and the devil is in the details; he talks moderate and centrist but then governs to the left. So, while he stated a willingness to take on influential Democratic constituencies, including teachers unions, which have been skeptical of merit-pay proposals, as the Washington Post put it, we need to see what kind of program he ultimately supports. He said he intends to treat teachers "like the professionals they are while also holding them more accountable."
Good teachers will "be asked to accept more responsibility for lifting up their schools." "But, he said, states and school districts must be ‘taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom.’"
"If a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching…I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."
We know the effects of a good teacher and we know the effects of a bad teacher. As Erik Hanushek at Stanford has pointed out: "The students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher."
We’ll see. We’ll see because, as Dan Lips at the Heritage Foundation pointed out, "it is unclear what type of merit pay system President Obama supports. Will he support real performance-pay bonuses for teachers who lift students’ test scores? Or will he provide bonuses for those who put in extra work through training and mentoring — the bureaucracy’s version of merit?"
There’s also a huge question of spending. President Obama concluded yesterday: "So here’s the bottom line: Yes, we need more money; yes, we need more reform; yes, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for every dollar we spend." But I ask President Obama to meet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who, interviewed in the Washington Post last week said, "History has shown that money alone does not drive school improvement, Duncan said, pointing to the District of Columbia, where public school students consistently score near the bottom on national reading and math tests even though the school system spends more per pupil than its suburban counterparts do.
‘D.C. has had more money than God for a long time, but the outcomes are still disastrous,’ Duncan said.
Meanwhile, the "Education Department intends to channel $100 billion to the nation’s 14,000 school districts over the next few months." This "would raise the Education Department’s budget for next year to $127.8 billion from $46.2 billion in 2009." By the way, in my first year as Education Secretary, our budget was under 16 billion dollars. You want to save money in education, school choice is a good way to do it: you spend less for better results.
Some more here.
Sen. Jon Kyl noted this spending bill "adds an additional $410 billion onto a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, and a more than $10 trillion debt overall," but the Washington Post put it even more starkly in their news story: "The bill, which includes thousands of controversial earmarks…[will be] sign[ed by] [the president] despite having misgivings about the earmarks….Congress already has approved a $700 billion financial bailout and a $787 billion economic stimulus package. And Obama has said he is likely to ask for more money." "Many agencies would see big increases, in some cases 10 percent or more above fiscal 2008 levels."
But there is one, even larger reason to not support this legislation and it would be a courageous and bold move by the President to veto it:
2. That is the provision in the Omnibus legislation that strips funding for 1,700 poor and minority students in Washington, DC who receive federal aid to attend private schools. The DC Opportunity Scholarship program died in the Senate last night with the Omnibus vote, despite DC Superintendent Michelle Rhee supporting it and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stating he would like to see the students in that program stay in it. Keep in mind, the Opportunity Scholarship program currently helps two students attend Sidwell Friends School, where Barack and Michelle Obama send their two daughters, so it now looks like Sasha and Malia will have two less school mates in 2010 as a result of the vote yesterday. As Virginia Walden Ford said: "I’d like to see a reporter stand up at one of those nationally televised press conferences and ask President Obama what he thinks about what his own party is doing to keep two innocent kids from attending the same school where he sends his."
Only three Democrats voted to keep the Scholarships funded: Robert Byrd, Mark Warner, and Joe Lieberman. Mike Crapo, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snowe joined the rest of the Democrats in killing the program.
This program is so popular that there’s only one slot for every four that apply, and it costs the federal government less than 15 million dollars (a drop in the bucket compared to the 7.7 billion dollars in earmarks approved last night). Here’s what some of the students who benefit from this program have to say to the President about it. AUDIO.
On this part of the legislation, alone, President Obama should veto the bill. Especially given what he said about education to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce yesterday.
3. Yesterday, President Obama said it is time to end the "relative decline of American education," which he said "is untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy and unacceptable for our children." The Opportunity Scholarship program was a model for that, rescuing students from a school district where "more than 6,500 crimes were committed in the public schools…Estimates put the cost per student at over $14,000, while the cost per student through this program, which provides a much better education, is $7,500…and where half of all teenagers in the schools are in schools with enough crime incidents to be classified as persistently dangerous."
Like almost everything President Obama states with regard to policy, the angel and the devil is in the details; he talks moderate and centrist but then governs to the left. So, while he stated a willingness to take on influential Democratic constituencies, including teachers unions, which have been skeptical of merit-pay proposals, as the Washington Post put it, we need to see what kind of program he ultimately supports. He said he intends to treat teachers "like the professionals they are while also holding them more accountable."
Good teachers will "be asked to accept more responsibility for lifting up their schools." "But, he said, states and school districts must be ‘taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom.’"
"If a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching…I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences."
We know the effects of a good teacher and we know the effects of a bad teacher. As Erik Hanushek at Stanford has pointed out: "The students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year’s worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half’s worth of material. That difference amounts to a year’s worth of learning in a single year. Teacher effects dwarf school effects: your child is actually better off in a “bad” school with an excellent teacher than in an excellent school with a bad teacher."
We’ll see. We’ll see because, as Dan Lips at the Heritage Foundation pointed out, "it is unclear what type of merit pay system President Obama supports. Will he support real performance-pay bonuses for teachers who lift students’ test scores? Or will he provide bonuses for those who put in extra work through training and mentoring — the bureaucracy’s version of merit?"
There’s also a huge question of spending. President Obama concluded yesterday: "So here’s the bottom line: Yes, we need more money; yes, we need more reform; yes, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for every dollar we spend." But I ask President Obama to meet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who, interviewed in the Washington Post last week said, "History has shown that money alone does not drive school improvement, Duncan said, pointing to the District of Columbia, where public school students consistently score near the bottom on national reading and math tests even though the school system spends more per pupil than its suburban counterparts do.
‘D.C. has had more money than God for a long time, but the outcomes are still disastrous,’ Duncan said.
Meanwhile, the "Education Department intends to channel $100 billion to the nation’s 14,000 school districts over the next few months." This "would raise the Education Department’s budget for next year to $127.8 billion from $46.2 billion in 2009." By the way, in my first year as Education Secretary, our budget was under 16 billion dollars. You want to save money in education, school choice is a good way to do it: you spend less for better results.
Some more here.
Another Prominent Obama Supporter Not Liking Hope'n'change so much
Many Obama true believers that I talk to or correspond with do not yet see the distinction between his rhetoric (sounds reasonable sometimes) and his actions (dreadful). We had a brief discussion about this earlier this morning on PSW as Obama was pontificating on TV:
ephmen: I thought the tone of O’s signing speech was reasoned and adult. It’s a departure from most Washington rhetoric, but I think it’s something we’ll enjoy once we get used to it. Even if you don’t agree with him, it’s nice to have someone who is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.
matt: Obama may think he’s Lincoln. But he ain’t no Truman. Sounds like he’s more then happy to pass the buck.
jomama: matt, it does feel like the Truman-Show with Jim Carrey.
me: Obama went on his 1001 excuses speech. Blah Blah Blah.
Ephmen … that’s where folks get sucked in. He talks/preaches like he’s a pragmatist — but he’s not. The reality does not live up to the rhetoric. Not buying what he’s sellin’.
These types of conversations about Obama and his handling of the economy, budget, stimulus and so on, and his overall performance in his first 7 weeks now is happening more and more.
Similar comments / complaints appear today in a Washington Post op-ed from former Intel CEO and Obama supporter Andy Grove:
Democratic Business Sages Against Obama [Ed Whelan]
In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post>—“Mr. President, Time to Rein in the Chaos”— former Intel guru (and Obama supporter) Andrew S. Grove finds himself “wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set [to deal with the ‘economic meltdown’] but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them”:
We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.
Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November. But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first.
Grove’s critique is very similar to Warren Buffett’s. If this is what leading Democratic business sages are now saying publicly, imagine what they and others are saying privately. Will President Obama pay attention and dramatically revise his course (rather than just pay lip service to the criticisms)? Not if he’s the hard-core leftist ideologue that many of us have long perceived through the fog of his sweet-sounding rhetoric.
ephmen: I thought the tone of O’s signing speech was reasoned and adult. It’s a departure from most Washington rhetoric, but I think it’s something we’ll enjoy once we get used to it. Even if you don’t agree with him, it’s nice to have someone who is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue.
matt: Obama may think he’s Lincoln. But he ain’t no Truman. Sounds like he’s more then happy to pass the buck.
jomama: matt, it does feel like the Truman-Show with Jim Carrey.
me: Obama went on his 1001 excuses speech. Blah Blah Blah.
Ephmen … that’s where folks get sucked in. He talks/preaches like he’s a pragmatist — but he’s not. The reality does not live up to the rhetoric. Not buying what he’s sellin’.
These types of conversations about Obama and his handling of the economy, budget, stimulus and so on, and his overall performance in his first 7 weeks now is happening more and more.
Similar comments / complaints appear today in a Washington Post op-ed from former Intel CEO and Obama supporter Andy Grove:
Democratic Business Sages Against Obama [Ed Whelan]
In an op-ed in today’s Washington Post>—“Mr. President, Time to Rein in the Chaos”— former Intel guru (and Obama supporter) Andrew S. Grove finds himself “wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set [to deal with the ‘economic meltdown’] but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them”:
We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.
Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November. But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we have a chance to rein in the first.
Grove’s critique is very similar to Warren Buffett’s. If this is what leading Democratic business sages are now saying publicly, imagine what they and others are saying privately. Will President Obama pay attention and dramatically revise his course (rather than just pay lip service to the criticisms)? Not if he’s the hard-core leftist ideologue that many of us have long perceived through the fog of his sweet-sounding rhetoric.
Never Waste A Crisis
While a 1-day stock market rally has calmed down Obama critics for the moment, Jonah Goldberg weighs in on what some view (myself included) as the cynical tactics of the Obama administration in dealing with the economic crisis.
Never Waste A Crisis [Jonah Goldberg]
A version of today's column on Obama's fear-mongering appeared yesterday in the LA Times. It was the second most-viewed article of the day and the most emailed. There was an enormous reaction from readers. About one third was very positive ("about time!" "thank you!" "amen!" etc) and another third was blind fury ("you a-hole!" "moron" etc). The chief rebutall from the very angry was: Bush did too exploit a crisis! What seemed lost on these people is that even if that were true, that doesn't make what Obama's doing any better or any less hypocritical. Anyway, here's the open:
Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space?
I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.
>“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. “They are opportunities to do big things.” Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience at the European Parliament, “Never waste a good crisis.” Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet address that there is “great opportunity in the midst of” the “great crisis” befalling America.
Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as evidence that Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some — particularly on Wall Street — would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
But those policies aren’t the real scandal, even though they’re bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power grabs. (It seems writer Randolph Bourne was wrong. It is not war, but crisis, that is the health of the state.)
Michael Kinsley famously said that a gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. As they say, it’s funny because it’s true.
But the White House tactic isn’t funny at all. It’s scary. Its amorality is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it all.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y5ZWI3MmRjOTljZDY5NjBiNTUxYWQxODE4NTFhOTE=
Never Waste A Crisis [Jonah Goldberg]
A version of today's column on Obama's fear-mongering appeared yesterday in the LA Times. It was the second most-viewed article of the day and the most emailed. There was an enormous reaction from readers. About one third was very positive ("about time!" "thank you!" "amen!" etc) and another third was blind fury ("you a-hole!" "moron" etc). The chief rebutall from the very angry was: Bush did too exploit a crisis! What seemed lost on these people is that even if that were true, that doesn't make what Obama's doing any better or any less hypocritical. Anyway, here's the open:
Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I’m a jerk, for want of a harsher word not printable in this space?
I ask because I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.
Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as evidence that Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some — particularly on Wall Street — would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
But those policies aren’t the real scandal, even though they’re bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power grabs. (It seems writer Randolph Bourne was wrong. It is not war, but crisis, that is the health of the state.)
Michael Kinsley famously said that a gaffe in Washington is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. As they say, it’s funny because it’s true.
But the White House tactic isn’t funny at all. It’s scary. Its amorality is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it all.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y5ZWI3MmRjOTljZDY5NjBiNTUxYWQxODE4NTFhOTE=
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
State Dept Fails to Condemn Palestinian Terror Incident in Jerusalem
We forgot ? Or something else ?
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275522.html
Highlights:
Begging the increasingly salient question: devious realist payback or total f-$%#%$@ amateur hour?
Officials in Jerusalem are quietly scratching their heads in wonderment as to why the White House did not release an official statement condemning yesterday's tractor terrorist rampage here, the third attack of its kind in recent months... The attack with a Tractor came less than 18 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested as "unhelpful" the planned bulldozing of more than 80 Jerusalem Arab homes built illegally upon Jewish land in Jerusalem. Usually, following any terrorist attack in Israel, the White House like clockwork immediately releases an official statement condemning the attack. But this time, no statement was forthcoming from either the White House or Clinton's State Department. Speaking to WND, a White House spokesman would only confirm he was not aware of any statement regarding the attack, but he would not speculate as to why the terrorism wasn't condemned.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275522.html
Highlights:
Begging the increasingly salient question: devious realist payback or total f-$%#%$@ amateur hour?
Officials in Jerusalem are quietly scratching their heads in wonderment as to why the White House did not release an official statement condemning yesterday's tractor terrorist rampage here, the third attack of its kind in recent months... The attack with a Tractor came less than 18 hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested as "unhelpful" the planned bulldozing of more than 80 Jerusalem Arab homes built illegally upon Jewish land in Jerusalem. Usually, following any terrorist attack in Israel, the White House like clockwork immediately releases an official statement condemning the attack. But this time, no statement was forthcoming from either the White House or Clinton's State Department. Speaking to WND, a White House spokesman would only confirm he was not aware of any statement regarding the attack, but he would not speculate as to why the terrorism wasn't condemned.
And over at TIMMEH's Treasury Department....
From the Daily Mail:
He has a reputation for being the archetypal senior civil servant professional, unflappable, and, above all, discreet.
But Sir Gus O'Donnell risked sparking a transatlantic tiff today with an imprudent remark about Downing Street's relations with the White House.
The head of the civil service, Sir Gus said the handover to President Barack Obama's administration was severely hindering preparations for next month's G20 summit.
In an extraordinary blunder, the usually-guarded Sir Gus said no-one in the U.S. Treasury department was answering telephone calls.
He said it meant the Government was finding it 'unbelievably difficult' to hold discussions ahead of the meeting of world leaders in London.
Even though the world was in the grip of the worst economic crisis in decades - top of the G20 agenda - Number 10 was having trouble getting in touch with key personnel, said the Cabinet Secretary.
'There is nobody there,' he told a civil service conference in Gateshead.
'You cannot believe how difficult it is.'
He has a reputation for being the archetypal senior civil servant professional, unflappable, and, above all, discreet.
But Sir Gus O'Donnell risked sparking a transatlantic tiff today with an imprudent remark about Downing Street's relations with the White House.
The head of the civil service, Sir Gus said the handover to President Barack Obama's administration was severely hindering preparations for next month's G20 summit.
In an extraordinary blunder, the usually-guarded Sir Gus said no-one in the U.S. Treasury department was answering telephone calls.
He said it meant the Government was finding it 'unbelievably difficult' to hold discussions ahead of the meeting of world leaders in London.
Even though the world was in the grip of the worst economic crisis in decades - top of the G20 agenda - Number 10 was having trouble getting in touch with key personnel, said the Cabinet Secretary.
'There is nobody there,' he told a civil service conference in Gateshead.
'You cannot believe how difficult it is.'
One Piece of Good News ... Chas Freeman OUT
In case you have not been following this story, one Charles (Chas) Freeman was just an abominable choice for chairman of the National Intelligence Council. A former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, he is known for being a Saudi apologist and has spent his post diplomatic career on the Saudi payroll. He is also considered to be quite hostile to Israel is a blame the victim type (us) when it came to 9/11,
I don't want to rehash all of the problems with serious problems about this guy here, but feel free to look it up.
Chas Freeman will not be chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.
Andy McCarthy sez:
Great. But there remains the fact that the top intelligence official in the U.S., Dennis Blair, brought Freeman in, figuring he'd be a perfect fit to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman is gone, but Blair will be with us for years to come. The problems with Freeman were far from hidden. What is it about Blair's worldview that inspired him to think Freeman was a good choice to be shaping intelligence estimates and framing the information consumed by the president?
Mark Steyn's take:
Don't read all about it! [Mark Steyn]
I'm glad to see the back of the Saudi shill Chas Freeman, but I wonder what Mr and Mrs America will make of it tomorrow morning, reading for the very first time how the "Outspoken Former Ambassador" (as the AP's headline has it) was scuttled by a controversy their newspaper saw fit not to mention a word about.
As far as I can tell, the only papers in America to so much as mention the Freeman story were The Wall Street Journal, Investors' Business Daily, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Augusta Chronicle, and The Press Enterprise of Riverside, California.
But if you rely for your news on The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Detroit News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Miami Herald, or The Minneapolis Star-Tribune - just to name a random selection of American dailies currently sliding off the cliff - the end of the story will be the first time you've heard of it.
The US newspaper has deluded itself that it's been killed by technology. But there are two elements to a newspaper: news and paper. The paper is certainly a problem, but so is the news, or lack of it. If you're interested in news, the somnolent US monodaily is the last place to look for it.
I don't want to rehash all of the problems with serious problems about this guy here, but feel free to look it up.
Chas Freeman will not be chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.
Andy McCarthy sez:
Great. But there remains the fact that the top intelligence official in the U.S., Dennis Blair, brought Freeman in, figuring he'd be a perfect fit to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman is gone, but Blair will be with us for years to come. The problems with Freeman were far from hidden. What is it about Blair's worldview that inspired him to think Freeman was a good choice to be shaping intelligence estimates and framing the information consumed by the president?
Mark Steyn's take:
Don't read all about it! [Mark Steyn]
I'm glad to see the back of the Saudi shill Chas Freeman, but I wonder what Mr and Mrs America will make of it tomorrow morning, reading for the very first time how the "Outspoken Former Ambassador" (as the AP's headline has it) was scuttled by a controversy their newspaper saw fit not to mention a word about.
As far as I can tell, the only papers in America to so much as mention the Freeman story were The Wall Street Journal, Investors' Business Daily, The Washington Times, The New York Post, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Augusta Chronicle, and The Press Enterprise of Riverside, California.
But if you rely for your news on The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Detroit News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Miami Herald, or The Minneapolis Star-Tribune - just to name a random selection of American dailies currently sliding off the cliff - the end of the story will be the first time you've heard of it.
The US newspaper has deluded itself that it's been killed by technology. But there are two elements to a newspaper: news and paper. The paper is certainly a problem, but so is the news, or lack of it. If you're interested in news, the somnolent US monodaily is the last place to look for it.
And then there's Joe Biden.....
Biden Watch: The 70-Percent Obsession [Michael Ledeen]
Biden's loose again, roaming around the diplosphere. His latest contribution to Deep Thought is the somewhat imaginative suggestion that a full 70 percent of Taliban killers don't really believe in it, and are "essentially mercenaries." So the grand design to negotiate with them has a good chance of success, you see.
Quite aside from the grand design — an addictive drug in whose toxic grip an epic number of administration big shots and the usual number of pundits are now seized — I'm intrigued by the "seventy percent" figure. He seems to like that number. He trotted it out a while back when talking about the odds of success for Porkulus (or was it the bank bailout?), saying there was a thirty percent chance "we'll get it wrong."
How does he calculate these numbers? Have there been polls of Taliban members? Did he check the odds with Las Vegas on Porkulus? Inquiring minds would like to know . . .
Biden as VP -- that is really scary !
You Don't Mess w/ Joe !!
Biden's loose again, roaming around the diplosphere. His latest contribution to Deep Thought is the somewhat imaginative suggestion that a full 70 percent of Taliban killers don't really believe in it, and are "essentially mercenaries." So the grand design to negotiate with them has a good chance of success, you see.
Quite aside from the grand design — an addictive drug in whose toxic grip an epic number of administration big shots and the usual number of pundits are now seized — I'm intrigued by the "seventy percent" figure. He seems to like that number. He trotted it out a while back when talking about the odds of success for Porkulus (or was it the bank bailout?), saying there was a thirty percent chance "we'll get it wrong."
How does he calculate these numbers? Have there been polls of Taliban members? Did he check the odds with Las Vegas on Porkulus? Inquiring minds would like to know . . .
Biden as VP -- that is really scary !
You Don't Mess w/ Joe !!
Warren Buffet weighs in with some criticism for Obama
Remember during the campaign how Obama would spout everywhere how he gets his economic advice from Warren Buffet ? Well, Buffet did support Obama, but wasn't exactly an advisor and its not clear that they have spoken much at all. Buffet on CNBC yesterday said he had not been speaking to or giving Obama advice about the economic crisis, but had spoken to some people that know Obama.
In any event, Buffet had this to say:
If you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when—maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects...
Buffet made other similar comments to the effect of what many others have been saying; focus on the economic crisis; backburner all the other stuff (big liberal spending agenda, higher taxes, health care, etc.)/
In any event, Buffet had this to say:
If you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when—maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects...
Buffet made other similar comments to the effect of what many others have been saying; focus on the economic crisis; backburner all the other stuff (big liberal spending agenda, higher taxes, health care, etc.)/
Obama: Bush is the socialist, not me ....
Another favorite Cornerite of mine is Andy McCarthy, a very smart guy who would make a far better Attorney General than the ethically questionable Eric Holder.
Andy also has some thoughts on the Blame Game, and if you haven't seen this NY Times story where they asked Obama if he was a socialist and Obama had to call back and ... drumroll please ... Blame Bush (as the socialist).
Hey did you know that Obama "inherited" the economic crisis ? Or that the stock market is down 35% since Election Day
Re: Re: The "They Did It" Presidency [Andy McCarthy]
To me, what is most startling about the phenomenon VDH and Mark describe is actually listening to the president stuttering and bumbling his way through that follow-up call to the NYTimes. (The recording can be heard by clicking on an MP3 link in this Times story.) It's cringe-making stuff — the poor delivery, the claim that Bush is the real socialist and Obama the free-marketeer (does anyone actually believe Obama opposed, or would have opposed, the prescription-drug entitlement or nationalizing the banks? that he'd ever in a million years do anything but build on these statist policies, as he has been doing since day one?), the craven refusal to utter Bush's name when the Times reporter asks the obvious follow-up question, the whopper about how he's got so much to do the last thing he wanted to be concerned about was the market (from the guy who spent his career carping about "economic justice" and criticized the Warren Court for not being radical enough in economic matters), etc.
If Obama had haltingly spouted this nonsense off-the-cuff at a press conference, that would have been bad enough. But he (or someone) actually decided this would be a good call to make — and they had 90 minutes to think about what he was going to say. That's not just bad, it's scary bad.
Andy also has some thoughts on the Blame Game, and if you haven't seen this NY Times story where they asked Obama if he was a socialist and Obama had to call back and ... drumroll please ... Blame Bush (as the socialist).
Hey did you know that Obama "inherited" the economic crisis ? Or that the stock market is down 35% since Election Day
Re: Re: The "They Did It" Presidency [Andy McCarthy]
To me, what is most startling about the phenomenon VDH and Mark describe is actually listening to the president stuttering and bumbling his way through that follow-up call to the NYTimes. (The recording can be heard by clicking on an MP3 link in this Times story.) It's cringe-making stuff — the poor delivery, the claim that Bush is the real socialist and Obama the free-marketeer (does anyone actually believe Obama opposed, or would have opposed, the prescription-drug entitlement or nationalizing the banks? that he'd ever in a million years do anything but build on these statist policies, as he has been doing since day one?), the craven refusal to utter Bush's name when the Times reporter asks the obvious follow-up question, the whopper about how he's got so much to do the last thing he wanted to be concerned about was the market (from the guy who spent his career carping about "economic justice" and criticized the Warren Court for not being radical enough in economic matters), etc.
If Obama had haltingly spouted this nonsense off-the-cuff at a press conference, that would have been bad enough. But he (or someone) actually decided this would be a good call to make — and they had 90 minutes to think about what he was going to say. That's not just bad, it's scary bad.
Seems Like Amateur Hour
Mark Steyn is another of my favorite opinionistas. Usually sarcastic and spot on.
Mark is also on to Obama's Blame Game.
He can usually be found at the Corner blog over at National Review. http://corner.nationalreview.com/
The "They did it" presidency [Mark Steyn]
Victor, I have to say the first six weeks of the Age of the Hopeychange have surprised me. I expected it to be bad, but I didn't expect it to be so incompetent. Not because I had any expectations of President Obama's executive skills: As I said back in the fall re the comparisons with Governor Palin, Barack ain't run nuthin' but his mouth. This is the first real job he's had where you're supposed to show up at nine in the morning and make decisions.
So I had no expectations about his executive competency. But I assumed he had folks around him who could take care of that kind of stuff - that he'd be the smiley-face hopeychange frontman on an ideologically disastrous but ruthlessly efficient team. I figured he'd have a Deputy Assistant Associate Secretary of whatever who'd know what the form was for a prime ministerial visit by a close ally, and an Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary who wouldn't compound the gaffes by telling Fleet Street who cares about the Brits anyway. I expected he'd have an Assistant Associate Deputy Secretary who'd know that Russo-American relations weren't the proper forum for lame prop gags, and a Deputy Associate Assistant Secretary who, once the decision were taken to go ahead with the lame prop gag, would at least be able to translate correctly one single word from English to Russian.
What happened? Where's his team? It's not like 2005, when the Senate Dems were holding up Condi and vetoing Bolton. Senate Republicans would be happy just to rubberstamp one big photocopied [INSERT NAME OF NOMINEE HERE] form. But, as many have noted, the soi-disant "smoothest transition in history" ground to a halt the moment Bush flew off to Crawford.
Perhaps, in his hectic round of promotional interviews, David Frum could find time - just for eight or nine seconds, say - to offer some thoughts on why the President's administration is not as "honed" as his physique.
Mark is also on to Obama's Blame Game.
He can usually be found at the Corner blog over at National Review. http://corner.nationalreview.com/
The "They did it" presidency [Mark Steyn]
Victor, I have to say the first six weeks of the Age of the Hopeychange have surprised me. I expected it to be bad, but I didn't expect it to be so incompetent. Not because I had any expectations of President Obama's executive skills: As I said back in the fall re the comparisons with Governor Palin, Barack ain't run nuthin' but his mouth. This is the first real job he's had where you're supposed to show up at nine in the morning and make decisions.
So I had no expectations about his executive competency. But I assumed he had folks around him who could take care of that kind of stuff - that he'd be the smiley-face hopeychange frontman on an ideologically disastrous but ruthlessly efficient team. I figured he'd have a Deputy Assistant Associate Secretary of whatever who'd know what the form was for a prime ministerial visit by a close ally, and an Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary who wouldn't compound the gaffes by telling Fleet Street who cares about the Brits anyway. I expected he'd have an Assistant Associate Deputy Secretary who'd know that Russo-American relations weren't the proper forum for lame prop gags, and a Deputy Associate Assistant Secretary who, once the decision were taken to go ahead with the lame prop gag, would at least be able to translate correctly one single word from English to Russian.
What happened? Where's his team? It's not like 2005, when the Senate Dems were holding up Condi and vetoing Bolton. Senate Republicans would be happy just to rubberstamp one big photocopied [INSERT NAME OF NOMINEE HERE] form. But, as many have noted, the soi-disant "smoothest transition in history" ground to a halt the moment Bush flew off to Crawford.
Perhaps, in his hectic round of promotional interviews, David Frum could find time - just for eight or nine seconds, say - to offer some thoughts on why the President's administration is not as "honed" as his physique.
Obama, the Blame Game, and Exploiting the Economic Crisis
I notice several recurring patterns for President Obama so far:
1. Blaming Bush for everything (grow up Mr. President - it is classless)
2. Exploiting the Economic Crisis to push his reckless, big spending, big government agenda.
3. Disingenuos "straw man" rationalizations (more on this later).
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite commentators. He is very thoughtful and often hits the nail right on the head.
Charles on Obama’s executive order on stem cell research:
What Obama is doing is he's expanding the range of the federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cells. He is allowing the use of embryos that were created in fertility clinics and are not going to be used anymore.
Now, I supported that when I was on the president's council of bioethics and in my writing, which I suppose is why the White House invited me to the signing ceremony.
But I declined for three reasons. One is the president has left open the cloning of human embryos in order to destroy them in experiments. Secondly, he leaves open the creation of human embryos entirely for the purpose of research and experimentation.
And thirdly, he had a memorandum which he signed in which he talks about restoring the scientific integrity in government decisions, which is an outrageous attack on Bush.
I disagreed with where Bush ended up drawing the line on permissible research, but he gave in August of 2001 the single most morally serious presidential speech on medical ethics ever given, and Obama did not, even though I agree on where — I agree more on where he ended up.
So I think it was disrespectful. And in pretending, as Obama did, that there's never a conflict between ethics and science, he was wrong.
I suspect that they're not going to be asking me to any more signing ceremonies in the future.
Charles on whether Obama is using the economic crisis to push through his agenda:
I think, in fact, he is consciously exploiting the crisis by pretending that, as he did in his speech to Congress, that the cause of our difficulties is mismanagement in education, health, and energy. It's not. The cause of our difficulties is a crisis in banking and credit, and that's the issue of our time.
His agenda is health, energy, and education, and it's an opportunity for him.
But unlike Bush — I mean, Bush never had an original agenda of wiretapping Americans, of detention without trial, or preemptive war. Those are the policies which occurred after 9/11 in a sincere and critically important examination of what would keep us safe.
That's why he instituted those policies, and, in fact, they kept us safe. But it was not an agenda that he was waiting for an excuse to enact.
Obama, on the other hand, will tell you that he campaigned on healthcare reform, energy, and education, and he is actually understanding that because we are at a crisis, it allows him to experiment and to push legislation in a way that would not have occurred in quieter times.
1. Blaming Bush for everything (grow up Mr. President - it is classless)
2. Exploiting the Economic Crisis to push his reckless, big spending, big government agenda.
3. Disingenuos "straw man" rationalizations (more on this later).
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite commentators. He is very thoughtful and often hits the nail right on the head.
Charles on Obama’s executive order on stem cell research:
What Obama is doing is he's expanding the range of the federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cells. He is allowing the use of embryos that were created in fertility clinics and are not going to be used anymore.
Now, I supported that when I was on the president's council of bioethics and in my writing, which I suppose is why the White House invited me to the signing ceremony.
But I declined for three reasons. One is the president has left open the cloning of human embryos in order to destroy them in experiments. Secondly, he leaves open the creation of human embryos entirely for the purpose of research and experimentation.
And thirdly, he had a memorandum which he signed in which he talks about restoring the scientific integrity in government decisions, which is an outrageous attack on Bush.
I disagreed with where Bush ended up drawing the line on permissible research, but he gave in August of 2001 the single most morally serious presidential speech on medical ethics ever given, and Obama did not, even though I agree on where — I agree more on where he ended up.
So I think it was disrespectful. And in pretending, as Obama did, that there's never a conflict between ethics and science, he was wrong.
I suspect that they're not going to be asking me to any more signing ceremonies in the future.
Charles on whether Obama is using the economic crisis to push through his agenda:
I think, in fact, he is consciously exploiting the crisis by pretending that, as he did in his speech to Congress, that the cause of our difficulties is mismanagement in education, health, and energy. It's not. The cause of our difficulties is a crisis in banking and credit, and that's the issue of our time.
His agenda is health, energy, and education, and it's an opportunity for him.
But unlike Bush — I mean, Bush never had an original agenda of wiretapping Americans, of detention without trial, or preemptive war. Those are the policies which occurred after 9/11 in a sincere and critically important examination of what would keep us safe.
That's why he instituted those policies, and, in fact, they kept us safe. But it was not an agenda that he was waiting for an excuse to enact.
Obama, on the other hand, will tell you that he campaigned on healthcare reform, energy, and education, and he is actually understanding that because we are at a crisis, it allows him to experiment and to push legislation in a way that would not have occurred in quieter times.
First Obama Watch Post
Welcome to "Obama Watch".
I created this blog to have a forum where I could post information and opinion about the Obama administration that I consider to be relevant and newsworthy. In many instances, these posts will be a vehicle for expressing my disagreement and frustration with President Obama and his adminstration.
It is my hope that you will be informed by these postings. Some posts will be my words; others will be the words of others who will have expressed an idea far more clearly than I would have.
Enjoy.
I created this blog to have a forum where I could post information and opinion about the Obama administration that I consider to be relevant and newsworthy. In many instances, these posts will be a vehicle for expressing my disagreement and frustration with President Obama and his adminstration.
It is my hope that you will be informed by these postings. Some posts will be my words; others will be the words of others who will have expressed an idea far more clearly than I would have.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
