Obama's Commission Farce [Andy McCarthy]
As Ed notes, this week's Obama administration Embarrassing Friday Night News Dump included alerting the Washington Post that the administration will be reinstating military commission trials for captured terrorists. Typical of the Obamedia, the Post uncritically accepts the administration's fig-leaf that Obama's new and improved commissions will correct flaws that made Bush commissions (approved by Congress in 2006) unfair, and therefore — so the claim goes — the reinstatement should not be considered a gargantuan flippero from the Obama campaign position that the commissions were a kangaroo-court of a travesty. So Post reporter Peter Finn tells us:
The Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections, government officials said. The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
This is utter nonsense. Under the existing commission rules, miltary judges have always had the authority to suppress evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, and have done so. Moreover, under Bush, the appointing authority (the Defense Department component that oversees the commissions) dismissed the charges against one of the most significant al Qaeda detainees, Mohammed al-Qahtani, on the (absurd) ground that his interrogation was tantamount to torture. (I discussed it in a New York Times debate, here.) The admissibility of hearsay evidence has always been a red-herring — hearsay is a staple of the international tribunals so admired by many in the Obama administration and the academic Left (a redundancy, I know), and the ability to get hearsay introduced in court is a large part of the reason for doing commission trials in the first place. (Otherwise American soldiers would have to be pulled away from combat operations to testify, and much evidence could never be used because it is given to us by foreign intelligence services on the condition that it not be disclosed.) And the bit about granting detainees "greater freedom to choose their attorneys" made me laugh so much my sides still ache — American lawyers lined up from here to Gitmo to take up the cause of America's enemies, including many from firms connected to Obama administration lawyers (including Attorney General Holder, whose firm has represented — according to its website — some 18 enemy combatants). Finn mentions none of this.
Finn goes on to say: "The military commissions have allowed the trial of terrorism suspects in a setting that favors the government and protects classified information, but they were sharply criticized during the administration of President George W. Bush. 'By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,' then-candidate Barack Obama said in June 2008.'" Obama was not the only one. That same month, Holder claimed the commissions amounted to "the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution."
Well guess what? The Obama commissions will be, in every material way, exactly the same as the Bush Commissions: they will allow the trial of terrorism suspects in a setting that favors the government and protects classified information, and they will be criticized — perhaps not quite as sharply, but sharply — by the same hard Lefties that Obama and Holder were courting during the campaign.
The media will never tell you that the Bush commission trials (as I've previously recounted, here) provided elaborate protections for war crimes defendants, such as:
the presumption of innocence;
the imposition of the burden of proof on the prosecution;
the right to counsel—both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chooses to retain one;
the right to be presented with the charges in advance of trial;
access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution;
access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings;
the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes);
the free choice to testify or decline to do so;
the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify;
access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses;
access to investigative resources as "necessary for a full and fair trial"; and
the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
Those are just some of the trial rights. There are, furthermore, elaborate sentencing procedures and a multi-tiered military appellate process at which a convicted combatant could get a guilty verdict or sentence reversed without ever having to appeal in the civilian courts. As Powerline’s Scott Johnson has pointed out, these protections for our current enemies markedly outstrip the paltry safeguards given the Nazis at Nuremburg—notwithstanding that Nuremburg, an international tribunal that afforded no right to American civilian court review, is celebrated by the Left (and was fondly recalled by candidate Obama) as a triumph of the “rule of law.”
The Obama campaign slandered the commissions, just like it slandered Gitmo, military detention, coercive interrogations, the state secrets doctrine, extraordinary rendition, and aggressive national-security surveillance. Gitmo is still open (and Obama and Holder now admit it's a first-rate facility), we are still detaining captives (except when Obama releases dangerous terrorists), the Obama Justice Department has endorsed the Bush legal analysis of torture law in federal court, and Obama has endorsed state secrets, extraordinary rendition, and national-security surveillance (and the Bush stance on surveillance has since been reaffirmed by the federal court created to rule on such issues).
Do these people ever get called on their hypocrisy?
------
They do right here !
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Nancy Pelosi hypocrite & liar
Democrats and Waterboarding [David Freddoso]
Paul Kane reports in today's Washington Post that in addition to the briefing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) personally received in 2002 on the use of waterboarding, one of her aides was briefed in 2003 on the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida.
Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida...Republicans have accused Pelosi and other Democrats who attended the earliest classified briefings of knowing what CIA operatives were doing and offering their support for the methods, including waterboarding. They argue that Pelosi, who served as the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee until January 2003, objected only after the use of the techniques became public several years later.
I spoke to a senior Republican aide who feels that the speaker is getting an awfully easy ride on this — that the briefing of the Speaker's aide clearly demonstrates that she knew what was going on in 2003, even if Pelosi is disputing exactly what was mentioned in the 2002 briefing.
"Look, the claim that a Pelosi staffer was briefed on these techniques but not Pelosi herself is absurd," he said. "That’s just not the way the system works. Staff are not briefed on anything a Member wouldn’t be briefed on."
Rep. Jane Harman (D, Calif.), formerly vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has released this letter from early 2003 as proof that she raised objections to waterboarding (the CIA's response is also included at the link). But the letter does not actually raise any objections to waterboarding, but rather raises questions about whether its use had been considered carefully and at the highest levels of government. The letter states:
"I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?"
The only forthright objection contained in Harman's letter is to the CIA's intention to destroy the videotape of Abu Zubaida's waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967.html?hpid=topnews
Paul Kane reports in today's Washington Post that in addition to the briefing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) personally received in 2002 on the use of waterboarding, one of her aides was briefed in 2003 on the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida.
Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida...Republicans have accused Pelosi and other Democrats who attended the earliest classified briefings of knowing what CIA operatives were doing and offering their support for the methods, including waterboarding. They argue that Pelosi, who served as the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee until January 2003, objected only after the use of the techniques became public several years later.
I spoke to a senior Republican aide who feels that the speaker is getting an awfully easy ride on this — that the briefing of the Speaker's aide clearly demonstrates that she knew what was going on in 2003, even if Pelosi is disputing exactly what was mentioned in the 2002 briefing.
"Look, the claim that a Pelosi staffer was briefed on these techniques but not Pelosi herself is absurd," he said. "That’s just not the way the system works. Staff are not briefed on anything a Member wouldn’t be briefed on."
Rep. Jane Harman (D, Calif.), formerly vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has released this letter from early 2003 as proof that she raised objections to waterboarding (the CIA's response is also included at the link). But the letter does not actually raise any objections to waterboarding, but rather raises questions about whether its use had been considered carefully and at the highest levels of government. The letter states:
"I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?"
The only forthright objection contained in Harman's letter is to the CIA's intention to destroy the videotape of Abu Zubaida's waterboarding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967.html?hpid=topnews
Obama & The 9/11 Families
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174154190098941.html
Debra Burlingame speaks truth to power...
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.
Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.
Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.
The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.
On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.
Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."
How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.
News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."
"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We'd been had.
Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.
What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.
Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.
It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word "torture" in their stories.
I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.
"They saw it for what it was."
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Debra Burlingame speaks truth to power...
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.
Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.
Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.
The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.
On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.
Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.
Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."
How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.
News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."
"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.
Believe . . . feel . . . hope.
We'd been had.
Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.
The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.
What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.
Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.
It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word "torture" in their stories.
I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.
"They saw it for what it was."
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Democrats & Culture of Corruption
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=74241397827&h=ZVpTj&u=QFfJr&ref=mf
Jonah - were you inspired by my post earlier this week ? His article illustrates very well the point I was trying to make.
Democrats wallow in a 'culture of corruption'
Meet the new political bosses, worse than the old political bosses.
Jonah Goldberg
May 5, 2009
» Discuss Article (168 Comments)
Some days you have to ask yourself, my God, what if these people were Republicans?
Democrats took back Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 in no small part because of their ability to bang their spoons on their high chairs about what they called the Republican "culture of corruption." Their choreographed outrage was coordinated with the precision of a North Korean missile launch pageant. And, to be fair, they had a point. The GOP did have its legitimate embarrassments. California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramoff were fair game, and so was Rep. Mark Foley, the twisted Florida congressman who allegedly wanted male congressional pages cleaned and perfumed and brought to his tent, as it were.
Of course, it wasn't as if Democrats were without sin. Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was indicted on fraud, bribery and corruption charges in 2007, after an investigation unearthed, among other things, $90,000 in his freezer. Then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was busted in a prostitution scandal.
But that's all yesterday's news. Let's look at the here and now. Barack Obama, who vowed he'd provide a transparent administration staffed with disinterested public servants with the self-restraint of Roman castrati, appointed an admitted tax cheat to run the Treasury Department -- and he's hardly the only one in the administration.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is under investigation for, among other things, failing to report income from his Caribbean villa. Meanwhile, Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, got sweetheart deals from subprime lender Countrywide and has yet to adequately explain his too-good-to-be-true deal on his million-dollar "cottage" in Ireland, which he may have gotten in exchange for finagling a pardon (from President Clinton) for a felon. Oh, Dodd also secretly protected those AIG bonuses that raised such a ruckus last month.
Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, Nancy Pelosi's moral authority on military matters during the Iraq war, has been revealed as a kleptomaniac of sorts, delivering as much of the federal budget as possible to various cronies and lobbyists.
John Edwards, who had an affair even as he was scoring Oprah-points as the supportive husband during his wife's battle with breast cancer, is being investigated by the feds for the improper use of campaign funds. It looks like the silky haired champion of the little guys may have used their donations to bribe the alleged "baby mama" into silence.
And it would be a shame to let it pass that Obama's Senate seat was put up for sale by the then-Democratic governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is under investigation for trying to buy it.
But you know what? We ain't seen nothing yet. For starters, the real corruption isn't what the media are ignoring or downplaying as isolated incidents. It's what the media are hailing as bold, inspirational leadership. The White House, as a matter of policy, is rewriting legal contracts, picking winners (mostly labor unions and mortgage defaulters) and singling out losers (evil "speculators") while much of the media continue to ponder whether Obama is better than FDR.
If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, was cutting special deals for its political allies, I suspect we'd be hearing fewer FDR analogies and more nouns ending with the suffix "gate."
Take Obama's "car czar," Steven Rattner. According to ABC's Jake Tapper, Rattner is accused of threatening to use the White House to smear a Chrysler creditor if it refused to back the administration's bankruptcy plan. He's also connected to a massive pension fund scandal involving the investment firm he used to run. One allegation is that conspirators used investments in the low-budget movie "Chooch" to expedite their alleged chicanery. Chooch, by the way, is Italian slang for "jackass," which just happens to be the Democrats' mascot.
More to the point, political corruption is inevitable whenever you give hacks -- of either party -- too much discretion over public funds. Businesses look to Washington for profits instead of to the market. The thing is, this has become the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party, from banking and cars to healthcare and now student loans. The federal government is taking over, and the culture of corruption inevitably trickles down. That in itself should be a scandal. Call it "Choochgate."
jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
Jonah - were you inspired by my post earlier this week ? His article illustrates very well the point I was trying to make.
Democrats wallow in a 'culture of corruption'
Meet the new political bosses, worse than the old political bosses.
Jonah Goldberg
May 5, 2009
» Discuss Article (168 Comments)
Some days you have to ask yourself, my God, what if these people were Republicans?
Democrats took back Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 in no small part because of their ability to bang their spoons on their high chairs about what they called the Republican "culture of corruption." Their choreographed outrage was coordinated with the precision of a North Korean missile launch pageant. And, to be fair, they had a point. The GOP did have its legitimate embarrassments. California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramoff were fair game, and so was Rep. Mark Foley, the twisted Florida congressman who allegedly wanted male congressional pages cleaned and perfumed and brought to his tent, as it were.
Of course, it wasn't as if Democrats were without sin. Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was indicted on fraud, bribery and corruption charges in 2007, after an investigation unearthed, among other things, $90,000 in his freezer. Then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was busted in a prostitution scandal.
But that's all yesterday's news. Let's look at the here and now. Barack Obama, who vowed he'd provide a transparent administration staffed with disinterested public servants with the self-restraint of Roman castrati, appointed an admitted tax cheat to run the Treasury Department -- and he's hardly the only one in the administration.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is under investigation for, among other things, failing to report income from his Caribbean villa. Meanwhile, Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, got sweetheart deals from subprime lender Countrywide and has yet to adequately explain his too-good-to-be-true deal on his million-dollar "cottage" in Ireland, which he may have gotten in exchange for finagling a pardon (from President Clinton) for a felon. Oh, Dodd also secretly protected those AIG bonuses that raised such a ruckus last month.
Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, Nancy Pelosi's moral authority on military matters during the Iraq war, has been revealed as a kleptomaniac of sorts, delivering as much of the federal budget as possible to various cronies and lobbyists.
John Edwards, who had an affair even as he was scoring Oprah-points as the supportive husband during his wife's battle with breast cancer, is being investigated by the feds for the improper use of campaign funds. It looks like the silky haired champion of the little guys may have used their donations to bribe the alleged "baby mama" into silence.
And it would be a shame to let it pass that Obama's Senate seat was put up for sale by the then-Democratic governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, and Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is under investigation for trying to buy it.
But you know what? We ain't seen nothing yet. For starters, the real corruption isn't what the media are ignoring or downplaying as isolated incidents. It's what the media are hailing as bold, inspirational leadership. The White House, as a matter of policy, is rewriting legal contracts, picking winners (mostly labor unions and mortgage defaulters) and singling out losers (evil "speculators") while much of the media continue to ponder whether Obama is better than FDR.
If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, was cutting special deals for its political allies, I suspect we'd be hearing fewer FDR analogies and more nouns ending with the suffix "gate."
Take Obama's "car czar," Steven Rattner. According to ABC's Jake Tapper, Rattner is accused of threatening to use the White House to smear a Chrysler creditor if it refused to back the administration's bankruptcy plan. He's also connected to a massive pension fund scandal involving the investment firm he used to run. One allegation is that conspirators used investments in the low-budget movie "Chooch" to expedite their alleged chicanery. Chooch, by the way, is Italian slang for "jackass," which just happens to be the Democrats' mascot.
More to the point, political corruption is inevitable whenever you give hacks -- of either party -- too much discretion over public funds. Businesses look to Washington for profits instead of to the market. The thing is, this has become the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party, from banking and cars to healthcare and now student loans. The federal government is taking over, and the culture of corruption inevitably trickles down. That in itself should be a scandal. Call it "Choochgate."
jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
Obama & Israel - troubling signs on the horizon - Obama's intentions questioned
The Wages of Moral Equivalence [Victor Davis Hanson]
The Obama outreach to Syria, the video sent to Iran, the failed Freeman appointment, the $1 billion to Hamas, the anti-Israeli figures in Obama's past (cf. the Wright outbursts, Khalidi, etc.), and the Al Arabiya interview all point to an "adjustment" in U.S. policy toward Israel — made easier by the victory of the rightist Netanyahu.
We are entering a new phase in which, for the first time since Jimmy Carter, an American administration really believes that land concessions back to 1967 will ipso facto ensure new mentalities that are not like those in 1967, when the Arab world on three occasions had gone to war to destroy the Jewish state within its 1947 borders.
If the Obama plan is successful, we would see Israel back to about the 1947-sized state, public professions of eternal peace — and then triumphalism from non-democratic players in the radical Islamic world to the effect that first Sinai, then Lebanon, then Gaza, then the West Bank, capped off with Jerusalem — and, for the next generation, the final task of the end of Israel itself.
Once U.S. foreign policy is based on moral equivalence — that a Western democratic state is about the same as an undemocratic, radical authoritarian entity that embraces terrorism as a tool of state policy — then anything is possible, from calling for Israeli nuclear disarmament as part of an Iranian deal, to pretending that a Hamas ten-year truce is something other than a decade of chest-thumping before the final assault.
Given the fact that the vast majority of American Jews voted for Obama — despite clear indications that he would embrace radical changes in U.S. policy toward Israel — the politics of what is to come will be as fascinating as they will be tragic.
And given the Obama method of grandly professing the opposite of the reality that will soon follow (most ethical administration nominees in history lead to Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, etc.; no desire to interfere in the private sector means near nationalization of the banking, car, and soon health-care industries; commitment to public campaign financing equals first candidate to reject it in the general election; strong desire for fiscal sobriety translates into a $1.7 trillion annual deficit; Bush shredding the Constitution means adoption of Bush's wiretaps, email intercepts, Predator attacks, Patriot Act, Iraq plan, renditions, etc., and on and on), the tell-tale sign of the final U.S. break with Israel will be a dramatic Obama hope-and-change declaration that "our historic commitment to Israel will remain unchanged."
When we hear that, we know exactly what follows . . .
The Breakdown of the 'Special Relationship'
Middle East | Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:29:29 am PDT
No surprise from me over this news; during the campaign, Barack Obama’s ties to numerous radical Palestinians and leftists made it very clear that this was in the cards if he were elected: Jerusalem worried over breakdown of U.S.-Israel cooperation under Obama.
Obama’s foreign policy plan seems to be to reach out diplomatically to America’s worst enemies, and shun America’s best friends.
Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama’s entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel’s new government.
Senior White House officials told their Israeli counterparts that Obama will demand Netanyahu completely suspend construction in the settlements, the officials said. “Obama’s people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to,” the officials said.
In addition, when they do brief Israeli officials, they don’t consult with them or coordinate their statements in advance. This has caused several coordination “malfunctions” between the two states in the past two months, they said.
Also see:
Mere Rhetoric: Israeli Officials: Hey, It’s Almost As If Obama’s Trying To Detonate The US-Israeli Relationship
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33607_The_Breakdown_of_the_Special_Relationship
Israeli Officials: Hey, It's Almost As If Obama's Trying To Detonate The US-Israeli Relationship
My first inclination was to go with something like "you know what's really weird? That the guy who smeared 'pro-Likud approaches to Israel' during his campaign would be having problems with a Likud Prime Minister." But whatever. This was so inevitable that during the election I was already trying to guess the actual headlines and ledes that would be used to describe the implosion of the US-Israeli alliance.
Just one quote from a post from last September, then I'll give you the blockquote from this morning's inevitable news:
Of course the Obama White House will degrade US-Israeli ties. That's what his foreign policy team thinks needs to be done to promote American interests. It will be a White House that changes US priorities. It will be friendlier with Hamas and friendlier with Syria and friendlier with radical Muslim countries and friendlier with Hezbollah - all at the expense of Israel. Following the personal declarations of Obama, it will obviously be friendlier with Iran. And it will be an administration institutionally predisposed to blame Israel for Middle East instability across the board.
Of course that's how it will play out. That's what distinguishes liberal foreign policy from conservative foreign policy. Those are the policies that Obama is running on. Those are the policies that his advisers discuss at length in their academic work.
And so, almost as if Obama's statements as a candidate could have been used to predict his policies as President:
Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama's entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel's new government... This has caused several coordination "malfunctions" between the two states in the past two months, they said.
The last incident was the statement of Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... [Israel] heard it first from the media... The American policy shift toward Syria and opening direct talks with Damascus followed minimal coordination with Israel... [On] Dennis Ross' trip to the Gulf states a few days ago for talks on Iran... Ross did not pass through Israel on his way to the Gulf or back...
The new administration no longer seems to see Israel as a "special" or "extraordinary" state in the Middle East, with which the U.S. must maintain a different dialogue than with other states.
That's a little too generous. The new administration sees Israel as a particularly problematic state in the Middle East, responsible for the length and breadth of Middle East instability. This was their position before the election and it's been their positions since they got into office. So it's not exactly a shock that they're pressuring Israel while ineffectively sucking up to Syria.
The only question left is how this will end up being Israel's fault. If Israel attacks Iran, then it'll be that. The "Israeli self-defense will undermine Obama's diplomacy" meme has already been well-seeded by Gates and Biden, by Brzezinski, and - on the same day, almost as if there was a coordinated campaign - by the NYT and the Washington Post.
If Israel doesn't attack Iran, then it'll be either anti-Hamas efforts or Syria or Israel's nuclear deterrent. All three have already been fed to reporters as "sources of tension" by the Iran Lobby, part of their ongoing drip drip drip erosion of Israel's standing in DC.
It won't be settlements - too blase. The whole point is to give Netanyahu a demand that he can't possibly meet, so that his subsequent refusal can be used as a pretext for degrading ties.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275580.html
The Obama outreach to Syria, the video sent to Iran, the failed Freeman appointment, the $1 billion to Hamas, the anti-Israeli figures in Obama's past (cf. the Wright outbursts, Khalidi, etc.), and the Al Arabiya interview all point to an "adjustment" in U.S. policy toward Israel — made easier by the victory of the rightist Netanyahu.
We are entering a new phase in which, for the first time since Jimmy Carter, an American administration really believes that land concessions back to 1967 will ipso facto ensure new mentalities that are not like those in 1967, when the Arab world on three occasions had gone to war to destroy the Jewish state within its 1947 borders.
If the Obama plan is successful, we would see Israel back to about the 1947-sized state, public professions of eternal peace — and then triumphalism from non-democratic players in the radical Islamic world to the effect that first Sinai, then Lebanon, then Gaza, then the West Bank, capped off with Jerusalem — and, for the next generation, the final task of the end of Israel itself.
Once U.S. foreign policy is based on moral equivalence — that a Western democratic state is about the same as an undemocratic, radical authoritarian entity that embraces terrorism as a tool of state policy — then anything is possible, from calling for Israeli nuclear disarmament as part of an Iranian deal, to pretending that a Hamas ten-year truce is something other than a decade of chest-thumping before the final assault.
Given the fact that the vast majority of American Jews voted for Obama — despite clear indications that he would embrace radical changes in U.S. policy toward Israel — the politics of what is to come will be as fascinating as they will be tragic.
And given the Obama method of grandly professing the opposite of the reality that will soon follow (most ethical administration nominees in history lead to Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, etc.; no desire to interfere in the private sector means near nationalization of the banking, car, and soon health-care industries; commitment to public campaign financing equals first candidate to reject it in the general election; strong desire for fiscal sobriety translates into a $1.7 trillion annual deficit; Bush shredding the Constitution means adoption of Bush's wiretaps, email intercepts, Predator attacks, Patriot Act, Iraq plan, renditions, etc., and on and on), the tell-tale sign of the final U.S. break with Israel will be a dramatic Obama hope-and-change declaration that "our historic commitment to Israel will remain unchanged."
When we hear that, we know exactly what follows . . .
The Breakdown of the 'Special Relationship'
Middle East | Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:29:29 am PDT
No surprise from me over this news; during the campaign, Barack Obama’s ties to numerous radical Palestinians and leftists made it very clear that this was in the cards if he were elected: Jerusalem worried over breakdown of U.S.-Israel cooperation under Obama.
Obama’s foreign policy plan seems to be to reach out diplomatically to America’s worst enemies, and shun America’s best friends.
Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama’s entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel’s new government.
Senior White House officials told their Israeli counterparts that Obama will demand Netanyahu completely suspend construction in the settlements, the officials said. “Obama’s people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to,” the officials said.
In addition, when they do brief Israeli officials, they don’t consult with them or coordinate their statements in advance. This has caused several coordination “malfunctions” between the two states in the past two months, they said.
Also see:
Mere Rhetoric: Israeli Officials: Hey, It’s Almost As If Obama’s Trying To Detonate The US-Israeli Relationship
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33607_The_Breakdown_of_the_Special_Relationship
Israeli Officials: Hey, It's Almost As If Obama's Trying To Detonate The US-Israeli Relationship
My first inclination was to go with something like "you know what's really weird? That the guy who smeared 'pro-Likud approaches to Israel' during his campaign would be having problems with a Likud Prime Minister." But whatever. This was so inevitable that during the election I was already trying to guess the actual headlines and ledes that would be used to describe the implosion of the US-Israeli alliance.
Just one quote from a post from last September, then I'll give you the blockquote from this morning's inevitable news:
Of course the Obama White House will degrade US-Israeli ties. That's what his foreign policy team thinks needs to be done to promote American interests. It will be a White House that changes US priorities. It will be friendlier with Hamas and friendlier with Syria and friendlier with radical Muslim countries and friendlier with Hezbollah - all at the expense of Israel. Following the personal declarations of Obama, it will obviously be friendlier with Iran. And it will be an administration institutionally predisposed to blame Israel for Middle East instability across the board.
Of course that's how it will play out. That's what distinguishes liberal foreign policy from conservative foreign policy. Those are the policies that Obama is running on. Those are the policies that his advisers discuss at length in their academic work.
And so, almost as if Obama's statements as a candidate could have been used to predict his policies as President:
Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama's entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel's new government... This has caused several coordination "malfunctions" between the two states in the past two months, they said.
The last incident was the statement of Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... [Israel] heard it first from the media... The American policy shift toward Syria and opening direct talks with Damascus followed minimal coordination with Israel... [On] Dennis Ross' trip to the Gulf states a few days ago for talks on Iran... Ross did not pass through Israel on his way to the Gulf or back...
The new administration no longer seems to see Israel as a "special" or "extraordinary" state in the Middle East, with which the U.S. must maintain a different dialogue than with other states.
That's a little too generous. The new administration sees Israel as a particularly problematic state in the Middle East, responsible for the length and breadth of Middle East instability. This was their position before the election and it's been their positions since they got into office. So it's not exactly a shock that they're pressuring Israel while ineffectively sucking up to Syria.
The only question left is how this will end up being Israel's fault. If Israel attacks Iran, then it'll be that. The "Israeli self-defense will undermine Obama's diplomacy" meme has already been well-seeded by Gates and Biden, by Brzezinski, and - on the same day, almost as if there was a coordinated campaign - by the NYT and the Washington Post.
If Israel doesn't attack Iran, then it'll be either anti-Hamas efforts or Syria or Israel's nuclear deterrent. All three have already been fed to reporters as "sources of tension" by the Iran Lobby, part of their ongoing drip drip drip erosion of Israel's standing in DC.
It won't be settlements - too blase. The whole point is to give Netanyahu a demand that he can't possibly meet, so that his subsequent refusal can be used as a pretext for degrading ties.
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275580.html
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
National Security Update - More Reasons to Abhor Holder and Distrust Obama
Rep. Frank Wolf: AG Holder Stonewalling on the Uighurs [Andy McCarthy]
Congressman Frank Wolf (R., Va.) is a stalwart on national security. As reports swirl that the Obama administration is about to release the Uighur detainees (and perhaps others) into the United States, Representative Wolf took to the House floor at the end of last week, called for an urgently needed inquiry before any trained terrorists are released, and related that Attorney General Eric Holder is stonewalling him — as the administration plays fast and loose with the declassification of information. Here's some of what Wolf said:
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that President Obama’s decision regarding the release into the United States of a number of Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 could be imminent. The New York Times, ABC News and others news outlets have reported that the president will soon release these terrorists into the United States, and yet this Congress has yet to be briefed on this decision. This is unacceptable.
Let’s be clear: these terrorists would not be held in prisons but released into neighborhoods. They should not be released at all into the United States. Do Members realize who these people are? There have been published reports that the Uyghurs were members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a designated terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Releasing the Uyghurs is a matter of grave concern – a matter which prompted me to send a letter to the president last Friday ... detailing my profound reservations about this course of action and the threat it could pose to the American people. In the letter, I called on the President to declassify all information about the capture and detention of the Uyghur detainees, including a threat assessment for each detainee who would be released into the United States. The American people deserve the facts about these detainees and the risk they pose to our communities.
Following the precedent that the administration set in declassifying the Office of Legal Counsel interrogation memos, it has a moral obligation to the American people to declassify all relevant information related to the Uyghur detainees. This administration has already shown that it has no qualms about releasing selected classified documents. The White House just can’t pick and choose what classified information it deems worthy of releasing. It can’t have it both ways. It shouldn’t release information that conveniently makes their case without making information with profound national security implications available to the American people.
After learning that this decision was imminent, I requested briefings from a number of relevant agencies – but all have told me that the Department of Justice is preventing them from speaking to me directly on this issue. Is the Attorney General preventing agencies from answering Members’ questions? This is not the transparency and accountability the president promised, nor is it the open and constructive relationship he claims to want with Congress. This is, at best, poor judgment and, at worst, dangerous hypocrisy. This is not change. This is an administration intent on keeping Congress and the American people in the dark about critically-important national security issues....
The Attorney General is ‘slow rolling’ information as terrorist detainees are released into the United States. I am not alone in my concerns about the consequences of releasing these detainees into the U.S. According to a LA Times article published last week, “the Homeland Security Department has registered concerns about the plan” among other government agencies.
Information I have received indicates that the Uyghurs may be more dangerous than the public has been led to believe. Just last night, “60 Minutes” had a disturbing segment which touched on the radicalization of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The story indicated that in Saudi Arabia alone, of the 117 men returned from Guantanamo, 11 have shown up again on Saudi Arabia’s most wanted terrorist list.
Any intelligence assessment of the Uyghurs must take into account not only their previous training at terrorist camps but their potential subsequent exposure to the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11 who also took pleasure in beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. The American people have a right to know all the facts.
I fear expediency is clouding judgment – and this is inexcusable in a post-9/11 world. The stakes are simply too high for the administration to reasonably think that the American people should simply take their word for it that these men pose no security threat. Again, I call on the Obama Administration to declassify and release all information regarding the capture, detention, and threats posed by the Uyghurs or others they may consider releasing into the U.S. The American people have a right to know everything there is to know about these people who could potentially be released into neighborhoods. We can’t forget what happened on September 11th.
Congressman Frank Wolf (R., Va.) is a stalwart on national security. As reports swirl that the Obama administration is about to release the Uighur detainees (and perhaps others) into the United States, Representative Wolf took to the House floor at the end of last week, called for an urgently needed inquiry before any trained terrorists are released, and related that Attorney General Eric Holder is stonewalling him — as the administration plays fast and loose with the declassification of information. Here's some of what Wolf said:
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that President Obama’s decision regarding the release into the United States of a number of Uyghur detainees held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 could be imminent. The New York Times, ABC News and others news outlets have reported that the president will soon release these terrorists into the United States, and yet this Congress has yet to be briefed on this decision. This is unacceptable.
Let’s be clear: these terrorists would not be held in prisons but released into neighborhoods. They should not be released at all into the United States. Do Members realize who these people are? There have been published reports that the Uyghurs were members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, a designated terrorist organization affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Releasing the Uyghurs is a matter of grave concern – a matter which prompted me to send a letter to the president last Friday ... detailing my profound reservations about this course of action and the threat it could pose to the American people. In the letter, I called on the President to declassify all information about the capture and detention of the Uyghur detainees, including a threat assessment for each detainee who would be released into the United States. The American people deserve the facts about these detainees and the risk they pose to our communities.
Following the precedent that the administration set in declassifying the Office of Legal Counsel interrogation memos, it has a moral obligation to the American people to declassify all relevant information related to the Uyghur detainees. This administration has already shown that it has no qualms about releasing selected classified documents. The White House just can’t pick and choose what classified information it deems worthy of releasing. It can’t have it both ways. It shouldn’t release information that conveniently makes their case without making information with profound national security implications available to the American people.
After learning that this decision was imminent, I requested briefings from a number of relevant agencies – but all have told me that the Department of Justice is preventing them from speaking to me directly on this issue. Is the Attorney General preventing agencies from answering Members’ questions? This is not the transparency and accountability the president promised, nor is it the open and constructive relationship he claims to want with Congress. This is, at best, poor judgment and, at worst, dangerous hypocrisy. This is not change. This is an administration intent on keeping Congress and the American people in the dark about critically-important national security issues....
The Attorney General is ‘slow rolling’ information as terrorist detainees are released into the United States. I am not alone in my concerns about the consequences of releasing these detainees into the U.S. According to a LA Times article published last week, “the Homeland Security Department has registered concerns about the plan” among other government agencies.
Information I have received indicates that the Uyghurs may be more dangerous than the public has been led to believe. Just last night, “60 Minutes” had a disturbing segment which touched on the radicalization of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The story indicated that in Saudi Arabia alone, of the 117 men returned from Guantanamo, 11 have shown up again on Saudi Arabia’s most wanted terrorist list.
Any intelligence assessment of the Uyghurs must take into account not only their previous training at terrorist camps but their potential subsequent exposure to the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11 who also took pleasure in beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. The American people have a right to know all the facts.
I fear expediency is clouding judgment – and this is inexcusable in a post-9/11 world. The stakes are simply too high for the administration to reasonably think that the American people should simply take their word for it that these men pose no security threat. Again, I call on the Obama Administration to declassify and release all information regarding the capture, detention, and threats posed by the Uyghurs or others they may consider releasing into the U.S. The American people have a right to know everything there is to know about these people who could potentially be released into neighborhoods. We can’t forget what happened on September 11th.
Abscam Jack Murtha -- Always something sleazy going on w/ him
How on earth does this guy keep getting re-elected. What is wrong w/ his PA district ?!
Murtha's No-Bid Nephew [David Freddoso]
Carol Leonnig and Alice Crites write on the success of Jack Murtha's government contractor nephew in today's Washington Post.
The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner — Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.
Murtha's No-Bid Nephew [David Freddoso]
Carol Leonnig and Alice Crites write on the success of Jack Murtha's government contractor nephew in today's Washington Post.
The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner — Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Investigation Watch
John Edwards - baby mama gate w/ campaign funds
Bill Richardson - pay for play
Chris Dodd - should have his sorry AIG FNM FRE ass kicked out of Senate and prosecuted.
Hillary -- Investigated many times ... been there, done that .... FBI files, commodity trades.
Obama -- never did quite get either the Rezko or Blago treatment (not yet anyway).
Yes, those squeaky clean Democrats.
Just saying ....
Bill Richardson - pay for play
Chris Dodd - should have his sorry AIG FNM FRE ass kicked out of Senate and prosecuted.
Hillary -- Investigated many times ... been there, done that .... FBI files, commodity trades.
Obama -- never did quite get either the Rezko or Blago treatment (not yet anyway).
Yes, those squeaky clean Democrats.
Just saying ....
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Obama & Chrysler - cont'd - Abuse of Rule of Law and Creditor Rights
Many, many folks are weighing in far more articulately on this issue than I. The ugly truth is the Obama administration is bullying creditors who have legitimate senior claims to favor the unions that he is politically beholden to and ideologically aligned with -- the law be damned ! This is really bombshell stuff going on; and despite these detailed critiques, the mainstream media is simply not covering the story accruately (are you surprised ? I'm not). They tend to buy whatever kool aid Obama is selling.
Here is a sampling:
John Mauldin: (www.frontlinethoughts.com)
"And before I close, let me make a few comments about the Chrysler and GM issues. I tell my kids all the time that actions have consequences. If I hold senior secured debt of a company and the government tells me I have to take less than unsecured junior debtors, I am not going to be happy. I may have been dumb to make the loans in the first place, but I did it under a very specific contract and the rule of law.
If the Obama administration arbitrarily changes those rules to favor a political class (unions), then that is going to have a chilling effect on future lending to all corporations. As an aside, they are spending $12 billion to save 54,000 Chrysler jobs (at $22,000 per job). With 600,000 jobs a month being lost, why are these 54,000 jobs more special than those of the rest of the unemployed, who get a fraction of that amount in unemployment benefits?
Actions have consequences. The lenders who are forcing the Chrysler deal into bankruptcy court are not all "predatory hedge funds." They are mutual funds, pension funds, and other financial firms with small stakeholders as their investors.
Cerberus, the hedge fund that originally bought Chrysler, deserves to lose their money. They made a bad investment. But those who lent money deserve to be treated in accordance with the contracts they signed.
Demonizing investors and businessmen is hardly helpful. They are precisely the people we need to help get this economy moving. Governments don't create true job growth, businesspeople do, and mostly small businesses. I am not certain why small business owners, the job creation engine of the country, should see their taxes raised in order to protect bond holders of automobile companies or banks, or for union jobs to be preserved in companies that are clearly not competitive."
Jim Manzi: (http://corner.nationalreview.com)
President Obama and the Rule of Law [Jim Manzi]
President Obama scolded investors who refused to just accept what he said they should take for their Chrysler bonds, saying: “I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices.” According to the New York Times, one group, Perella Weinberg Partners, was “chastened” and “abruptly reversed course”.
How should we decide who makes what “sacrifice” when a corporation can not meet all of its financial obligations? In the U.S., we use bankruptcy court. Courts are effective for this purpose, in part because they are somewhat more insulated from immediate political pressures than are other agencies of the government. The reason that this matters is that investors require stability of rules in order to agree to put money at risk. This is Rule-of-Law 101. Given that a key political constituency that helped elect the President, unions, are a party to the Chrysler dispute, the potential for undermining the rule of law is obvious and severe.
Seeking Alpha reports an interview in which the eminent lawyer representing two of the hold-out investment funds, Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at White & Case, claims on-the-record that:
One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight…That was Perella Weinberg.
Here’s the list of major banks that apparently led the negotiations and agreed to go along with the desires of the President: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. Do you notice any obvious commonality? All are major recipients of TARP funding. Unlike, say, the hold-outs. Perella Weinberg, the first of the hold-outs to crack, is a boutique firm that has a large contract advising on the execution of various government bailouts.
Funny how you tend to win negotiations when you: (i) have operational control of the armed forces, and (ii) are negotiating with entities that are directly dependent on your using your monopoly on coercion to collect money from taxpayers and give it to them. You just tell the other side what they’re going to accept, and never mind any legal technicalities.
For more, see the excellent post by Megan McArdle in which she gets to the key question:
[W]hen did it become the government’s job to intervene in the bankruptcy process to move junior creditors who belong to favored political constituencies to the front of the line?
Zero Hedge: (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com)
The White House Threatened To Destroy Perella Weinberg's Reputation
Posted by Tyler Durden at 10:34 AM
Update - please see additional FOIA information at end of post.
In an interview of momentous importance, WJR's Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at top five law firm White & Case, in which the lawyer, who represents Chrysler hold-out hedge funds Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds, discusses on the record the amazing treatment by the White House of Perella Weinberg, which initially had been a transaction hold out but after threats by the White House (not my words) was forced to drop their objection and go with the administration. Says Lauria:
"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg."
In the clip below, fast forward to the two minute mark, where the Obama administration's negotiating tactics become very, very clear.
What is very odd is that Perella Weinberg could possibly have veered away from the administration's path in the first place: Zero Hedge readers know that P-W is the very firm advising the rapidly sinking FDIC "on transactions and strategies to stabilize the banking system, and also on the proper way to dispose failed institutions and how to handle delinquent securities assumed from banks, as well as the creation of the aggregator bank."
This leads to the conclusion that this was really the work of one Dan Arbess, who runs the recently acquired by P-W, Xerion Capital, but nonetheless does not explain the lack of strategic integration at this most critical of advisors to Sheila Bair, and by implication the U.S. administration. How it is possible that one's core advisor would go against its client, even if offset by a Chinese Wall, is likely the big story here, and speaks volumes about the chaos behind the scenes currently occurring with regard to Wall Street's sentiment for the ruling administration.
Incidentally, Zero Hedge is considering launching a FOIA to Ms. Sheila Bair to disclose the compensation structure for Perella Weinberg as it continues to advise the FDIC on the "proper" shuttering and liquidation of bank after bank. After all, we have already seen 31 bank failures for 2009, a number that will likely hit the 100s, and it is every taxpayer's right to understand the motivations behind Perella-Weinberg's recommendations to the FDIC and to the White House, especially ahead of next week, when the stress test results could potentially lead to the closure of some of the "too big to fail" systematically important financial institutions.
The full interview with Tom Lauria below is a must hear for everyone as it discloses not only the administration's strong arming tactics in black and white, but also discloses some other critical facts that the president on his regular TV appearances has failed to mention such as:
- First lien holders were willing to accept a 50% discount on their positions, however the 71% demanded by the administration was seen as too much.
- The cash going to Junior claims (creditors below the first liens) will be between $10 and $20 billion, a number which in practice should satisfy a par recovery for the 1st liens if the Absolute Priority Rule was actually withheld.
- Among the creditors are not just vulturous hedge funds but "pensioners, teachers, credit unions, college endowments, retirement plans, and personal retirement accounts."
In conclusion, Lauria summarizes the developing Chryslerf#%k best:
"The President is trying to abrogate contractual rights; if he will attack that contractual right, what right will he not attack?"
Update: Zero Hedge urges our readers to click on the following link and submit a FOIA to the FDIC with regard to the abovementioned Perella Weinberg compensation matter. While one request will likely be ignored, as will ten or a hundred, if there are thousands of FOIA petitions, the FDIC may see it as their civic duty to provide the requested information. While you are at it, you may also request information on the remaining balance under the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund.
SUNDAY, MAY 3, 2009
White House Claims Head Of White & Case Restructuring Group Lied
Posted by Tyler Durden at 7:41 PM
In a story becoming more bizarre by the minute, ABCNews has now picked up on the Perella Weinberg scent with some new twists. According to ABC, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton claims that the allegations by Tom Lauria, global head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency at White & Case are "completely untrue". As Zero Hedge already disclosed, Perella Weinberg was previously a client of White & Case, however, the firm run by former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley Joe Perella (where incidentally Steve Rattner was head of the Communications group until 1989), decided to fire the law firm after developments unknown, and in a radio show, Tom Lauria had this to say about the White House's alleged strongarming tactics:
"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg."
The White House has now stepped in and claims that this story is patently false:
"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."
What is more strange is that now Perella Weinberg itself is claiming Lauria's story misrepresented the facts:
"A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.” The spokesperson would not elaborate."
What is strangest is that Lauria would stake his career and reputation on the line by stating on the record the facts previously disclosed. As such his downside is much bigger than that of Mr. Burton or of the PW's spokesperson, as they effectively side with the Obama's side of the story.
Granted there could be even more to this story than meets the eye, thanks to some keen observations by our friends at Finem Respice.
Ultimately, this will be a very interesting development, because without factual backing, Tom Lauria's career is now on the line, as he has taken on not just the administration but his very own, former client. The bottom line here is that someone is lying, and if any further facts emerge to substantiate White & Case's position, it could prove to be a massive PR blow to both the White House and the FDIC's advisor, Perella Weinberg.
The full statement by Perella Weinberg is presented below:
Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.
We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’ money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.
While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.”
Here is a sampling:
John Mauldin: (www.frontlinethoughts.com)
"And before I close, let me make a few comments about the Chrysler and GM issues. I tell my kids all the time that actions have consequences. If I hold senior secured debt of a company and the government tells me I have to take less than unsecured junior debtors, I am not going to be happy. I may have been dumb to make the loans in the first place, but I did it under a very specific contract and the rule of law.
If the Obama administration arbitrarily changes those rules to favor a political class (unions), then that is going to have a chilling effect on future lending to all corporations. As an aside, they are spending $12 billion to save 54,000 Chrysler jobs (at $22,000 per job). With 600,000 jobs a month being lost, why are these 54,000 jobs more special than those of the rest of the unemployed, who get a fraction of that amount in unemployment benefits?
Actions have consequences. The lenders who are forcing the Chrysler deal into bankruptcy court are not all "predatory hedge funds." They are mutual funds, pension funds, and other financial firms with small stakeholders as their investors.
Cerberus, the hedge fund that originally bought Chrysler, deserves to lose their money. They made a bad investment. But those who lent money deserve to be treated in accordance with the contracts they signed.
Demonizing investors and businessmen is hardly helpful. They are precisely the people we need to help get this economy moving. Governments don't create true job growth, businesspeople do, and mostly small businesses. I am not certain why small business owners, the job creation engine of the country, should see their taxes raised in order to protect bond holders of automobile companies or banks, or for union jobs to be preserved in companies that are clearly not competitive."
Jim Manzi: (http://corner.nationalreview.com)
President Obama and the Rule of Law [Jim Manzi]
President Obama scolded investors who refused to just accept what he said they should take for their Chrysler bonds, saying: “I don’t stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices.” According to the New York Times, one group, Perella Weinberg Partners, was “chastened” and “abruptly reversed course”.
How should we decide who makes what “sacrifice” when a corporation can not meet all of its financial obligations? In the U.S., we use bankruptcy court. Courts are effective for this purpose, in part because they are somewhat more insulated from immediate political pressures than are other agencies of the government. The reason that this matters is that investors require stability of rules in order to agree to put money at risk. This is Rule-of-Law 101. Given that a key political constituency that helped elect the President, unions, are a party to the Chrysler dispute, the potential for undermining the rule of law is obvious and severe.
Seeking Alpha reports an interview in which the eminent lawyer representing two of the hold-out investment funds, Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at White & Case, claims on-the-record that:
One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight…That was Perella Weinberg.
Here’s the list of major banks that apparently led the negotiations and agreed to go along with the desires of the President: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley. Do you notice any obvious commonality? All are major recipients of TARP funding. Unlike, say, the hold-outs. Perella Weinberg, the first of the hold-outs to crack, is a boutique firm that has a large contract advising on the execution of various government bailouts.
Funny how you tend to win negotiations when you: (i) have operational control of the armed forces, and (ii) are negotiating with entities that are directly dependent on your using your monopoly on coercion to collect money from taxpayers and give it to them. You just tell the other side what they’re going to accept, and never mind any legal technicalities.
For more, see the excellent post by Megan McArdle in which she gets to the key question:
[W]hen did it become the government’s job to intervene in the bankruptcy process to move junior creditors who belong to favored political constituencies to the front of the line?
Zero Hedge: (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com)
The White House Threatened To Destroy Perella Weinberg's Reputation
Posted by Tyler Durden at 10:34 AM
Update - please see additional FOIA information at end of post.
In an interview of momentous importance, WJR's Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at top five law firm White & Case, in which the lawyer, who represents Chrysler hold-out hedge funds Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds, discusses on the record the amazing treatment by the White House of Perella Weinberg, which initially had been a transaction hold out but after threats by the White House (not my words) was forced to drop their objection and go with the administration. Says Lauria:
"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg."
In the clip below, fast forward to the two minute mark, where the Obama administration's negotiating tactics become very, very clear.
What is very odd is that Perella Weinberg could possibly have veered away from the administration's path in the first place: Zero Hedge readers know that P-W is the very firm advising the rapidly sinking FDIC "on transactions and strategies to stabilize the banking system, and also on the proper way to dispose failed institutions and how to handle delinquent securities assumed from banks, as well as the creation of the aggregator bank."
This leads to the conclusion that this was really the work of one Dan Arbess, who runs the recently acquired by P-W, Xerion Capital, but nonetheless does not explain the lack of strategic integration at this most critical of advisors to Sheila Bair, and by implication the U.S. administration. How it is possible that one's core advisor would go against its client, even if offset by a Chinese Wall, is likely the big story here, and speaks volumes about the chaos behind the scenes currently occurring with regard to Wall Street's sentiment for the ruling administration.
Incidentally, Zero Hedge is considering launching a FOIA to Ms. Sheila Bair to disclose the compensation structure for Perella Weinberg as it continues to advise the FDIC on the "proper" shuttering and liquidation of bank after bank. After all, we have already seen 31 bank failures for 2009, a number that will likely hit the 100s, and it is every taxpayer's right to understand the motivations behind Perella-Weinberg's recommendations to the FDIC and to the White House, especially ahead of next week, when the stress test results could potentially lead to the closure of some of the "too big to fail" systematically important financial institutions.
The full interview with Tom Lauria below is a must hear for everyone as it discloses not only the administration's strong arming tactics in black and white, but also discloses some other critical facts that the president on his regular TV appearances has failed to mention such as:
- First lien holders were willing to accept a 50% discount on their positions, however the 71% demanded by the administration was seen as too much.
- The cash going to Junior claims (creditors below the first liens) will be between $10 and $20 billion, a number which in practice should satisfy a par recovery for the 1st liens if the Absolute Priority Rule was actually withheld.
- Among the creditors are not just vulturous hedge funds but "pensioners, teachers, credit unions, college endowments, retirement plans, and personal retirement accounts."
In conclusion, Lauria summarizes the developing Chryslerf#%k best:
"The President is trying to abrogate contractual rights; if he will attack that contractual right, what right will he not attack?"
Update: Zero Hedge urges our readers to click on the following link and submit a FOIA to the FDIC with regard to the abovementioned Perella Weinberg compensation matter. While one request will likely be ignored, as will ten or a hundred, if there are thousands of FOIA petitions, the FDIC may see it as their civic duty to provide the requested information. While you are at it, you may also request information on the remaining balance under the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund.
SUNDAY, MAY 3, 2009
White House Claims Head Of White & Case Restructuring Group Lied
Posted by Tyler Durden at 7:41 PM
In a story becoming more bizarre by the minute, ABCNews has now picked up on the Perella Weinberg scent with some new twists. According to ABC, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton claims that the allegations by Tom Lauria, global head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency at White & Case are "completely untrue". As Zero Hedge already disclosed, Perella Weinberg was previously a client of White & Case, however, the firm run by former head of M&A at Morgan Stanley Joe Perella (where incidentally Steve Rattner was head of the Communications group until 1989), decided to fire the law firm after developments unknown, and in a radio show, Tom Lauria had this to say about the White House's alleged strongarming tactics:
"One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight...That was Perella Weinberg."
The White House has now stepped in and claims that this story is patently false:
"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."
What is more strange is that now Perella Weinberg itself is claiming Lauria's story misrepresented the facts:
"A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.” The spokesperson would not elaborate."
What is strangest is that Lauria would stake his career and reputation on the line by stating on the record the facts previously disclosed. As such his downside is much bigger than that of Mr. Burton or of the PW's spokesperson, as they effectively side with the Obama's side of the story.
Granted there could be even more to this story than meets the eye, thanks to some keen observations by our friends at Finem Respice.
Ultimately, this will be a very interesting development, because without factual backing, Tom Lauria's career is now on the line, as he has taken on not just the administration but his very own, former client. The bottom line here is that someone is lying, and if any further facts emerge to substantiate White & Case's position, it could prove to be a massive PR blow to both the White House and the FDIC's advisor, Perella Weinberg.
The full statement by Perella Weinberg is presented below:
Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.
We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’ money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.
While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
