and Voila !
1. Let's reappoint Bernanke; and
2. Let's let Holder loose on a CIA witch hunt
yeah; that's the ticket !
The oldest political game in the book ...
Krauthammer on Bernanke:
On the timing of the appointment:
Well, it is a hell of a coincidence, isn't it? The administration is in a deep health-care debate, a national debate, and every hour that passes, support for [Obama's] plans are diminishing and his own popularity is tanking.
All of a sudden, this issue explodes on a Monday.
Friday, the administration — at 5 o’clock, after hours — releases a $2 trillion error in estimates of deficits, and on a bright Monday, you get this re-litigation of the Bush administration all of a sudden exploding upon us.
Look, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not a child. It's not a coincidence.
And secondly, you get the president pretending he is against all this and that it is Holder, the attorney general, whose initiative all of this is about, as if Holder isn't an employee and under the direction of the administration.
So, the president is the good cop who is magnanimous, who really wants to look ahead as the messianic visionary he is — and Holder is the bad guy.
Obama knows exactly what is happening and this serves his purposes wonderfully.
On Eric Holder appointing a prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses:
Well, we just heard the president say that he didn't want something like this because it would hamper our national security operations in the future — and this surely will. Who would want to be an interrogator after what has been happening now?
Look, the cases that are going to be looked at are cases that were looked at by career prosecutors — not political appointees — in the eastern district of Virginia where the CIA is and where these cases are handled.
And they looked at about 20 of these cases of people who allegedly went beyond the four corners of the law, and recommended in all cases — except one — no prosecution. The one case was brought to trial. The person was a CIA contractor who attacked a detainee with a metal flashlight, and was found guilty. His case has just been reviewed, appeals court upheld. For all the others, [the prosecutors] recommended against [prosecution].
So what happens? You have a new administration, a new wind in the White House, a president who ran against George Bush and who now decides it's a good time to run against him again. And these interrogators are going to be relooked at by a special prosecutor, which means unlimited license.
And if you think it is going to stop there, it's not. The great white whale here is the lawyers and the White House. These interrogators are going to say "I was just obeying orders." You are going to go to the White House and end up where they want to end up, with Cheney, who is the great white whale of this investigation.
The Fight over CIA Interrogations [Peter Brookes]
Once we get beyond claims about the alleged mishandling of interrogations by CIA officers, there are a couple of things that people should keep in mind:
1. The interrogation program provided critical information that led to the disruption of terror attacks against U.S. interests in the difficult, early days after 9/11.
2. It isn’t by chance that there hasn’t been another terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
3. These actions were taken by well-intentioned individuals who were likely doing what they thought would help keep their fellow Americans safe.
4. The Justice Department investigation will likely have a chilling effect on CIA officers in the field, who will wonder if they should be getting the terrorist or getting lawyers.5. Let’s not forget: We’re still at war, and our intelligence professionals represent our first line of defense.— Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, is a former CIA officer.
Shocked, Shocked by Eric [Andy McCarthy]
Lots of indignation out there about Attorney General Holder's appointment of a prosecutor to go after the CIA. Disgruntled folks include many who voted to confirm him despite the politicized Rich pardon and the politicized FALN pardons and the politicized recommendation against an independent counsel for Gore's indefensible campaign-finance violation, etc. Lots of quiet, meanwhile, from the Republican cheering section that helped steer the attorney-general to confirmation.
Put me in mind of something I wrote weeks before that happened:
Here’s Holder, as a top Obama adviser, in a speech delivered only six months ago [i.e., June 2008], in the comfy “progressive” confines of the American Constitution Society’s annual convention:
Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.
Holder inveighed that the tactics employed by the Bush administration — the very ones [Holder's Republican supporters] have championed in explaining why we haven’t suffered another 9/11 — were “needlessly abusive and unlawful practices.” The measures these former prosecutors had rallied behind were, according to their friend Eric, a demonstration that we had “lost our way with regard to [our] commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law.”As far as Holder was concerned, Bush’s initiatives had not only “diminished our standing in the world community” but “made us less, rather than more, safe.” An Obama administration, he promised, would dramatically change all that. And Holder ominously proclaimed to the roar of the anti-Bush crowd, “We owe the American people a reckoning.”
[Michael] Ratner is the head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist, rabidly anti-American organization. When it is not representing al Qaeda and suing the government in U.S. courts, CCR is busy overseas, trying to persuade Germany, Spain, or some willing international tribunal to prosecute key Bush administration officials (including some in the Justice Department) for purported war crimes.
Ratner is thrilled with Obama’s Attorney General selection. And why not? He provides the rationale on his blog (which is called “Just Left — News and Analysis from the frontlines of the progressive movement,” with new entries posted just under a cute mock-up of hooded “torture” victims trooping past the Capitol). When Ratner looks at Holder, he doesn’t see an ideal “Eric” newly dedicated to protecting this nation from jihadists; he sees the Holder we’ve actually experienced. When he listens to Holder, he hears not what he wants to hear, but the things Holder actually says about the Bush administration’s response to terrorism. From this, he deduces that Holder’s elevation means “the day of reckoning is fast upon us.” And keep reading his blog for the diatribe that follows about Bush torture, Bush spying, and Bush illegal detentions. It sounds positively Holderesque.
Not to worry, though. I’m sure Eric will be a superb AG. At least we better hope he’ll be. With the wind of influential Republican support at his back, his confirmation seems assured.... Holder will push through Obama’s shuttering of Guantánamo Bay, which Holder calls “an international embarrassment.” He’ll determine which terrorist detainees there “need to be released,” as he put it in his June speech (I suppose that will spare Obama the headache of pardoning them later). And, pressured by hard lefties like the ones he enthralled at the American Constitution Society, Holder’s Justice Department will press ahead with its “war crimes” and “domestic spying” investigations. Even if it’s just a cynical show and no one is ever actually prosecuted, our intelligence agents will get the unmistakable message: Doing your job, protecting the country, means you better be ready to hire a good Washington lawyer.Of course, we’ll complain. And after we do, once they’ve caught their breath from laughing, Obama acolytes will deadpan: “What are you complaining about? Eric is only doing exactly what he said he’d do back when you guys were calling him ‘the right man at the right time to protect our citizens in the crucial years ahead.’” And they’ll be right.
What About the Next Time? [Victoria Toensing]
“All volunteers step forward. We have a person in custody who is high-ranking al-Qaeda. He taunts that an attack on United States soil is imminent but laughs mockingly when we ask for specifics. We need interrogators.” Such was the threat in the summer of 2002 when the CIA asked the Justice Department for guidance on what its personnel could do to get such information from captured al-Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubdayah.
Since then, the lawyers who stepped forward to provide carefully structured counsel have been criminally investigated and told that, even if they are not prosecuted, their conduct will be turned over to their state bars. The interrogators who stepped forward were promised in early spring by President Obama that, even if they erred in judgment while protecting our country, the president would rather “move forward.” However, in late summer, they are under criminal scrutiny.
Even though an earlier investigation by career prosecutors reviewed the same conduct and refused prosecution of all but one contract employee who was brought to trial in 2007. Even though congressional leaders had knowledge of the interrogation techniques and made no attempt to stop them. Even though the conduct is more than six years old. Even though the CIA has taken administrative action against some of the personnel involved in the interrogations. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation takes a horrendous mental toll. Even though the morale of the CIA will plunge to the depths it did in the wake of the Church Committee attacks. Even though the release of the names of those being scrutinized will make them terrorist targets for the rest of their lives. Even if they are cleared.
The next time our government employees are asked to step forward to get information of a possible, even probable, imminent attack, no one will. Even though . . .
— Ms. Toensing is a former chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a former deputy assistant attorney general, criminal division. She is in private practice in Washington, D.C.
'New Budget Estimates Show Unsustainable Spending and Debt' [NRO Staff]
Some highlights from Brian Riedl's Heritage Foundation analysis:
— This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President Bush.
— The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
— The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
— One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $774 billion.
— The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits between 2009 and 2019—nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing.
— None of these estimates include the cost of health reform.
— The White House underestimates future budget deficits by trillions of dollars by (1) assuming that discretionary spending will be frozen to inflation for the next decade, (2) assuming that cap-and-trade revenues will be available to finance a Make Work Pay credit (the House-passed bill allocates those revenues elsewhere), (3) assuming health care reform will be deficit-neutral, and (4) assuming certain tax increases that are unlikely to be enacted.
Is the Congressional Research Service Making 'False Claims' Too? [Mark Krikorian]
Rep. Lamar Smith quotes from a new report by the Congressional Research Service to debunk President Obama's "willful misrepresentations," "outright distortions," and "outrageous myths" on immigration and health care.*
Given the political importance of the illegal-alien question, it's worth quoting Smith's press release at length, especially since CRS reports aren't usually released to the public:
BACKGROUND: IMMIGRATION LOOPHOLES IN HR 3200
Open access to Insurance Exchange: HR 3200 contains no provisions preventing illegal immigrants from participating in the Health Insurance Exchange that is to be created, including the government-run "public plan" that will be available through the federally-run and federally-subsidized Exchange.
According to CRS: "Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.
"No verification mechanism: Democrats point to language in the House bill that says illegal immigrants cannot get benefits. While that may be technically accurate, it is far from the truth.
The fact is that the statement is meaningless because the bill contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not receive benefits. Democrats defeated amendments in two congressional committees to close this loophole, including amendments that would use the very same verification mechanism that already exist in statute for other federal programs. Why not include the same verification mechanisms in this bill as already exist for other federal benefits programs? Without the requirement that there be a verification mechanism or a specific verification mechanism provided in statute, the Commissioner could determine that the eligibility requirements could be met either without verification or with as little as a signed attestation.
According to CRS: "Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the "individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits."
Family eligibility for affordability credits: Section 242(a)(2) of the bill provides that "[e]xcept as the Commissioner may otherwise provide, members of the same family who are affordable credit eligible individuals shall be treated as a single affordable credit individual eligible for the applicable credit for such a family under this subtitle." This suggests that if one member of a family is legally eligible, every family member will be considered eligible. This is significant in terms of numbers — the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that there are almost two million families in the United States where illegal immigrant parents have U.S.-born children. That does not include other "mixed status families" - one legal parent, one illegal parent and illegal child, etc.
According to CRS: "There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit-eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families."
[me again] I'm waiting for the Democrats to say that we should trust Obama's "Health Choices Commissioner" (Tom Daschle, anyone?) to make the right choices regarding "mixed status families" and other questions regarding eligibility for illegal aliens.
* At the risk of ruining the irony, I need to point out that those are the president's descriptions of efforts to highlight the flaws in the bill, and not Representative Smith's words
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Read Fouad Ajami ....
America August 2009 by Fouad Ajami:
In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare.
Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.
The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.
In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.
Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.
Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.
In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare.
Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.
The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.
In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.
Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.
Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
