No Civilian Trial — In NYC or ANYWHERE [Andy McCarthy]
Sorry for the radio silience, folks — I'm buried at the moment. But I've been asked by a few people for a comment on the Obama adminstration's reversal of its decision to try the 9/11 plotters in civilian court in Manhattan.
Here's my statement:
Reality has yet again dragged the Obama administration, kicking and screaming, toward a more sensible policy. Like the decision to close Gitmo, which was announced without regard for the imperative of detaining committed jihadists, the decision to hold civilian trials for alien enemy combatants was made without regard for security, costs, the prospect of surrendering national defense information to the enemy during wartime, or the betrayal of humanitarian law caused by rewarding the worst war criminals with gold-plated due process. Not holding the civilian trial in New York City is a good thing. Not holding a civilian trial at all would be a far better thing. Since we have not made provisions for a national-secuirty court to deal with the novel challenge of international terrorism, wartime alien enemy combatants should be tried by military commission in the safety of Guantanamo Bay — which is what it was built for, at great expense to the American taxpayer.
Andrew McCarthy from Dec 2009:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8004931906890597215
Michael Hayden (Director of CIA 2006-2009 under Bush) today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Obama backing down on KSM trial in NYC (under pressure)
Obama and Holder's boneheaded decision to have a civilian trial for KSM (vs. a military one) and have it in Manhattan, is coming apart at the seams, as even supporters such as Sen. Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg have finally (also under unrelenting pressure) come out against it.
Some commentary:
Krauthammer:
The president is not going to admit error. He never does. He does in the abstract, but he will never admit he actually makes a human error on anything. So he won't on this.
But he knows what's going to happen, which is the Congress will rebel on this and it will pull the funding, [and] get him off the hook. And the issue [will] end up behind him even though he doesn't do it himself.
But what is remarkable is he gives the State of the Union address a month after an attack that could have been utterly catastrophic, and after a year in which we have had three attacks — the Arkansas murder, the Fort Hood massacre, and then, of course, the attack on the airliner — and he has almost practically nothing in his State of the Union on terrorism.
In fact, because his two decisions — the KSM trial in Manhattan and the granting of Miranda rights to the guy who tried to blow up the airplane — are indefensible.
The Backdown Continues [Rich Lowry]
Guantanamo military trial an option for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Fox News
By Major Garrett
In the aftermath of the White House's decision to seek alternative sites for trials of the 9/11 plotters, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a senior administration official said Friday it is possible the suspects could be tried under military charges at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
The official stressed this is not the preferred option, but said using military commissions at Guantanamo for these high-visibility trials is "part of the range of options" the adminstration is "looking at in light of the fact some in Congress are planning to prevent the trials from occurring in New York City."
There is no timeline for deciding where to hold the trials of the five suspects charged in the 2001 attacks. Senior White House and Justice Department officials are reviewing a "wide panoply" of options and Guantanamo is merely "one of many," the official said....
Washington Post:
'Less and Less Likely'
From WaPo:
The Obama administration appears to have abandoned plans to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and four co-conspirators on trial in lower Manhattan, according to administration sources.
"It seems less and less likely" that the trial will take place in New York, according to a senior administration official.
No Support in the Senate for Obama's Handling of Abdulmutallab [Daniel Foster]
The Weekly Standard surveyed the Senate on two simple questions: "Does Senator XX believe that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been read his Miranda rights? And does Senator XX believe that Abdulmutallab should be tried in civilian courts?"
They got a 55 percent response rate (and of those that didn't respond, only two were Republican), and among respondents only one senator gave unequivocal support to the administration's handling of Abdulmutallab: Sen. Roland Burris (D., Ill.).
Democrat Evan Bayh (Ind.) and independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.) joined 38 Republicans in answering "No." The other ten Democrats who responded to the survey gave ambiguous answers. Full results here.
U.S. and Abdulmutallab 'in Talks' [Marc Thiessen]
The Washington Post reports today that “authorities are inching toward an agreement that would secure cooperation from the suspect in the failed Detroit airliner attack.” Inching is the operative word here. It’s been over a month now that this terrorist has been exercising his “right to remain silent.” Each day that goes by when he does not talk is an outrage.
The Post adds that “public defenders for the Nigerian student are engaged in negotiations that could result in an agreement to share more information and eventually a guilty plea, the sources said. Negotiations could still collapse before the next scheduled court date, in April, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.”
April? Negotiations “could still collapse”? Are they kidding?
What Obama officials don’t seem to understand is that the intelligence Abdulmutallab has isperishable. He was supposed to be vaporized with the plane when it exploded. As soon as al-Qaeda learned he had survived, they began shutting down e-mail accounts, bank accounts, moving and hiding operatives, and closing the intelligence trails he could lead us down. Every second, every minute, every day he did not talk resulted in lost counterterrorism opportunities. If he starts talking three months from now, that’s not good enough.
The Post also reports that Abdulmutallab “clammed up even before he was informed of his right to remain silent” and suggests this “complicates” the GOP narrative that reading him his rights cost us valuable intelligence. To the contrary, it complicates the narrative from the White House that they got all the valuable intelligence they needed from him before reading him his rights. And it makes the case stronger that coercive interrogations might have been necessary to get the information we needed from him.
The more we learn about this incident, the more outrageous the story becomes.
— Marc Thiessen’s new book is Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack
Obama Disses the Supreme Court in SOTU
Charles Krauthammer comments On President Obama vs. Supremes at the State of the Union:
The president attacked the Supreme Court at the State of the Union, which I believe is unprecedented. I thought [it] was a breach of etiquette.
The court actually is at that event not for pleasure and not even as a duty — it's not required — but as a sign of respect for the other branches, for the presidency and the Congress. And to subject it to a direct attack in a setting in which it can't respond, I thought, was a breach of etiquette which shouldn't have happened.
On the substance, when the president said that it [the Court] was breaking a 100-year precedent, it was wrong. As even Linda Greenhouse, the liberal Supreme Court reporter of the New York Times pointed out, the ruling 100 years ago was the prohibition of a direct sending of money from corporations into the treasuries of candidates. That remains illegal. It was not touched in this decision. So there was no overturning of that precedent. What it dealt with is a question of corporations funding speech attacking a candidate.
And the court in its decision had said that it was not dealing with that issue [of foreign funding]. Which means: If it wasn't, [then] the existing statute, which prohibits it [foreign funding], stands. So I think he was wrong on the substance as well as the precedent here.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
O's Magic Touch: Corzine; Coakley; and now U of Kentucky Basketball
The kiss of death (Fredo, I know it was you who betrayed me...)
You've Got the Magic Touch [Shannen Coffin]
Obama's losing streak continues. And now he's taking down college basketball teams with him. Yesterday, Obama phoned John Calipari, coach of the then-undefeated, top-ranked men's basketball program at Kentucky. He counseled Kentucky's players — only recently elevated to college basketball's number-one spot — not to lose their focus. It seems he had the same effect on them that he had on Martha Coakley and Jon Corzine. Kentucky went out last night and lost to unheralded and unranked South Carolina (who came into the game at 11–8). At this point, the New Orleans Saints should refuse his endorsement.
You've Got the Magic Touch [Shannen Coffin]
Obama's losing streak continues. And now he's taking down college basketball teams with him. Yesterday, Obama phoned John Calipari, coach of the then-undefeated, top-ranked men's basketball program at Kentucky. He counseled Kentucky's players — only recently elevated to college basketball's number-one spot — not to lose their focus. It seems he had the same effect on them that he had on Martha Coakley and Jon Corzine. Kentucky went out last night and lost to unheralded and unranked South Carolina (who came into the game at 11–8). At this point, the New Orleans Saints should refuse his endorsement.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
No Way To Run A War; No Way To Run A Country
This week in ObamaNation:
Rich Lowry: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/crotch_bomber_boo_boo_pWOw0J3uFvxE95sVsylRaP
NY Post Editorial:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/no_way_to_fight_war_litet9DiuiW8UWdok55KdJ
Two key senators yesterday handed President Obama a chance to prove he's serious about prosecuting the War on Terror as a war, not a crime. But don't expect him to take up the offer.
In a scathing letter, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) blast Obama & Co. for their handling of Christmas Day bomber wannabe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. They urge officials to declare him an "enemy belligerent" and move him to a military facility.
It's now clear that the Justice Department goofed royally in offering Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, rights meant for US criminal suspects, not foreign terrorists.
That included the right to remain silent -- and Abdulmutallab soon after went mute, denying authorities a chance to learn more about his fellow butchers.
How was such a foolish decision made?
The answer to that came out at a Senate hearing last week: Justice officials simply acted unilaterally -- without consulting National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano or national counterterrorism chief Michael Leiter.
Heck, they already knew the view of their boss in the White House: Terrorists are no more than common criminals; the US justice system can handle them fine.
It's no way to fight a war, of course.
But Obama himself made his view clear during his 2008 campaign, arguing that the criminal prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorists worked out well. (And never mind 9/11.)
The tale of the attack on Flight 253, which nearly killed the 290 people aboard, is a string of mishaps: Leads went ignored. Databases failed to flag a variant spelling of the bomber's name. Passengers were left to subdue him.
Officials then compounded their errors, offering him Miranda rights and advising him to clam up, which he did.
It's mind-boggling. And all without consulting other key Obama officials.
Obama can partly reverse this last error, the senators say, by handing Abdulmutallab to the military for more questioning.
If the president ignores them, it'll be yet one more bungle. But let's be frank: Many of these mistakes might've been avoided altogether, if Team Obama were truly serious about fighting
terror.
Michael Tanner: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/it_still_won_work_T7wDnHMHV4z8qfj4YeZn7M
Rich Lowry: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/crotch_bomber_boo_boo_pWOw0J3uFvxE95sVsylRaP
NY Post Editorial:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/no_way_to_fight_war_litet9DiuiW8UWdok55KdJ
Two key senators yesterday handed President Obama a chance to prove he's serious about prosecuting the War on Terror as a war, not a crime. But don't expect him to take up the offer.
In a scathing letter, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) blast Obama & Co. for their handling of Christmas Day bomber wannabe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. They urge officials to declare him an "enemy belligerent" and move him to a military facility.
It's now clear that the Justice Department goofed royally in offering Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, rights meant for US criminal suspects, not foreign terrorists.
That included the right to remain silent -- and Abdulmutallab soon after went mute, denying authorities a chance to learn more about his fellow butchers.
How was such a foolish decision made?
The answer to that came out at a Senate hearing last week: Justice officials simply acted unilaterally -- without consulting National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano or national counterterrorism chief Michael Leiter.
Heck, they already knew the view of their boss in the White House: Terrorists are no more than common criminals; the US justice system can handle them fine.
It's no way to fight a war, of course.
But Obama himself made his view clear during his 2008 campaign, arguing that the criminal prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorists worked out well. (And never mind 9/11.)
The tale of the attack on Flight 253, which nearly killed the 290 people aboard, is a string of mishaps: Leads went ignored. Databases failed to flag a variant spelling of the bomber's name. Passengers were left to subdue him.
Officials then compounded their errors, offering him Miranda rights and advising him to clam up, which he did.
It's mind-boggling. And all without consulting other key Obama officials.
Obama can partly reverse this last error, the senators say, by handing Abdulmutallab to the military for more questioning.
If the president ignores them, it'll be yet one more bungle. But let's be frank: Many of these mistakes might've been avoided altogether, if Team Obama were truly serious about fighting
terror.
Michael Tanner: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/it_still_won_work_T7wDnHMHV4z8qfj4YeZn7M
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
More National Insecurity ... Undie Bomber interrogated for only 50 minutes
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Abdulmutallab-interrogated-for-less-than-an-hour-White-House-defends-handling-of-terrorist-case-82564657.html
Abdulmutallab interrogated for less than an hour; White House defends handling of terrorist case
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent01/24/10 9:17 PM EST
The White House is not disputing a report that FBI agents questioned accused Northwest Airlines bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before deciding to grant him the right to remain silent and provide him with a taxpayer-supplied lawyer -- a decision that led Abdulmutallab to stop talking and provide no more information.
The news came in an Associated Press reconstruction of Abdulmutallab's first hours in custody. The AP reported that Abdulmutallab "repeatedly made incriminating statements" to agents of the Customs and Border Protection who originally took him into custody. Then Abdulmutallab made more statements to doctors who were treating him for burns and other injuries. Only later did FBI agents interview him -- a session that lasted, according to the Associated Press, for "about 50 minutes." Before beginning the questioning, the AP continues, "the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warnings informing him of his right to remain silent" -- apparently relying on an exception to Miranda that allows questioning about imminent threats.
After that, Abdulmutallab went into surgery. It was four hours before he was available for more questioning. By that time, the Justice Department in Washington had intervened. A new set of agents read Abdulmutallab the Miranda warning, telling him he had the right to remain silent -- and thereafter, Abdulmutallab remained silent.
On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs whether President Obama was informed of the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights before or after it had been done. Gibbs avoided the question, saying, "That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators." Gibbs insisted that "Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation."
Wallace pressed. "But we now find out he was interrogated for 50 minutes," he said to Gibbs. "When they came back, he was read his Miranda rights and he clammed up."
"No," Gibbs answered. "Again, he was interrogated. Valuable intelligence was gotten based on those interrogations. And I think the Department of Justice and the -- made the right decision, as did those FBI agents."
"Let me just press one last question," Wallace said. "You really don't think that if you'd interrogated him longer that you might have gotten more information, since we now know that Al Qaeda in Yemen -- "
"Well, FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him," Gibbs said.
"All they could?" Wallace asked.
"Yeah," Gibbs said.
Bottom line: Gibbs did not dispute that the FBI interviewed Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes. But Gibbs maintained that agents learned everything that was possible to learn from the accused terrorist, who was trained by, and presumably knew about, the activities of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If the agents learned everything that was possible to learn from Abdulmutallab in just 50 minutes, it was likely a world record of interrogation.
A few days ago, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee asked questions that led to the admission that key national security officials were not consulted in the decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian criminal, rather than an enemy combatant, which would have allowed officials to interrogate him extensively without any assertion that Abdulmutallab had the right to remain silent.
In light of these new revelations, it is likely that the GOP will step up its questions for Attorney General Eric Holder -- and for the president himself -- about why that decisions was made.
Abdulmutallab interrogated for less than an hour; White House defends handling of terrorist case
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent01/24/10 9:17 PM EST
The White House is not disputing a report that FBI agents questioned accused Northwest Airlines bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before deciding to grant him the right to remain silent and provide him with a taxpayer-supplied lawyer -- a decision that led Abdulmutallab to stop talking and provide no more information.
The news came in an Associated Press reconstruction of Abdulmutallab's first hours in custody. The AP reported that Abdulmutallab "repeatedly made incriminating statements" to agents of the Customs and Border Protection who originally took him into custody. Then Abdulmutallab made more statements to doctors who were treating him for burns and other injuries. Only later did FBI agents interview him -- a session that lasted, according to the Associated Press, for "about 50 minutes." Before beginning the questioning, the AP continues, "the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warnings informing him of his right to remain silent" -- apparently relying on an exception to Miranda that allows questioning about imminent threats.
After that, Abdulmutallab went into surgery. It was four hours before he was available for more questioning. By that time, the Justice Department in Washington had intervened. A new set of agents read Abdulmutallab the Miranda warning, telling him he had the right to remain silent -- and thereafter, Abdulmutallab remained silent.
On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs whether President Obama was informed of the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights before or after it had been done. Gibbs avoided the question, saying, "That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI, with experienced FBI interrogators." Gibbs insisted that "Abdulmutallab was interrogated and valuable intelligence was gotten as a result of that interrogation."
Wallace pressed. "But we now find out he was interrogated for 50 minutes," he said to Gibbs. "When they came back, he was read his Miranda rights and he clammed up."
"No," Gibbs answered. "Again, he was interrogated. Valuable intelligence was gotten based on those interrogations. And I think the Department of Justice and the -- made the right decision, as did those FBI agents."
"Let me just press one last question," Wallace said. "You really don't think that if you'd interrogated him longer that you might have gotten more information, since we now know that Al Qaeda in Yemen -- "
"Well, FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him," Gibbs said.
"All they could?" Wallace asked.
"Yeah," Gibbs said.
Bottom line: Gibbs did not dispute that the FBI interviewed Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes. But Gibbs maintained that agents learned everything that was possible to learn from the accused terrorist, who was trained by, and presumably knew about, the activities of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If the agents learned everything that was possible to learn from Abdulmutallab in just 50 minutes, it was likely a world record of interrogation.
A few days ago, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee asked questions that led to the admission that key national security officials were not consulted in the decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian criminal, rather than an enemy combatant, which would have allowed officials to interrogate him extensively without any assertion that Abdulmutallab had the right to remain silent.
In light of these new revelations, it is likely that the GOP will step up its questions for Attorney General Eric Holder -- and for the president himself -- about why that decisions was made.
The Wizard of Obama: There is No There, There
Goodwin's Perfect Thumb-Nail of Obama [Jack Fowler]
Boy oh boy does New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin ever nail it today. From "End of O's Cowardly Lyin'":
We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown's supporters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn't merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.
Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.
It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.
At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.
He never advances a practical idea. Every proposal overreaches and comes wrapped in ideology and a claim of moral superiority. He doesn't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
Charles Krauthammer: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147967933&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Delusion in the White House [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Via Robert Gibbs this morning on Fox News Sunday (rough transcript):
WALLACE: But, Robert, Scott Brown had a clear platform. Let's lay it out. Stop health care. Cut taxes. End backroom deals with special interest and don't give terrorists Miranda rights. It wasn't the same thing that swept Barack Obama into office. Scott Brown explicitly campaigned against the — campaigned against the Obama agenda.
GIBBS: That may be what he campaigned on but that's not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington. If you look at exit poll, done by the ""Washington Post"" —
WALLACE: It wasn't an exit poll. They did a poll.
GIBBS: Poll where voters participated to why they voted. More people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him. His approval rating among the electorate was 61%. The enthusiasm for Republican policies among that electorate was for republicans 40% —
WALLACE: You're not suggesting this is a mandate for Barack Obama?
GIBBS: Of course not. I'm also not suggesting that what you said a minute ago meets the truth test either.
WALLACE: You don't think that —
GIBBS: Chris, hold on.
WALLACE: You don't think when they voted for Brown they were voting against Obama policies?
GIBBS: That's not what they told pollsters, no. People are angry in the country and angry in Massachusetts we haven't made more question on the economy. Talk about health care — this is something you said is stopping about health-care reform.
WALLACE: He said he was the 41st vote.
GIBBS: 70% of the voters in massachusetts want him to work with the Democrats on health-care reform. Only 28% want to stop health-care reform from happening. Chris, if Republicans want to assume that the outcome of what happened in Massachusetts is a big endorsement of their policies when 40% are enthusiastic about them and 58% are angry about them, I hope they misread that election as badly as anybody could. What people want in this country is they want to us focus on getting this economy moving again. They want us to work together. The president has tried and I hope that Republicans will try to work with the president. That kind of anger and dissatisfaction at the fact that Washington far too many times puts the special interest ahead of their interest, that anger still persists. That's what people said in Massachusetts.
Stubborn in the White House [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
And on Meet the Press:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's senior adviser says the president isn't hitting the reset button as he begins his second year in office. The Senate's top Republican suggests that Obama should do just that.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president's recent words on jobs and the economy reflect what he's been saying ever since he ran for president.
But Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says Obama should move from the left to the middle of the political spectrum if he wants to gain support from Republicans.
Jarrett also claims that "The recovery act saved thousands and thousands of jobs."
Mad Men [Robert Costa]
From George Will on ABC’s This Week:
I think it’s madness for them to spend another three months at least on health care when the country wants them to turn to other matters. The president's second sentence of his State of the Union address last year said we all know that the primary question is jobs and the economy. So they spent a year on health care, and they dare not surely do that again. And their votes are simply not there for the big bill . . . I don't think the country is angry so much today as it is sober and frightened. And it’s frightened by the deficits, the sense that there's no plausible economic assumption that will make this turn out well. So I expect the president on Wednesday night will come in with a plan — and it will be bogus and rejected — to have a commission that will recommend difficult choices on entitlements and taxes and all the rest.
Boy oh boy does New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin ever nail it today. From "End of O's Cowardly Lyin'":
We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown's supporters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn't merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.
Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.
It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.
At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.
He never advances a practical idea. Every proposal overreaches and comes wrapped in ideology and a claim of moral superiority. He doesn't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.
Charles Krauthammer: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147967933&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Delusion in the White House [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Via Robert Gibbs this morning on Fox News Sunday (rough transcript):
WALLACE: But, Robert, Scott Brown had a clear platform. Let's lay it out. Stop health care. Cut taxes. End backroom deals with special interest and don't give terrorists Miranda rights. It wasn't the same thing that swept Barack Obama into office. Scott Brown explicitly campaigned against the — campaigned against the Obama agenda.
GIBBS: That may be what he campaigned on but that's not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington. If you look at exit poll, done by the ""Washington Post"" —
WALLACE: It wasn't an exit poll. They did a poll.
GIBBS: Poll where voters participated to why they voted. More people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him. His approval rating among the electorate was 61%. The enthusiasm for Republican policies among that electorate was for republicans 40% —
WALLACE: You're not suggesting this is a mandate for Barack Obama?
GIBBS: Of course not. I'm also not suggesting that what you said a minute ago meets the truth test either.
WALLACE: You don't think that —
GIBBS: Chris, hold on.
WALLACE: You don't think when they voted for Brown they were voting against Obama policies?
GIBBS: That's not what they told pollsters, no. People are angry in the country and angry in Massachusetts we haven't made more question on the economy. Talk about health care — this is something you said is stopping about health-care reform.
WALLACE: He said he was the 41st vote.
GIBBS: 70% of the voters in massachusetts want him to work with the Democrats on health-care reform. Only 28% want to stop health-care reform from happening. Chris, if Republicans want to assume that the outcome of what happened in Massachusetts is a big endorsement of their policies when 40% are enthusiastic about them and 58% are angry about them, I hope they misread that election as badly as anybody could. What people want in this country is they want to us focus on getting this economy moving again. They want us to work together. The president has tried and I hope that Republicans will try to work with the president. That kind of anger and dissatisfaction at the fact that Washington far too many times puts the special interest ahead of their interest, that anger still persists. That's what people said in Massachusetts.
Stubborn in the White House [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
And on Meet the Press:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's senior adviser says the president isn't hitting the reset button as he begins his second year in office. The Senate's top Republican suggests that Obama should do just that.
Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett says the president's recent words on jobs and the economy reflect what he's been saying ever since he ran for president.
But Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says Obama should move from the left to the middle of the political spectrum if he wants to gain support from Republicans.
Jarrett also claims that "The recovery act saved thousands and thousands of jobs."
Mad Men [Robert Costa]
From George Will on ABC’s This Week:
I think it’s madness for them to spend another three months at least on health care when the country wants them to turn to other matters. The president's second sentence of his State of the Union address last year said we all know that the primary question is jobs and the economy. So they spent a year on health care, and they dare not surely do that again. And their votes are simply not there for the big bill . . . I don't think the country is angry so much today as it is sober and frightened. And it’s frightened by the deficits, the sense that there's no plausible economic assumption that will make this turn out well. So I expect the president on Wednesday night will come in with a plan — and it will be bogus and rejected — to have a commission that will recommend difficult choices on entitlements and taxes and all the rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
