The Cool Blue Blog

Don't capture - Kill

Back in July, there were those on the Left who were upset to discover that we at one point had a plan in place to kill al Qaeda leaders wherever they might be.

Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials.

The Obama Administration quickly let it be known that current CIA director Leon Panetta nixed the program as soon as he found out about it. The Left was assuaged and Dick Cheney was reaffirmed as a villain. All was right with the Left.

But under the covers, the Obama Administration had a problem. The President vowed to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as well as the CIAs "Black sites" where terrorist suspects were whisked away so as not to allow other terrorists the knowledge that a high-value information-provider had been captured.

So the question became, with these tools off the table, what does the Obama Administration do with new terrorist suspects they may hunt down or otherwise run across?

The solution appears to be kill them where they stand.

Given the difficulty of detaining high-value terrorists in the United States, Cuba, Afghanistan, black sites or foreign countries, another possibility exists.

"To be perfectly blunt, I don't think that they'll pick them up at all," says Ken Anderson of the Hoover Institution and American University's Washington College of Law, who has written about these issues. "I think that we've actually allowed the courts to arrange the incentives to kill rather than capture."

Many national security experts interviewed for this story agree that it has become so hard for the U.S. to detain people that in many instances, the U.S. government is killing them instead.

Last month, American forces staged a raid on a car in Somalia. The man inside the car was a suspected terrorist on the FBI's most wanted list. American troops did not seize him. Instead, helicopters fired on the car, and commandos retrieved his body.

No messy detention. No icky interrogations. Just good clean blood on the tracks.

Now Leon Panetta may have nixed targeted assassinations of the al Qaeda leadership, but his boss sure hasn't. Predators continue to kill terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere when it is inconvenient for a ground team to be present, and, it seems, we kill them even when we do have ground teams present.

It's better than capturing them given the environment the President has created.

There are a few drawbacks, however.

One is, we don't get to find out if the terrorist knows something that we should know.

Two, if the guy was innocent, we'll never know and he'll never be released.

But hey. It's the price you pay for winning a Nobel Peace prize.

A record of appeasement

"When I think of America, I think of the idea -- concept of freedom, liberty, equality. I think these are real human values," the Dalai Lama was quoted as saying today

"I think American weapons, military forces, of course some people take seriously," he said

"But the real greatness of America is your ancestors' principles," he said. "In any case, you must preserve these principles."

Every President since 1991 has met with the Dalai Lama when he came to the US. Today, the Dalai Lama was in town to receive the the first-ever Lantos Human Rights Prize.

Mr. Obama's slight is the first time a sitting president will not meet with the Dalai Lama during a Washington visit since President George H.W. Bush met with him in 1991. No meeting was ever formally on the agenda for this week, but the exiled Tibetan's trip had been planned for years, and earlier this year he had expressed his hope to meet with the President. Last month, White House aide Valerie Jarrett and Maria Otero, undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs, traveled to Dharamsala to confer with the Dalai Lama. The next day, the Dalai Lama's office announced that he hoped to meet with Mr. Obama only after November, when Mr. Obama will visit Beijing.

No other President prior to Mr Obama owed their soul, and the price of their social agendas, to China as Obama does.

The Dalai Lama didn't mention the lack of a White House meeting as he received an award in memory of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, a longtime champion of human rights who died last year of cancer.

The Tibetan spiritual leader did, however, entertain the audience with stories of his past brushes with American presidents. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once sent him a letter, a signed photograph and a gold watch. He joked that he "developed an affection to America" because of that watch and brought it with him when he was given the Congressional Gold Medal at a ceremony with President Bush in 2007.

Clearly the President does not want to piss off China. But prior Presidents managed to maintain relations with China and meet with the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama has met with the sitting U.S. President a dozen times, as well as with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle (including a certain Senator Obama in 2005). Although Beijing complained about these meetings, there were no serious costs to the U.S.-China relationship. George W. Bush met with the Dalai Lama in May of 2001, in advance of his first trip to China, and thereafter made clear that meetings with him were nonnegotiable.

Wow! Walk AND chew gum.

But this is not the first time for President Obama. Canceling the Eastern European defense shield was clearly done for Russian, not American interests.

And talking to Iran is something the Iranian government wants. And speaking of Iran

Obama Cuts Off Funding for Iranian Human-Rights Documentation

For the past five years, researchers in a modest office overlooking the New Haven green have carefully documented cases of assassination and torture of democracy activists in Iran. With more than $3 million in grants from the US State Department, they have pored over thousands of documents and Persian-language press reports and interviewed scores of witnesses and survivors to build dossiers on those they say are Iran’s most infamous human-rights abusers.

But just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed - its federal funding request had been denied.

“If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it,’’ said Rene Redman, the group’s executive director, who had asked for $2.7 million in funding for the next two years. “I was sur prised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television.’’

So whose interest is served by defunding these folks?

Let me recall to you the words the Dalai Lama said: "When I think of America, I think of the idea -- concept of freedom, liberty, equality. I think these are real human values."

Unfortunately, it appears, that we have a President who has a record of appeasing the enemies of these human values.

I hope I'm wrong.

Motivations

Last week, Britain, France and the US decided to announce to the world that they knew Iran was hiding a secret nuclear facility in Iran's holy city of Qom.

The information was developed during the Bush Administration.

It was three years ago that American intelligence agents began picking up signs that someone was tunnelling into the side of a mountain in the desert outside the holy city of Qom.

But according to The Politico, President Obama had no plans to make the announce when he did

But behind the scenes, the Obama administration was furiously preparing for a major public intelligence disclosure that it had not planned to make: that the U.S. had known for years about a previously undisclosed clandestine nuclear enrichment facility Iran has been building since 2005 in a mountain near Qom.

Interviews with administration and international officials, diplomats, non-proliferation and Iran experts suggest the administration had no plans to announce its suspicions before beginning international talks with Iran next week. But its hand was forced after learning some time during the week of a letter Iran had sent the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna acknowledging construction of a previously undisclosed facility.

And it appears that Iran wrote this letter because it found out that the US knew about the facility at Qom.

Last week, as Tehran finally woke up to the knowledge that the plant’s security had been breached, it rushed to declare its existence to the IAEA, hoping to pre-empt other reports and prove its openness and co-operation.

Now that the information is out in the open, Britain, France and the US are talking tough.

The allies will demand that Iran prove to the increasingly skeptical group that its intentions with its various sites are peaceful and energy-related, as Iran claims, and not for weapons development, as the West believes, the official said Saturday.

These nations now agree that they are less inclined to listen to suspect arguments or incomplete evidence — viewing it as a stall tactic, the official said.

Right. But they've known about this for three years. And in those three years they hesitated in imposing more sanctions and instead engaged in "good faith" negotiations as if they didn't know that Iran was hiding this facility. And even now, for all their new found outrage

But beyond the timeframe of "weeks" for coming clean on Qom, the allies will not give Iran a specific deadline to provide the information about its overall program, the official said.

And President Obama is still proceeding with plans to talk to Iran.

Iran is not fooled by all the saber rattling

Consider:

1. The "allies" have known that Iran's been lying about and trying to conceal the existence of this site for 3 years.
2. Despite having this information, the December 2007 NIE in its unclassified "key judgements" report said "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
   program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
   keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." This assessment that was released to the public was not only wrong, it was intentionally misleading.
3. Iran had to have noticed that missing from the group of people announcing Iran's "newly discovered" facility were Germany, Russia and China.
4. President Obama has not canceled his meeting with Ahmadinejad.

Because of what they see with their eyes, not only is Iran unfazed by the West's indignation, it remains provocative.

Iran reported Monday that it successfully test-fired its most advanced and powerful medium-range missiles as part of war games it said were intended to deter the country's enemies.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps tested the Shahab-3 and Sejil missiles in the third phase of a two-day exercise called The Great Prophet IV, state-run news media reported. The missiles are believed to be capable of striking Israel, U.S. military targets in the Middle East and parts of southeastern Europe.

Just last week, President Obama announced that he would cancel plans for a missile shield that would protect Eastern Europe from just such an attack from Iran. This pleased the Russians but did not please the Eastern European countries that would have benefited from plan. The speculation is that this would encourage Russia to align against Iran.

So how's that going?

When asked about Iran and sanctions by NBCs Andrea Mitchell, President Medvedev said

Iran as a state has a right to its own peaceful nuclear program. This is our clear position.

That is what I said to Barack Obama yesterday. I do not believe sanctions are the best way to achieve results. Sanctions were used on a number of occasions against Iran but we have doubts about the results. Nevertheless when all instruments have been used and failed, one can use international legal sanctions.

So, no help there.

The President is hoping that inclusion in the international community is a motivating factor for Iran; that he can convince them that by dropping the nuclear weapons program Iran will get what he perceives they want. And he is probably right that this is what the people of Iran want.

But evidence suggests that this is not what the Iranian leadership wants.

Evidence suggests that Iran's leadership is motivated by

a) the destruction of Israel

b) domination of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf

c) and even, possibly, an apocalyptic return of the 12th Imam

Everything they have done suggests that they need to hold the West off long enough to develop a nuclear weapon with which they become untouchable because they then hold the key to destroying everything the West needs from the Middle East and North Africa: oil.

President Obama is also under the impression that Russia does not want a rogue nuclear nation like Iran around.

But everything Russia has done suggests just the opposite. Russia is helping Iran build it's nuclear facilities. Russia is selling weapons and anti-aircraft defense system to Iran.

Russia has nothing to assure us that their motivations in this regard are friendly to the United States.

So too with China. They also are helping Iran with nuclear and missile technology. Has anyone stopped to think that their motivation may be ascendancy over the US rather than being good global neighbors?

And what was the motivation for publishing an NIE that told us everything was fine with Iran when the authors knew it was untrue?

The State Secret dodge

During the "evil" Bush Administration, people who sued the government alleging they were illegally spied upon found that their cases were thrown out of court when the Government invoked "State Secrets" privilege.

Essentially, a litigant would come before the court and say "George Bush and his evil regime spied on me" and Geoger Bush (et al) would say: "Hey, if we proceed with this case, extremely grave damage to national security will result." The judge without reviewing the reason for invoking the State Secrets claim would often agree and say "OK" and throw the case out of court.

The ACLU was frustrated in this way from halting the NSA's "tap the terrorists" program in ACLU v NSA. The Center for Constitutional Rights tried the same thing with the same results.

In 2006, Khalid El-Masri's suit claiming he was wrongful abducted, detained and interrogated was thrown out of court after the Bush Administration claimed the State Secrets privilege. The case was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court but the SCOTUS refused to hear the case tacitly affirming the State Secrets privilege which it had explicitly affirmed in 1953's US v Reynolds decision.

President Obama, campaigning as the anti-Bush, often expressed his intention to undo all things Bushian including the use of the State Secrets defense. But after taking office, he was not as offended as he was as a candidate.

    The question came from Michael Scherer of Time magazine.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush’s use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush’s? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

Well at long last, President Obama's Attorney General Erick Holder announced new guidelines for the use of State Secrets.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced limits Wednesday on the use of the "state secrets" defense, which can block courts from considering cases in which government secrets could be released.

The new standard would require the attorney general and a panel of government lawyers to approve such a claim "only when genuine and significant harm to national defense or foreign relations is at stake."

And who will determine if the new standard has been properly adhered to? According to the Memo released by the Attorney General:

A State Secrets Review Committee consisting of senior Department of Justice officials designated by the Attorney General will evaluate the Assistant Attorney General's recommendation to determine whether invocation of the privilege in litigation is warranted.

B. Consultation. The Review Committee will consult as necessary and appropriate with the department or agency seeking invocation of the privilege in litigation and with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Review Committee must engage in such consultation prior to making any recommendation against defending the invocation of the privilege in litigation.
C. Recommendation by the Review Committee. The Review Committee shall make a recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General, who shall in turn make a recommendation to the Attorney General.2 The recommendations shall be made in a timely manner to ensure that the Attorney General has adequate time to give meaningful consideration to such recommendations.

So, it appears, nothing has changed. The new Government position is the same as the old government opinion: Trust us.

"On paper, this is a step forward. In court, however, the Obama administration continues to defend a broader view of state secrets put forward by the Bush administration and to demand that federal courts throw out lawsuits filed by victims of torture and illegal surveillance," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project.

Despite the fact that people like the ACLU don't see any difference between the Bush and the Obama positions on this issue, The New York Times who routinely blasted Bush, found the Obama position acceptable. It's headline says "Justice Dept. to Limit Use of State Secrets Privilege" when it did no such thing.

The Washington Post similarly said "Obama to Set Higher Bar For Keeping State Secrets" and

The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials.

The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to "national defense or foreign relations.

Civil Libertarians disagree that the new policy will make anything much more difficult especially when you consider that

Since February, a Justice Department task force of eight lawyers has been sifting through about a dozen pending cases in which state secrets arguments have been made.

So far, they have reversed course in only one lawsuit -- a bizarre case in federal court in the District in which a former agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration accuses the State Department and the CIA of installing listening devices in a coffee table in his home.

(I'm assuming that would be Richard Horn.)

But it is unlikely, as the WaPo seems to believe, that the new "rules" will affect wiretap or detention cases given that the Obama Administration is defending a renewal of the Patriot Act

The Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.

In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties...

These are the three provisions due to expire:

*A secret court, known as the FISA court, may grant “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying the target. Generally, the authorities must assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power and/or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday that 22 such warrants — which allow the monitoring of any communication device — have been granted annually.

*The FISA court may grant warrants for “business records,” from banking to library to medical records. Generally, the government must assert that the records are relevant to foreign intelligence gathering and/or a terrorism investigation. The government said Tuesday that 220 of these warrants had been granted between 2004 and 2007. It said 2004 was the first year those powers were used.

*A so-called “lone wolf” provision, enacted in 2004, allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of an individual even without showing that the person is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday it has never invoked that provision, but said it wants to keep the authority to do so.

“The basic idea behind the authority was to cover situations in which information linking the target of an investigation to an international group was absent or insufficient, although the target’s engagement in ‘international terrorism’ was sufficiently established,” Weich wrote.

The American Civil Liberties opposes renewing all three provisions, especially the lone wolf measure.

Now it seems to me that AG Holder's memo is an attempt by the Administration to short circuit congressional action to limit the Executive Branch's use of the State Secrets privilege that would have real restriction. In stark contrast to the new Justice Department guidelines the legislation introduced by Senator Leahy would provide guidelines to the Court regarding when to accept government claims of State Secrets.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) are also cosponsors of the legislation.  The Leahy-Specter-Feingold-Kennedy legislation would: 

• Provide a uniform set of procedures for federal courts considering claims of the state secrets privilege
• Codify many of best practices that are already available to courts but that often go unused, such as in camera hearings, non-privilege substitutes, and special masters
• Require judges to look at the evidence that the government claims is privileged, rather than relying solely on government affidavits
• Forbid judges from dismissing cases at the pleadings stage, before there has been any document discovery, while protecting innocent defendants by allowing cases to be dismissed when they would need privileged evidence to establish a valid defense
• Require judges to order the government to produced unclassified or redacted versions of sensitive evidence when possible to allow cases to move forward safely
• Establish security procedures to ensure that secrets are not leaked during litigation, including closed hearings, security clearance requirements, sealed orders, and expedited appeals
• Establish congressional reporting requirements
• Address the crisis of legitimacy surrounding the privilege by setting clear rules that take into account both national security and the Constitution

Now this legislation was originally introduced to the 110th Congress in response to Bush Administration  "assertions of the state secrets privilege in cases challenging the constitutionally of several of the Bush administration’s national security programs, including the warrantless wiretapping, rendition and interrogation programs" and was reintroduced when the new Congress was seated.

Back in 2008,

Leahy said, “The State Secrets Protection Act will help guide the courts to balance the government’s interests in secrecy with accountability and the rights of citizens to seek judicial redress.  The bill does not restrict the Government’s ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases.  In light of the pending cases where this privilege has been invoked, involving issues including torture, rendition and warrantless wiretapping, we can ill-afford to delay consideration of this important legislation.  I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this bill.”

And it seems all of this still applies, but

Hours after the Attorney General Eric Holder announced the new policy, which requires administration officials to seek Justice Department approval before blocking the release of sensitive information, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) praised the White House for its openness and transparency.

I wonder if this means Sen Leahy et. al. will now let their important bill languish.

To me, legislating guidelines that allow the courts to decide the efficacy of the State Secrets claim is much better than allowing the Government to police their own hen-house especially since it is an obvious conflict of interest. 

I think that in general for the wiretap cases, the State Secret privilege is justified. It is in cases of rendition and interrogation for which I am least likely to allow the government to just say "Trust Us" and would welcome and independent court review of the justifications for such actions.

Despite the high praise the New York Times, The Washington Post and even Patrick Leahy himself heaped upon the new guidelines from the Attorney General,

Seven major civil rights and open government organizations today sent a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees urging them to pass legislation to restrict the government’s ability to use the “state secrets” privilege to dismiss litigation charging government wrongdoing. Although the Obama administration yesterday announced a new policy in which it essentially promised to use of the state secrets privilege more sparingly, that promise is not good enough, the organizations wrote.

...the new policy does not address all the problems, the organizations wrote. “To ensure proper oversight and an independent check on executive discretion, judges must be able to review the evidence, order the creation of non-privileged substitutes where appropriate, and assess whether there is sufficient non-privileged evidence to enable a case to proceed,” the letter said. “Legislation is necessary to implement these key reforms.”

The seven organizations who signed onto the letter are the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Constitution Project, Human Rights First, the National Security Archive, and OMB Watch.

I agree with the President that these parts of the Patriot Act should be renewed. I agree that the Administration should attempt to police itself with regards to invoking the State Secrets privilege

But I also agree that it could easily be misused and the Executive should have to convince the Judicial Branch that invoking the State Secrets privilege is justified.

Not just itself.

Afghanistan, then and now

On March 27, 2009, President Obama announced a major new direction in Afghanistan

Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.   And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. 

Six months later, the careful policy review that resulted in the "New Strategy" is being reviewed again.

A senior administration official tells Fox that President Obama and his national security team began fresh analysis of the Afghanistan strategy on Sept. 13 in the White House situation room as part of an on-going review of war policy.

"There's this idea that there's a change of strategy looming,but there are difficult questions to ask as we continue to review this," the official said.

Back in March, the President said

...let me be clear:  Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.  And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

But now, the President is not so clear

On Sunday he said: The first question is — are we pursuing the right strategy?” Even more tellingly, the President said that his core goal was to destroy al-Qaeda, which is not present in significant numbers in Afghanistan.

So the President's thinking now that maybe we can abandon Afghanistan (again) and it might not become a base for terrorists who want to kill us.

At one point, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton told President Bush to listen to his Generals:

General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, who said last week that the war was likely to be lost without a rapid surge of additional troops.

General McChrystal believes that the only way to avoid defeat in Afghanistan is significantly to increase US troop levels to safeguard the population, fight the Taleban and reconstruct the country’s civilian infrastructure — a strategy endorsed by Mr Obama in a speech on March 27.

But listening to Generals is not the top priority any more

In another sign of the stiffening resistance within civilian elements of the Obama Administration to a major military escalation, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, on Monday expressed “respect” for the general’s assessment, but added: “There are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite.”

But General McChrystal is the guy President Obama put in charge of Afghanistan, after relieving General David McKiernan of his command, presumably because the President trusted his judgment over that of General McKiernan. And what is General McChrystal's judgement?

In a confidential 66-page report leaked to the Washington Post, General McChrystal explicitly states that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure."

Back in March President Obama said

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban.  They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.  But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price.  These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course.  And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province.  As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated.  And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls.

And now General McChrystal recommends

emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians over just engaging insurgents, restricting airstrikes to reduce civilian casualties, and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces and accelerating their training. He also signaled that he will seek to unify the effort of American allies that operate in Afghanistan, and possibly to ask them to contribute more troops, money and training.

Listening to the President back in March and McChrystal today, you'd think they were on the same page.

But the President's hesitation and re-examination of a strategy that is only six months old would cast doubt on that conclusion.

True, he is facing pressure from the Left and he is faced with a public that is growing sour on the war because casualties have grown since al Qaida lost in Iraq and began focusing more on Afghanistan.

But Bushed faced these same pressures and stood resolute.

You know, in reading through President Obama's speech in March I noticed that he did not use the words win, victory or success relative to the outcome of his new strategy in Afghanistan.

Yet another way in which he differentiates himself from Bush, I suppose.

Charging ahead

Candidate Obama was adamant that a new approach was needed in dealing with Iran. He wanted to talk to them. At first unconditionally then he back away from that, but now, he's back to unconditionally

Tehran offered "comprehensive and constructive negotiations" on Wednesday, but did not mention the key issue of its nuclear programme.

While stressing the offer "does not address our nuclear concerns" the US said it is was ready to "test Iran's willingness to engage".

Now it wasn't but a few days since the IAEA, the UN arm responsible for monitoring nuclear proliferation issues, announced that Iran was not meeting its commitments, and worse, on a path to realizing a nuclear weapon

On Wednesday the US ambassador to the atomic energy agency, Glyn Davies, said Iran had reached ''possible break-out capacity'' - the ability to acquire enough fuel and expertise to complete building a nuclear weapon relatively quickly - if it decided to enrich its uranium to manufacture bomb-grade material....

On Thursday, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear affairs monitor, said Iran would not negotiate further with the major powers about its nuclear program, Iranian news services reported.

The Obama Administration had hoped that such a finding and subsequent response would have resulted in the UN OKing further sanctions on Iran. But again, they miscalculated the usefulness of that particular world body.

RUSSIAN Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has all but ruled out imposing new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, brushing aside Western concerns that Iran had made significant recent progress in a bid for nuclear weapons.

Mr Lavrov said he believed that a new set of proposals Iran gave to European nations on Wednesday offered a viable basis for negotiations to end the dispute. He did not believe the UN Security Council would approve new sanctions, which could ban Iran from exporting oil or importing petrol.

But the "new set of proposals didn't include anything about discussing Iran's nuclear program so the Obama Administration decided to go ahead and talk anyway saying "This may not have been a topic that they wanted to be brought up but I can assure that it's a topic that we'll bring up."

Tough talk.

All of this while Russia is clandestinely supplying Iran with advanced air defense missiles not to mention nuclear weapon expertise and equipment.

Additionally, Iran is collecting US weapons and technology on the black market

Iran increasingly is obtaining U.S. military equipment and technology through shipments to Malaysian middlemen that illegally circumvent trade restrictions, according to American officials and analysts.

The U.S. has charged, convicted or sentenced defendants in at least six cases involving Malaysia since August 2008. The shipments have included parts for bombers and items sent to firms linked to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, according to court papers. More Malaysia shipments are under investigation, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

I predict that soon President Obama will discover what his predecessor knew only too well: Iran is not going to negotiate away the nuclear weapons program; Russia is not our friend; the UN is useless; and Europe will continue to do nothing of substance.

That will leave unilateral action.

The question is, what will the President do about that?

And the clock is ticking....

High Water Risin'

The Federal Debt subject to statutory limits authorized by Congress was raised in February of 2009 to 12.1 trillion dollars in conjuction with the passage of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Bill). Ten months later, this debt limit is already in trouble and the Obama Administration is not sure they convince Congress to raise it further.

The Obama administration, concerned about the possibility of a big political fight over the national debt, is looking at how it can continue funding the government in the event that Congress hinders its ability to borrow money.

Treasury Department officials are examining tools employed by previous administrations, including disinvesting government retirement funds and suspending interest payments to federal accounts, according to people familiar with the matter. They are also looking at what to do in the unlikely event of a government shutdown.

At issue is the debt ceiling, a dollar limit controlled by Congress that dictates how much the U.S. can borrow. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the Senate in a letter last month that the $12.1 trillion ceiling could be hit as early as mid-October, and said it needs to be increased so the U.S. can continue funding operations and making debt payments. Mr. Geithner didn't indicate the increase he was seeking.

With the U.S. borrowing about $30 billion a week, some economists say the Treasury will need an increase of as much as $1.5 trillion if it wants to avoid another request before the 2010 midterm elections.

The $12.1 trillion dollar limit was an increase from an $11.3 trillion limit authorized by Congress in October of 2008 along with the TARP program to bail out troubled banks.

Ten years ago the debt limit stood at just under $6 trillion, less than half of what it is today and much less then the $13 trillion limit sitting on the table in Congress.

The House passed a debt-limit increase to $13.029 trillion earlier this year, but the measure has languished in the Senate. Senate Democrats say they haven't put together a strategy for passing the increase. It could be added to other must-pass legislation, such as a short-term spending measure to keep the government running when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. The Senate could also take up the issue on its own.

And this number, $13 trillion, is only in response to what we have going on today: It does not account for whatever healthcare reform plan the Congress passes.

In response, many Americans are very worried

In a Gallup Poll conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 9% of respondents overall and 10% of independents now mention the deficit spontaneously as their biggest worry. That compares with 2% of respondents and 3% of independents a year ago. It is now in the top five among the public's concerns.

And according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll

Half of those surveyed said deficit reduction should be a national priority over increased spending on health care, education or alternative energy.

"I know a lot of people who don't have health care and really can't afford it," said Judy Purkey, a 57-year-old grandmother from Morristown, Tenn., who has raised four grandchildren and is living on disability payments. But she added: "The economy is so bad. You've heard the expression getting blood out of a turnip? — Well, that's what's going on."

So it is no surprise that tens of thousands descended upon Washington DC yesterday to protest what the government is doing fiscally.

Tens of thousands of people marched through Washington Saturday to protest President Obama's proposed health care plans. The rowdy pilgrimage capped a series of conservative "Tea Party" rallies across the country.

As the demonstrators walked along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the U.S. Capitol, the line stretched as far as the eye could see in either direction. The crowd was so thick in places that it was difficult to move.

The Democrats want to play down and discredit these folks as shills for the Republicans while the Republicans want to co-opt the movement, But while many of these folks have indeed voted Republican in the past (what? you think many Democrats think like this?) most if not all are very aware that between 1994 (when Republicans took over both houses of Congress) and 2006 (when Republicans lost control of Congress), the debt ceiling was raised six times and went from just under $4.9 trillion in 1996 to $8.9 trillion in March of 2006.

And under Bush's watch, the Democrat controlled Congress was allowed to raise the debt limit from that $8.9 trillion to the $11.3 trillion it was when he left office.

The Republicans can point to the fact that the Democrats have raised the debt limit 4 times so far in the 3 years they have been in control as compared to six times in 12 years for the Republicans.Each raised the debt by $3 trillion but it took 12 years for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have done in 3. And we all know that if Congress gets what they want, it's not over yet.

But that is little more than a fig leaf: The Republicans can only sheepishly squeak that they weren't as bad as the other guys.

Now even with tens of thousand protesting in Washington, it is difficult to say how widespread the unrest is really among the population after all we saw tens of thousand protesting the war in Iraq and that made little difference politically. We won't really know until about this time next year when a new Congress is selected.

But if it is a real, deep movement, the best the Republicans can hope for is that these voters give them a second chance and the worst is that a new Party arises to unseat them (which is, really, what they deserve).

All economic indicators show that people have learned a lesson with this past recession and they are paying down their debt and becoming more frugal.

The government is doing quite the opposite and I have to believe that large numbers of people are wondering why.

And they see the mounting pile of government debt and in their gut think that this is not good.

It just can't go on.

High water risin', six inches 'bove my head
Coffins droppin' in the street
Like balloons made out of lead
Water pourin' into Vicksburg, don't know what I'm going to do
"Don't reach out for me," she said
"Can't you see I'm drownin' too?"
It's rough out there
High water everywhere

-Bob Dylan

Update: It seems it was more like hundreds of thousands marching in DC, not tens of thousands.

Misinterpreting the mandate

It was predictable.

Back in November of 2008, right after President Obama was elected, I pointed out that what people wanted from him and the Government was less taxes and less government intervention in their lives.

What the survey tells us is that people are not interested in using the tax code to redistribute wealth. Only 23% favored a redistributionist tax system while 73% did not favor such a tax system. 62% want the Bush Tax cuts extended while only 26% want them to expire. And 66% want the inheritance tax cut to be made permanent.

And most people (66%) want Congress to cut spending. And only 39% thought that Government isn't doing enough while most (54%) thought Government is doing too much.

Why anyone thought Obama and the Democrats would give them this is a mystery to me, but is was no mystery that people replaced Republicans because they felt they weren't delivering what they wanted.

Democrats should have noted this as well but instead they deluded themselves into thinking that they won on a mandate to increase spending and government intervention.

So it's not much of a surprise to find that the President and the Democratic-controlled Congress are losing favor with the most important segment of the population: Independents.

Fifty-three percent of independents questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, with 43 percent in approval. That result marks the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of independents give the president's performance a thumbs-down.

And worse, it's not just the President

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week. The previous low for Democrats over the past year was 37%.

That's what happens when you misinterpret your mandate.

Truly, this does not necessarily mean that people thinks Republicans are doing such a great job, but it does likely mean that they think Democrats are doing a poor job in meeting their expectations. And the last time people felt that way the voted for the other guy even if the other guy was not perceived much better.

Now a lot of this could go away if the economy improves; people do tend to get grumpy when the economy sucks. But while the Democrats seem to be telling themselves that the "Tea Parties" and vocal dissidents to their proposed health-care legislation are the manufactured result of minority rabble-rousing, consider this:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, even as President Obama’s top economic advisers signal that tax hikes may be necessary.

Now the really bad thing about that, aside from the obvious, is that the President and the Democrats in Congress think they have already delivered a middle-class tax cut.

So I'm not convinced that Democrats have shed themselves of they type of self-delusion that led Republicans to their most recent Waterloo.

Of course, Republicans have stuff to worry about as well:

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years.

The current climate appears to me to be where the political classes of both stripes are in a race to the bottom. It just seems to me that the Democrats are more intent on winning it.

Open Warfare

President Bush learned that the covert corps over at the CIA is an enemy you don't want to make. In Bush's case, he did not do anything to rile the organization as a whole, but clearly there were members within who disagreed with Bush's politics and took matters into their own hands; and put those matter into the hands of the Press.

As a result, the outlines of an operation whereby calls from terrorists to US citizens were monitored were leaked to the press and reframed as "domestic spying".

Leaked, also, we the outlines of a program whereby captured terrorists were taken to prisons on foreign in order to not let the enemy know that these people had been captured because, you know, the information they had was only good until the enemy changed protocols, which they surely would do if they knew key personnel were in our hands.

The President however took direct aim at the Intelligence community when he released memos that detailed the guidance given by Administration lawyers regarding what enhance interrogation techniques could be used and how they must be used in order to be legal.

He pissed off the CIA so much, that he was forced to visit and reassure those whose job it is to gather the intelligence necessary to keep America safe.

The president’s decision last week to release secret memorandums detailing the harsh tactics employed by the C.I.A. under his predecessor provoked a furor that continued to grow on Monday as critics on various fronts assailed his position....

Mr. Obama tried to calm the situation with his first visit to C.I.A. headquarters since taking office. Concerned about alienating the agency, Mr. Obama went out of his way to lavish praise on intelligence officers, using words like “indispensable,” “courage” and “remarkable” and promising his “support and appreciation.”

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks,” he told employees. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be president of the United States and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the C.I.A.”

But the assault continued when the President left open the door to possibly prosecute the lawyers whose advice resulted in the memos, making many leery of giving any advice at all for fear of potential prosecution under future Administrations if their advice suddenly became politically incorrect.

When the release of the memos fueled threats of a "truth commission" the CIA struck back. And now not only is the President in the line of fire, but so is the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Memos leaked from the CIA show clearly that not only was the Democratic Leadership informed of the legal advice, they were briefed on numerous occasions about just what types of enhanced interrogation techniques were being used...and on who.

This is now being reframed as a "distraction" from the real issue.

Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it “interesting” that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as “some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”

Well gee, isn't that precisely because Congress explicitly tightened their oversight of the intelligence community as a result of the Church Commission so that they would be responsible for what the intelligence community did? And now, after being fully informed and giving their consent, they want to blame the very people they oversaw?

Isn't that the definition of "disingenuous"?

Now that such revelations have been made public there is much less appetite for a "truth commission" and there is much more of an appetite for again shifting the focus.

Whereas before, the focus was clearly on doing the Left's bidding by prosecuting the "evil" Bush Administration, now many who sympathize with the Democrats initiative are trying to say that the focus should be on having a discussion about what we should and should now allow with regards to interrogations.

Such a discussion is fine with me. And we should decide as a nation how far we are willing to go to save American lives, but don't try to tell me that that's what the Democrats on the Left were trying to do all along.

Because that just won't fly.

Now here's the thing, in the wake of the 9/11 event, everyone, including the Democratic Leadership were worried and scared about what other attacks were being planned. And they wanted the answer by any means necessary. And they got that. Many attacks were in fact thwarted as a result. And the fact remains that during the eight years of the Bush Administration this country was not attacked again.

If this country is again attacked on President Obama's watch, you'll see how quickly Democrats will yet again reverse their "principled" positions as they try to assure the American people that the crap they've pulled did not compromise the security of the US and that whatever mistakes they may have made in the past will be corrected in the future.

But corrected how?

The fact is, that as much as the Left may want to prosecute the Bush Administration, they still have to live with the fact that the "domestic spying" program still exists and is being defended by President Obama and his Administration. That rendition still exists, will continue to exist, as it has existed since at least President Clinton's Administration. And that enhanced interrogation techniques has only been ruled by the President's words, not by his actions. What's more, Guantanamo Bay may (or may not) close, but military commissions and detainement for life of foreign enemy combatants without a trial  is still in our future if the President has any say over the matter.

The only question is, can the Obama Administration manage to prevent another attack on the US during his term in office?

Two weeks

The Taliban have been allowed to march to within 70 miles of Pakistan's seat of power before the Government decided to take muscular action. Now the situation is at a critical juncture

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has told U.S. officials the next two weeks are critical to determining whether the Pakistani government will survive, FOX News has learned.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists operating out of Northwest Pakistan, the general added.

But Petraeus also said wearily that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid.

Pakistan has been the focus of the Obama Administration's foreign policy in recent weeks, but the effort doesn't seem to be paying many dividends.

This first big test has been something of a slow-burner, often neglected by media distracted by pirates and swine flu. Nevertheless, the accelerating power of Islamic extremists in a nuclear-armed state is as big and as scary a threat as any president has faced since the end of the Cold War -- and the administration has responded with an aggressive array of military, political, diplomatic and economic initiatives, in Pakistan, Washington and elsewhere.

The trouble is, it all may not work -- as senior administration officials frankly acknowledge. By year's end, Pakistan could morph into a catastrophe that overshadows those six or seven other big problems...

The administration began by treating Pakistan as an adjunct to its strategy for Afghanistan, because Pakistan's western tribal territories serve as bases for the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda. Yet in the past month Pakistan suddenly has seemed to tip toward collapse as the Taliban rapidly expanded toward Islamabad while the country's army and weak civilian government dithered.

This is the sort of trouble U.S. administrations have often ignored until it was too late -- as in neighboring Iran before its Islamic revolution.

Not to mention Iran currently.

But back to Pakistan, the President has called both Afghanistan's and Pakistan's Presidents to a crisis meeting in Washington

"President Obama convened a crisis meeting at the White House last Monday to hear a report from Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had just returned from Pakistan," David Ignatius

" 'It had gotten significantly worse than I expected as the Swat deal unraveled,' Mullen explained in an interview. He was referring to a truce brokered in February in the Swat Valley, about 100 miles north of Islamabad. The Pakistani military had expected that the cease-fire would subdue Taliban fighters in Swat. Instead, the Muslim militants surged south into the district of Buner, on the doorstep of the capital.

"Listening to Mullen's report at the White House were two senior officials - Defense Secretary Bob Gates and special envoy Richard Holbrooke - who were serving in government back in 1979, when a Muslim insurgency toppled the Iranian government, with harmful consequences that persist to this day. The two policy veterans 'made the argument that it's worth studying the Iran model,' recalls a senior official who took part in the White House meeting.

"This was Pakistan week for the administration's foreign policy team, behind the self-congratulatory hubbub over the first 100 days. At a news conference Wednesday, Obama said that he was 'gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan.' He said his biggest worry was that 'the civilian government there right now is very fragile.'"

wrote. "Mullen described the worrying situation there, with Taliban insurgents moving closer to the capital, Islamabad.

They are, and the next two weeks will tell the story as to whether this is the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning for the Islamists.