Powell Hits Back At Limbaugh: Calling Sotomayor A ‘Reverse Racist’ Is ‘Nonsense’
Last May, hate radio talker Rush Limbaugh called Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, a “reverse racist,” referring to Sotomayor’s past comment that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Today on CNN, former Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized such comments. Saying that Sotomayor is a “gifted” and an “accomplished woman” with “a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law,” Powell added that calling her a “reverse racist” is “nonsense”:
POWELL: What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor…called a “racist,” or a “reverse racist” and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we’re mad at her. Fortunately the senators who will sit on this hearing in the Judiciary Committee after a few days of this kind of nonsense said, “Let’s slow down. Let’s examine her qualifications and the way we’re supposed to at a confirmation hearing.”
When host John King asked about the GOP’s “sensitivity” toward minorities, Powell took aim at Limbaugh directly, firing back at his claim that Powell only supported Obama’s candidacy for president because he is black:
POWELL: And when you have non-elected officials such as we have in our party who immediately shout racism or somebody who is quite prominent in the media says the only basis upon which I could possibly have supported Obama was because he was black and I was black even though I laid out my judgment on the candidates, then we still have a problem.
King later noted that Limbaugh has also said that Powell is no longer a Republican. “Mr. Limbaugh of course is entitled to his opinion but he’s not on any membership committee,” Powell replied, adding, “He doesn’t decide who I am or what I am no more than I decide who he is or what he is.” Watch it:
Transcript: More »
- Comments
- 60
Gov. Sarah Palin Quits Her Job
Gov. Sarah Palin Quits Her Job
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) announced this morning from her home in Wasilla that she will not be seeking re-election and that she will be stepping down in a few weeks. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated as Alaska’s governor on July 25. A local NBC affiliate reports that “there was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.” Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News yesterday that Palin “is not a serious candidate for the presidency.” “You cannot sustain a campaign of platitudes and clichés over a year and a half if you’re running for the presidency,” he said.
After running through her accomplishments as governor during the announcement, Palin said, “This success I am proud to take credit, for hiring the right people.” She said she decided to “veto” those “stimulus dollars” because “some of those dollars would harm Alaska and they harm America.” “So that Alaska may progress, I will not seek re-election as governor,” she said, adding, “I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell.” Watch it (note the video feed cut out before Palin finished her statement):
If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It's an enormous gamble - but it could be a shrewd one. After all, she's freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues - and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she'll take a hit for leaving the governorship early - but how much of one? She's probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.
"Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels like she has to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she is stepping down in order to figure the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012."
Saddam Hussein Considered ‘Security Agreement’ With U.S. To Counter Threat From ‘Fanatics’ In Iran
Saddam Hussein Considered ‘Security Agreement’ With U.S. To Counter Threat From ‘Fanatics’ In Iran
Yesterday, the National Security Archive released declassified FBI reports detailing both the bureau’s interrogations and “casual conversations” with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. According to the documents, Hussein told FBI agent George Piro (one of only a few agents who spoke Arabic) that he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he feared appearing weak to what he considered his country’s real threat, Iran:
Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. … Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. [...]
“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”
Saddam “felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from ‘fanatic’ leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a ‘security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region.’” If that could not happen, only then, he said, would Iraq reconstitute its WMD programs.
Piro revealed to CBS’s 60 Minutes last year that Saddam “didn’t want to associate” with Osama bin Laden and viewed him “as a threat to him and his regime.” The new documents expound on Saddam’s distrust of Al Qaeda and bin Laden, whom he called “a zealot”:
Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that “he was a believer in God but was not a zealot…that religion and government should not mix.” Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them “did not have the same belief or vision.”
When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated — they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia — Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and numerous members of the Bush administration repeatedly cited the (now debunked) threat from Iraq’s supposed WMD program and Saddam Hussein’s alleged links to Al-Qaeda as the main justifications for launching the invasion of Iraq more than six years ago. The U.S. could end up spending trillions of dollars in Iraq and today, 130,000 U.S. troops remain there, 4,321 have died (4,639 total from coalition forces), and more than 30,000 have been wounded. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion while millions have been displaced.
Gingrich On Private Health Insurance Companies: ‘They Have It Done Well’
Gingrich On Private Health Insurance Companies: ‘They Have It Done Well’
Newt Gingrich, one of the de facto leaders of the Republican Party, gave an interview to ABC Medical editor Dr. Timothy Johnson last week to discuss health care reform. Gingrich predictably went into scare-mongering mode, making arguments against measures that aren’t even part of the debate. He said the U.S. should not adopt a “single national health system” such as in Canada or the UK. “If I have to choose between my doctor and a government bureaucrat, I have zero doubt which one I want,” he said. Of course, no such choice is being offered.
But Gingrich also touted the success of private health insurers. When Johnson noted that it is insurance companies that are coming between patients and needed care, Gingrich claimed, “If you don’t like your current insurance company, you can change insurance companies.” He later argued that private insurers have done “well”:
GINGRICH: They have it done well. And the fact is, overall, 71 percent of Americans are relatively satisfied with the health insurance.
JOHNSON: But we have 46 million uninsured.
GINGRICH: Right. And we have — you know, that means you also have 260 million insured.
Perhaps Gingrich hasn’t been paying attention to how private insurance companies have been doing it. They continually deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and drop coverage for many who have insurance (and have paid monthly premiums) when they become ill. In fact, just this month, the CEOs of the nation’s top three health insurers told a House committee that they would continue the practice of canceling medical coverage for sick policy holders, a controversial measure called “rescission.”
Moreover, many of those who have health insurance really aren’t “insured” from the financial burdens of rising health care costs. A national study released this year found that while medical debt contributed to 62 percent of the bankruptcies in 2007, 78 percent of those bankruptcy filers had health insurance but “still were overwhelmed by their medical debt.”
Perhaps because he hasn’t had to shop around for health insurance for quite a while, Gingrich doesn’t know that it’s not that easy to just “change insurance companies” if you’re unhappy with your current provider. Aside from the fact that insurer consolidation has resulted in limited choice and higher profits for insurers, those seeking insurance on the individual market face higher costs, as the Commonwealth Fund has noted:
Insurance in the individual market is often impossible to obtain or unaffordable. Nearly nine of 10 people who explored obtaining coverage through the individual market never bought a plan, citing difficulties finding affordable coverage or being turned down.
If private insurance companies have “done well” and a public plan is no option, how does Gingrich plan to reform health care?
Obama Cites ‘Generational Gap’ As Explanation For Difficulty In Repealing DADT
Obama Cites ‘Generational Gap’ As Explanation For Difficulty In Repealing DADT
On MSNBC last month, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a decorated U.S. Air Force fighter pilot who served in both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, said he was told last year that he was being discharged under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, but planned to fight it, hoping that President Obama would quickly change the policy once he assumed office.
Yesterday, the president hosted a meeting commemorating the 40th anniversary of the gay rights movement where he reiterated his desire to end the policy, saying it “doesn’t contribute to our national security.” Appearing again on MSNBC last night, Fehrenbach, who attended the White House meeting yesterday, said that Obama told him privately that a “generational gap” is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of overturning DADT:
FEHRENBACH: I told him the situation for me was urgent and I needed his help. [...] He looked me right in the eye and he said, “We’re going to get this done.” And then he continued to say, you know, everyone seems to be onboard. We’ve got about 75 percent of the public that supports this. He said, but we have a generational issue. And so, there is some convincing to do, that there is a generational gap it seems and some of the senior leadership.
Fehrenbach called it a “reasonable answer,” adding that “the young officers and the young enlisted corps” he works with find this to be a “a non-issue.” “I sort of suspected that maybe the people that were a little bit disconnected were some of the senior leadership,” he said. Watch it:
Fehrenbach said that he “didn’t get the impression” that Obama was just trying to placate the gay community by offering a photo-op with the president for not acting on gay rights issues thus far. “He likened these efforts to the efforts 40, 50 years ago for the African-American community,” he said. “So…this discrimination is something he’s felt his whole life. So, this sounded like it was a personal issue for him, that he really did believe in these causes and wanted, you know, equal rights for all Americans.”
Wilkerson says DADT ‘should be repealed’ immediately.
Wilkerson says DADT ‘should be repealed’ immediately.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.), former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, appeared on the XM/Sirius radio show “Stand Up! With Pete Dominick” today and stated forcefully that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy barring gay men and women from serving openly in the military “should be repealed”:
DOMINICK: You’re a 31 year veteran of the military, Army, like I’ve said, you served in Vietnam. What’s your opinion of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy currently in place? Should it be repealed or should it remain in place?
WILKERSON: Let me say just right off the bat, it should be repealed. Gays should be able to serve – gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the American armed forces just like anyone else does. [...]
DOMINICK: It should be repealed immediately.
WILKERSON: Yep.
Listen here:
At a meeting commemorating the 40th anniversary of the gay rights movement at the White House today with more than 250 leaders of the gay community, President Obama defended his administration’s lack of action thus far in his presidency in repealing the policy. But according to the Boston Globe, Obama added the delay “does not diminish his pledge to eventually overturn it.” Read the Center for American Progress’s report on how Obama can repeal the ban here.
Transcript: More »
I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.) Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin refuses to run WorldNetDaily’s ‘birther’ ad attack against Obama.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin refuses to run WorldNetDaily’s ‘birther’ ad attack against Obama.
Media Matters reported earlier this month that many in the conservative media — including Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Fox Nation, the Washington Times, and the LA Times’s Andrew Malcolm — “have advanced various versions of the discredited myth that Barack Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate, is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, and is not eligible to be president.” Among those pushing this false myth is the right-wing site WorldNetDaily (WND), which last night reported a setback in its conspiracy-driven mission to expose Obama’s true birth origins:
In the latest effort to obtain information that could settle the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility for office as a “natural born citizen,” WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah attempted to buy a full-page ad in a Honolulu daily newspaper soliciting assistance in finding documentary evidence of his birth in the city Aug. 4, 1961, as he claims in his autobiography. … [T]he copy was rejected [by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin] – the latest turndown by a growing list of media companies that won’t touch the birth certificate issue even for money.
“I spoke to my publisher and unfortunately we cannot accept the ad because it is political,” explained Cyd Kamakea, classified advertising manager.
A number of billboard companies have also rejected ads from WND that ask, “Where’s the birth certificate?”
Sixty-two percent say Sotomayor should be confirmed to Supreme Court.
Sixty-two percent say Sotomayor should be confirmed to Supreme Court.
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll out today asked respondents if the Senate “should or should not confirm” Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Sixty-two percent said that the Senate “should” confirm her — the largest percentage offering support for a Supreme Court nominee in the Post/ABC’s polling since Clarence Thomas in Sept. 1991. This number includes a majority of independents (64 percent) and liberal/moderate Republicans (56 percent). And despite a recent Gallup poll finding that a majority of Americans consider themselves “pro-life” — which many conservatives touted as evidence of opposition to a woman’s right to choose — the Post/ABC poll found that 60 percent “want Sotomayor to vote to (uphold) Roe versus Wade,” the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that paved the way to legalized abortion.
McCain says the House is ‘almost under an autocracy now with Speaker Pelosi.’
McCain says the House is ‘almost under an autocracy now with Speaker Pelosi.’
During an appearance on a local radio station in Phoenix, AZ this morning, a caller asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) when Republican leaders were going to emerge in Congress to “wake the American people up” to the “cap-and-tax” bill. “Why can’t we get the House members and the Senate members to just walk out on what the Democrats are doing?” the caller asked. In response, McCain said that the GOP lawmakers — particularly his House colleagues — have to stay and fight, even though they are working under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) authoritarian rule:
McCAIN: We’re fighting every single day. You don’t want to leave the arena; you want to stay in it and fight. And I guarantee you we are using every parliamentary possibility we have and I have great sympathy for my friends in the House because it’s almost under an autocracy now with Speaker Pelosi.
Watch it:
For the House to be an autocracy, Pelosi would have appointed herself ruler and would possess unlimited power. Even if she expressed any desire for this outcome (something she hasn’t done), then American democracy, the electoral process, and the Constitution’s system of checks and balances would prevent that from happening.
Transcript: More »
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Earlier this week, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had placed a hold on Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s (D-CA) nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, perhaps as blackmail in his wider goal of preventing the Obama administration and Russia from negotiating “deep cuts” in the respective U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. However a congressional source told Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen yesterday that Kyl is no longer holding up the nomination. Soon after, the Senate confirmed Tauscher to the State Department post. Kyl’s office did not respond to inquiries from ThinkProgress asking why Kyl lifted the hold.
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
The Senate has yet to confirm a number of President Obama’s nominees to various State Department posts. One of those nominees, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) — a champion of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — has had a hold placed on her nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. But the hold on her nomination is not anonymous, as Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen reports:
A blanket hold placed late last week by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on all State Department nominees appears to have been lifted on Saturday, administration sources tell The Cable. Kyl’s only remaining hold, The Cable was told, is on Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), President Obama’s nominee to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
Kyl’s office confirmed his remaining hold on Tauscher’s nomination. “He honestly has made no guise of his hold on her nomination,” spokesman Ryan Patmintra told The Cable Monday.
When asked why Kyl is placing a hold on Tauscher, a spokesperson said, “He expressed privately to the administration his concerns. He has chosen not to discuss them publicly.” Indeed, Kyl’s office did not respond to an inquiry from ThinkProgress.
But last week, Rozen reported that Capitol Hill sources said Kyl “is not satisified with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia”:
“Kyl’s beef and the general Republican argument now emerging against the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy is that they are rushing to conclude a new agreement with Russia on strategic arms levels before their Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] is complete,” a Democratic congressional source said.
However, the Obama administration has to move quickly because the arms control agreement with Russia — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a verification regime signed in 1991 — expires on Dec. 5. The Obama administration has made no secret of wanting warmer relations with Russia. In recent negotiations, both nations have expressed interest in “much deeper cuts in strategic arsenals than those achieved by START when it came into force.”
Nuclear non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione told ThinkProgress, “Senator Kyl wants to delay any arms reductions until the Nuclear Posture Review, then work the process so the NPR makes only minor changes to the existing nuclear arsenal.”
Indeed, if Obama makes a deal with Russian President Medvedev to drastically reduce nuclear stockpiles, Kyl — who is against reducing America’s nuclear weapons — won’t have much of an opportunity to challenge it. Kyl would rather play domestic politics with the NPR and have a chance at limiting nuclear reductions before any U.S.-Russia binding agreement. Thus, it appears Kyl is using the NPR as an excuse to block U.S. negotiations with Russia, and is holding up Tauscher’s nomination as blackmail.
Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’
Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’
Since turmoil broke out in Iran over the country’s disputed elections last week, conservatives have been forcefully criticizing President Obama for not doing enough to intervene on the side of those protesting. Their criticism comes despite numerous expert opinions — even from Iranian human rights activists — that the U.S. should not meddle in the situation. This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continued the attacks. “He’s been timid and passive more than i would like,” he said of Obama. Later on the program though, conservative columnist George Will called such criticism “foolish”:
WILL: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.
Watch it:
In her Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous,” she wrote, adding that “the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week.”
Caught Up In Nostalgic Reagan Hysteria, ‘Student Of History’ McCain Credits Him For 1968 Prague Spring
Caught Up In Nostalgic Reagan Hysteria, ‘Student Of History’ McCain Credits Him For 1968 Prague Spring
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been having a tough time with the current situation in Iran. He has been criticizing President Obama’s “hands off” approach and encouraging him to get more involved (despite expert opinion that says otherwise). But former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — a McCain supporter whom McCain recently called “the smartest man in the world” — said this week that he thinks Obama “has handled this well.”
Last night on Fox News, McCain and Sean Hannity joined in with the right wing’s Reagan-era hysteria, with Hannity arguing that Obama should offer “some moral support the way that Ronald Reagan offered moral support” to anti-communists. But in this instance, McCain got carried away, crediting Reagan for something that happened well before he became president:
McCAIN: You and I are both students of history and we’ve seen this movie before. When Ronald Reagan stood up for the workers in Gdansk in Poland, when he stood up for the people of Czechoslovakia, in Prague Spring, and America did. And some good Democrats did, too.
Watch it:
Perhaps McCain needs a new history lesson. The Prague Spring was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia when Communist Party leader Alexander Dubcek allowed greater speech and assembly freedoms when he came to power… in January 1968. Ronald Reagan had just completed his first year as California’s governor at that time. Soviet and other Warsaw Pact troops invaded eight months later to end the reform movement.
Since the uprising in Iran over its disputed elections, conservatives of all stripes have been quick to invoke their hero Ronald Reagan as a guidepost from which to criticize Obama’s response (as they often do with just about any issue). But as Matt Duss noted, referring to McCain, “Indeed, we’ve all seen this movie before”:
It’s the one where conservatives deploy a potted history of the Cold War — in which Reagan spoke and the walls came tumbling down — to cast international politics as a zero-sum contest between good and evil, and to cow progressives into a more aggressive rhetorical posture toward America’s adversary of the moment. It is usually hidden under the guise of “solidarity with captive peoples” and absent any genuine consideration of the practical effects on the peoples concerned.
If McCain and company are going to continue to rely on Reagan for guidance, they should at least try to maintain the correct historical time-line.
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage spoke earlier this week at the Missouri Boys State, an event that was held on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. During the question and answer period, Armitage was asked about President Obama’s “softer force when dealing with other nations.” “Mr. Obama is in some ways presenting a much better face to the world. I wouldn’t call it a soft face, I’d call it a smart face,” Armitage replied. He then took a subtle dig at President Bush:
ARMITAGE: I think he’s using both our soft and hard power in a more intelligent way. [...] I think he’s using our power more intelligently. And using all the tools in our kit box now, in our tool box. Mr. Bush just used sanctions and force. And I think this gives us a better opportunity to prevail. What is soft power? It’s the ability to attract. You want to persuade, you want to attract them. Hard power is coercive. Well, force them to do something. If you can attract people I think it’s always better. It seems to last longer.
Earlier in the discussion, Armitage said he disagrees with Vice President Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration adding that he should “pipe down.” “I think it’s unseemly,” Armitage said. Later, referring to Colin Powell’s criticism of Republican Party, Armitage said that Powell is just trying to get the GOP to stop acting “like a bunch of knuckleheads.”
Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Last April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended capping production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 planes. Gates said the move was part of a series of changes in defense spending that he called “no-brainers.” (The F-22 has never seen action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.) Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee “threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end” the F-22 program, voting 31-30 on a measure marking up the Defense Department spending bill that would “add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.” Six Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Courtney (CT), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Eric Massa (NY), Bobby Bright (AL), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — joined 25 Republicans in voting for the amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the extra money would be a boost for Lockheed [Martin's] Marietta, Ga., production facility” which is in Marshall’s home state.
Obama: ‘I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.’
Obama: ‘I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.’
During an interview with President Obama that aired on CNBC yesterday, chief Washington correspondent John Harwood said, “When you and I spoke in January, you said — I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming.” Harwood added that since then, Obama still hasn’t received much critical press and wondered if his administration isn’t being “sufficiently held accountable.” Obama, however, disagreed:
OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…
HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.
OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.
Watch it:
Seeming to undermine the premise of his question, Harwood said after the interview that Obama has “gotten slapped around pretty good on our network for a while” too.
Lugar disagrees with McCain’s call for the U.S. to ‘act’ against Iran.
Lugar disagrees with McCain’s call for the U.S. to ‘act’ against Iran.
Yesterday on Fox News, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the Iranian election a “sham” and said that he hopes the U.S. “will act.” President Obama said that he would refrain from weighing in. “[We] want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football,” he said. Today, McCain responded, calling on Obama to turn up his rhetoric. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights,” he said. But this morning on CBS, McCain’s Senate GOP colleague and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) sided with Obama:
HARRY SMITH: Beyond watching…beyond supporting the idea that these disputed votes should be recounted, is there anything the United States can do?
LUGAR: No. I think for the moment our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation. When popular revolutions occur, they come really from the people. They’re generated by people power within the country. For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy…and to use us, really, to retain their power.
Watch it:
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted, “Were the U.S to clumsily wade into this Iranian political crisis, as McCain would have us do, it would support Ahmadinejad’s main arguments against his domestic opponents, and likely provide the perfect pretext for a more intense crackdown. In other words, the preferences of hardliners in Iran and the U.S. are pretty closely aligned here.”
CIA told Zubaydah they mistook him for a high-level al Qaeda operative.
CIA told Zubaydah they mistook him for a high-level al Qaeda operative.
According to new transcripts from of a 2007 Combatant Status Review Tribunal held at Guantanamo Bay, detainee Abu Zubaydah said that his CIA captors told him after he was subjected to torture that “they had mistakenly thought he was the No. 3 man in the organization’s hierarchy and a partner of Osama bin Laden.” “They told me, ‘Sorry, we discover that you are not Number 3, not a partner, not even a fighter,’” Zubaydah said. Zubaydah, who was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in one month, also said that he nearly died in prison:
Abu Zubaida, a nom de guerre for Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, told the 2007 panel of military officers at the detention facility in Cuba that “doctors told me that I nearly died four times” and that he endured “months of suffering and torture” on the false premise that he was an al-Qaeda leader.
Despite President Bush’s rhetoric, Zubaydah’s torture “foiled no plots,” a point that one of his interrogators confirmed during a congressional hearing last May. The portion of the 2007 Combatant Review Status hearing transcript in which Majid Khan — an alleged associate of Khalid Sheik Mohammad — discussed his treatment at CIA black sites was “blacked out for eight consecutive pages.”
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports this morning that former Bush flack Ari Fleischer emailed fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler before any results had been issued in Iran’s hotly-contested presidential election to give credit to his former boss for the “reformists’ surge” there. “[O]ne of the reasons there is a substantial reform movement in Iran — particularly among its young people — is because of George W. Bush’s tough policies,” Fleischer wrote. He continued:
“A big push for reform is because of the desire of Iranians to get out from sanctions, to put an end to the country’s international ostracism,” Fleischer wrote and, most interestingly, “because Shiites in particular see Shiites in Iraq having more freedoms than they do. Bush’s tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we’re witnessing that today.” [...]
So “I think it’s fair to say the George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East,” Fleischer concluded.
Aside from the fact that Fleischer’s claim cannot really ever be verified (a tactic former Bush administration officials use when defending their failed policies), it’s clear that Iran’s power in the region has grown significantly in the region since 2001 — a point one wonders if Fleischer will also give Bush credit for.
The Shiites’ “freedom” in Iraq has actually emboldened Iran’s standing and created a key new ally in the region. Iran has emerged as the chief beneficiary of Bush’s fool’s errand in Iraq. As journalist Robert Dreyfuss noted, “Washington’s decision to topple Saddam’s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.” But also, Iran’s nuclear program has progressed greatly during the Bush years. Despite his “tough” policies, Iran has inched closer to a nuclear weapon, raising the possibility of greater instability in the region and even perhaps a new war.
It is also worth noting that hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president in 2005 (during Bush’s presidency), supplanting a former moderate who held the office. In fact, reformers there said at the time that they wanted the Bush administration to tone down the harsh rhetoric:
“You are harmful for us. We try to tell politicians in Washington, D.C., please don’t do anything in favor of reform or to promote democracy in Iran. Because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing,” said Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West.
Steve Benen notes of Flesicher, “[W]hat’s a ‘veteran spinmeister’ to do? Tell reporters on Friday that before anyone looks favorably on the current American leadership, it’s more important to extol the previous American leadership — you know, the one who was widely reviled throughout the Middle East.”
Liz Cheney falsely claims Obama hasn’t said ‘I believe in American exceptionalism.’
Liz Cheney falsely claims Obama hasn’t said ‘I believe in American exceptionalism.’
Liz Cheney continued her seemingly unending campaign to flood the American media, and once again, she said something that isn’t true. This time, on CNN last night, she criticized the Obama administration for being “focused on the president’s popularity overseas.” “We’ve now seen several different occasions when he’s been on the international trips, where he’s not willing to say, flat out, ‘I believe in American exceptionalism,’” Cheney complained. But of course, Obama has said this. Last April during a press conference at the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, Obama was asked if he “subscribe[s]…to the school of American exceptionalism.” Obama replied:
OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. … And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Watch the compilation:
No, Obama did not say “America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today,” as Cheney wishes. But she essentially wants him to stand in front of a room full of foreigners and say, “We’re better than you.” This is exactly the kind of cowboy diplomacy that has hurt America’s relationship with its allies over the last eight years and ultimately its standing in the world.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll