The right wing is in complete furor/meltdown mode over the President's remarks regarding Israel. Former Governor Romney declared that the President "threw Israel under the bus." Representative Bachmann is actually raising money off of the President's "betrayal" of Israel.
Which makes me wonder if anyone has actually read, or even listened to, the speech. Considering that in one of his familiar bright red linked headlines, Drudge links to an AP story that contains the following: Obama's stance on the 1967 borders was not a major policy change, since the U.S — along with the international community and even past Israeli governments — previously had agreed to building on the 1967 lines.
I mean really.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Let Obama be Obama
Someone tweeted that shortly after the President's speech on long term fiscal responsibility.
I agree. And it is about damn time.
I agree. And it is about damn time.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Obama's Long Game
I'll admit, I am as guilty of this from time to time as most of my friends on the left are.
In the aftermath of the compromise over the FY 2011 budget, many on the left, from Rachel Maddow to Ezra Klein to Christopher Hayes were excoriating President Obama for his "failures at negotiation" or his "give away to the GOP" or his "cave in." I read opinions from respected friends on Twitter accusing the President of a complete failure at negotiation, and worse.
I took these with a grain of salt, as we had yet to hear full details. I also understood the situation the President was in. The GOP after the midterm elections asked for a $100B cut in spending for the yet to be passed FY 2011 budget. The new GOP House of Representatives passed a bill approving $61B in cuts. While it is true that Speaker Boehner initially asked for $31B, this is not like haggling over the price of a new car, like I have seen some compare it to on Twitter. (Okay, maybe it is like haggling over a new car. But to complete the analogy, the salesman said he could sell the car for $10K. The buyer wanted to do it for $8K. But then the salesman learns that not only does his boss want to sell it for $15K, but the home office wants to sell the car for $18K. In that light, getting the car for $12K isn't a bad deal given that the home office was pushing for $18K).
What further clouds that analogy is the policy contained within the cuts, specifically what was cut, and what was not. Well, we're finally learning that and, well, let's just say that the President managed to do pretty well.
While those on the left who initially criticized the President over this deal have moved on to the FY2012 budget and other criticisms of the President, let us remember that at times it does seem that while we are all playing checkers, the President is playing chess. And playing it rather well.
In the aftermath of the compromise over the FY 2011 budget, many on the left, from Rachel Maddow to Ezra Klein to Christopher Hayes were excoriating President Obama for his "failures at negotiation" or his "give away to the GOP" or his "cave in." I read opinions from respected friends on Twitter accusing the President of a complete failure at negotiation, and worse.
I took these with a grain of salt, as we had yet to hear full details. I also understood the situation the President was in. The GOP after the midterm elections asked for a $100B cut in spending for the yet to be passed FY 2011 budget. The new GOP House of Representatives passed a bill approving $61B in cuts. While it is true that Speaker Boehner initially asked for $31B, this is not like haggling over the price of a new car, like I have seen some compare it to on Twitter. (Okay, maybe it is like haggling over a new car. But to complete the analogy, the salesman said he could sell the car for $10K. The buyer wanted to do it for $8K. But then the salesman learns that not only does his boss want to sell it for $15K, but the home office wants to sell the car for $18K. In that light, getting the car for $12K isn't a bad deal given that the home office was pushing for $18K).
What further clouds that analogy is the policy contained within the cuts, specifically what was cut, and what was not. Well, we're finally learning that and, well, let's just say that the President managed to do pretty well.
As a result of the legerdemain, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber passed a bill slashing this year's budget by more than $60 billion. In doing so, the White House protected favorites like the Head Start early learning program, while maintaining the maximum Pell grant of $5,550 and funding for Obama's "Race to the Top" initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools.
Obama also repelled Republican moves to cut $1 billion in grants for community health centers and $500 million from biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, while blocking them from "zeroing out" the AmeriCorps national service program and subsidies for public broadcasting.
Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.
About $10 billion of the cuts already have been enacted as the price for keeping the government open as negotiations progressed; lawmakers tipped their hand regarding another $10 billion or so when the House passed a spending bill last week that ran aground in the Senate.
While those on the left who initially criticized the President over this deal have moved on to the FY2012 budget and other criticisms of the President, let us remember that at times it does seem that while we are all playing checkers, the President is playing chess. And playing it rather well.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Obama: "No time for games."
President Obama just made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room. In short, he indicated that the Democrats and the White House have now agreed to $73 Billion in budget cuts from the FY2011 budget, the number which Speaker Boehner originally proposed. The President indicated that the GOP now will not agree to the cuts because the White House cuts are different than the GOP cuts, despite the fact they add up to the same number.
Your turn, Mr. Speaker.
Your turn, Mr. Speaker.
Shut it down
I used to be a fan of the Fox TV show "Hell's Kitchen," where London based chef Gordon Ramsay would put aspiring chefs through their paces during a series of challenges. Each week would culminate in the chefs opening up the "Hell's Kitchen Restaurant" to diners for a dinner service. Usually in the earlier weeks, each dinner service would end with an irate Ramsay instructing the staff to "shut it down," i.e., close the restaurant because everyone sucks.
It seems today Boehner is channeling his inner Gordon Ramsay, as we're closer to a government shutdown.
Again?
This just popped up on my Twitter feed:
@AlanFisher: Obama calls on Cote D'Ivoire's Gbagbo to quit "immediately"
Alan Fisher is a journalist with Al-Jazeera English, based out of London.
As Yogi Berra once said, "it's like deja vu all over again."
@AlanFisher: Obama calls on Cote D'Ivoire's Gbagbo to quit "immediately"
Alan Fisher is a journalist with Al-Jazeera English, based out of London.
As Yogi Berra once said, "it's like deja vu all over again."
Monday, March 28, 2011
My Thoughts On Libya
In advance of the President's remarks on the intervention in Libya this evening, I thought it would be at least responsible to go on the record myself, lest I be accused of altering my views in light of what the President has to say.
First, I believe that intervention in the situation in Libya is the proper course of action for two main reasons: One, viewing the events in Libya through the prism of the events in the Middle East, the message must be sent to other leaders/dictators that the world community will not stand by and watch you resort to violence to retain a hold on power. If the United States, and the world, were to stand by and watch a massacre of Libyan civilians take place, other leaders in Gaddafi's position would chose his route, rather than stepping aside. Two, the fact that the Arab League sought such intervention requires those in the West to act. Failure to do so would undermine any hope of establishing and building a relationship of trust between the West and the Arab nations.
On a larger scale, I support the limited American involvement in this action because of the three reasons mentioned above, but also because I believe the limited American involvement demonstrates a paradigm shift in the role of the United States in the world. As a superpower with the world's greatest military, and armed with the world's greatest military advances, the United States can play a very complex and important role in operations such as the intervention in Libya. We can provide unique air support, unique mid-air refueling, and with the world's largest fleet of operational aircraft carriers, we can deploy air cover the world over quickly and more efficiently than any other nation. So we will always play a role in these situations. However, by acting in the manner in which we have, by waiting for UN support, and by handing over the control of this operation to global partners, the United States has indicated that we will not always act alone, and there are times and instances when other nations will be required to share the burden.
So in short, for a number of reasons I support this action.
Now that does not mean I agree with how the action has been handled by the President, whom I voted for and still support.
Many in the pundit world have tried to draw comparisons between this action and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I will start there as well. While many focus on whether the President should have taken this issue to Congress prior to acting (which I do not believe, given the War Powers Act and the imminent humanitarian crisis in Libya) I want to focus on just how little the President has shared with the American people to date.
In 2003, we were told by the Bush Administration that the justification for war was the fear that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to potentially use them against our interests in the Middle East. In the wake of 9/11, such justification was widely supported. However, it turns out that the true justification for the Iraq invasion was regime change. No one can say with a straight face that Iraq is better off without Saddam in power, but if regime change was the ultimate goal, make sure that is what the stated justification for acting is.
Today, it would seem that regime change in Libya is the ultimate goal for the United States. Again, a laudable justification. If that is the case, then make that case to the American people. Or perhaps the justification behind this action is to deter other leaders in the region from resorting to violence to suppress uprisings. Again, a laudable justification.
Just tell us....something. So far the President has been quiet, almost silent. Tonight I hope to hear exactly why this action was necessary. I want to see if the President can square the stated justification (i.e., preventing a massacre in Benghazi) with his statement that Gaddafi "must go."
First, I believe that intervention in the situation in Libya is the proper course of action for two main reasons: One, viewing the events in Libya through the prism of the events in the Middle East, the message must be sent to other leaders/dictators that the world community will not stand by and watch you resort to violence to retain a hold on power. If the United States, and the world, were to stand by and watch a massacre of Libyan civilians take place, other leaders in Gaddafi's position would chose his route, rather than stepping aside. Two, the fact that the Arab League sought such intervention requires those in the West to act. Failure to do so would undermine any hope of establishing and building a relationship of trust between the West and the Arab nations.
On a larger scale, I support the limited American involvement in this action because of the three reasons mentioned above, but also because I believe the limited American involvement demonstrates a paradigm shift in the role of the United States in the world. As a superpower with the world's greatest military, and armed with the world's greatest military advances, the United States can play a very complex and important role in operations such as the intervention in Libya. We can provide unique air support, unique mid-air refueling, and with the world's largest fleet of operational aircraft carriers, we can deploy air cover the world over quickly and more efficiently than any other nation. So we will always play a role in these situations. However, by acting in the manner in which we have, by waiting for UN support, and by handing over the control of this operation to global partners, the United States has indicated that we will not always act alone, and there are times and instances when other nations will be required to share the burden.
So in short, for a number of reasons I support this action.
Now that does not mean I agree with how the action has been handled by the President, whom I voted for and still support.
Many in the pundit world have tried to draw comparisons between this action and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I will start there as well. While many focus on whether the President should have taken this issue to Congress prior to acting (which I do not believe, given the War Powers Act and the imminent humanitarian crisis in Libya) I want to focus on just how little the President has shared with the American people to date.
In 2003, we were told by the Bush Administration that the justification for war was the fear that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and was going to potentially use them against our interests in the Middle East. In the wake of 9/11, such justification was widely supported. However, it turns out that the true justification for the Iraq invasion was regime change. No one can say with a straight face that Iraq is better off without Saddam in power, but if regime change was the ultimate goal, make sure that is what the stated justification for acting is.
Today, it would seem that regime change in Libya is the ultimate goal for the United States. Again, a laudable justification. If that is the case, then make that case to the American people. Or perhaps the justification behind this action is to deter other leaders in the region from resorting to violence to suppress uprisings. Again, a laudable justification.
Just tell us....something. So far the President has been quiet, almost silent. Tonight I hope to hear exactly why this action was necessary. I want to see if the President can square the stated justification (i.e., preventing a massacre in Benghazi) with his statement that Gaddafi "must go."
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Yet Another Return
Despite life getting in the way from time to time, I have still been kicking around.
With a short vacation coming to a close, I have decided to re-dedicate myself to this blog, and posting more often. I plan on kicking things off with a live blog of President Obama's remarks on Libya tomorrow night, and we will go from there.
See you all soon.
With a short vacation coming to a close, I have decided to re-dedicate myself to this blog, and posting more often. I plan on kicking things off with a live blog of President Obama's remarks on Libya tomorrow night, and we will go from there.
See you all soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
