Idiocy

If you didn't know this was going to happen above Manhattan and you were in a tall office building, what would be your first thought?

That's a pretty big unforced error, Louis Caldera.  We'll see if you keep your job as Director of the White House Military Office.  Apparently Obama was furious when he was informed.  This will be a nice test of accountability in the Obama era.

It was all for a "photo op," because apparently the White House Military Office has never heard of Photoshop.

UPDATE: After the review of the incident, Louis Caldera lost his job.  Score one for accountability.

Waiting for the Attack...

If you look at Al Qaeda's timing, a striking pattern emerges which makes perfect sense in light of their strategic goals.  Remember, bin Laden said:

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

Al Qaeda thinks they won the Cold War, thank you very much!

In order to achieve these goals, they need reactionary, traumatized Presidents.  Therefore, they strike at the beginning of President's terms.  They were founded in 1990, and their first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center came in 1993, at the beginning of Clinton's term.  Clinton dealt with the pressure brilliantly - prosecuting and imprisoning those responsible.  Who knows what his reaction would have been if they had succeeded in bringing down the tower, however.

Bush, we all know, watched as 9/11 occurred 20% into his first term in office, and he did not handle it nearly so well.  He played right into bin Laden's hands, giving him the economically draining and Muslim-radicalizing war he wanted.

So, the question is, when is Obama's attack scheduled?  It'll come in the first year, if the pattern holds.

... Unless, of course, the terrorists see what I do in this young President.  I don't think he'll play into their hands the way our Cowboy President did, so they might be better served in waiting to attack in Q2-Q3 2012, thereby removing him from office in the elections.  If I were them, that's what I'd do.  Obama is never going to serve their strategic goals.

Gingrich the Obama Negation Machine

Here's Newt Gingrich, lying furiously:

You have Obama nominating Judge Hamilton, who said in her ruling that saying the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK. You'll find most Republican senators voting against a judge who is confused about whether you can say Jesus Christ in a prayer, particularly one who is pro-Muslim being able to say Allah.

Tomasky does an excellent job documenting what actually happened:

Naturally, it's all a lie, but as I said, even I was shocked at how rancidly despicable a lie it was.

It's a great read.

It seems like Newt has taken this whole "bright lines between the parties" thing a little too much to heart.  He seems to be nothing more than a universal Obama-Negation machine.  If Obama is for it, Newt is against it, even if he was for it just 3 years ago.  His political persona has devolved into one of unthinking, reflexive opposition to a President that is governing with a substantial electoral and public approval mandate.  

I guess someone's gotta do it, huh?  It might as well be someone that will never run for President.

Obama on Accountability and the Rule of Law

It was just incredibly disapointing when Rahm Emanual,  Obama's Chief of Staff and virtual co-President, said that not only weren't we going to investigate those who carried out torture, but we would also leave the architects of the program uninvestigated.

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program “This Week” that “those who devised policy” also “should not be prosecuted.” But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale.

And while Mr. Obama vowed not to prosecute C.I.A. officers for acting on legal advice, on Monday aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques.

That's bad.

It's going to be an interesting three years for those of us on the Constitutional Left.  We need to keep in mind that Obama is a strategist who plays long ball, and as such we have to be aware that there are more pressing priorities at the moment than accountability for the Bush Administration.  We've all seen the graphs comparing this downturn with historical recessions - the graphs where we're giving the Great Depression a run for its money in GDP and employment terms.  This is a legitimate global crisis, and it must be fully addressed before taking on anything that might cause partisan gridlock.  Heck, just passing a Stimulus Plan that made macroeconomic sense was a process rife with partisanship.  Imagine trying to get those three Senate votes after prosecuting George W. Bush as a war criminal?

The same applies to Don't Ask Don't Tell, by the way.  We have serious, huge legislation to pass, and then we can hit the partisan stuff.

Obama Supports Bush Habeas Revokation?

The NYT is reporting today that Obama will continue the Bush Administration's legal position on the rights afforded to detainees at Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan.

Listen, I've said this before.  We're in a strange time.  A time when the problems with our form of government have been laid bare by the lawlessness of the Bush Administration.  They hired yes-men lawyers who told them exactly what they wanted to hear, thereby giving the color of law to their flagrant criminality.  From Torture to Wiretapping to Habeas Corpus, the Bush Administration was able to claim (and have their minions loudly repeat) that what they were doing was legal.  Although it wasn't really new ground, 9/11 made it seem like it was, and that was enough to muddle the field.

As perverse as it sounds, Obama needs to continue these policies.  Obviously, the clear law of the land wasn't enough to dissuade a President who seeks to lacerate the Constitution, so how then can we ensure they don't happen again?  Rulings from the Supreme Court, that's how.

RightWing Thinks US Military is Omnipotent

That's right, nothing is too difficult for those amazing men and women from the United States Armed Services!  RedState had this crazy stuff to say about what Obama should have done with the pirates:

On Friday, April 10, as the standoff reached the end of its third day, I called on President Obama to take action to free the American hostage from his Somali captors. I outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so; number 1 was the following:

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redhot/#post-2394

(1) 2 helos, 2 snipers each: pop the [pirates] in their heads, then drop a rescue swimmer to escort the hostage up to one of the choppers. This works best if the hostage is aware of what is happening and can help without getting in the way — say, by hopping overboard as the gunships near, to divert attention and get out of the line of fire.

(This was written before the USS Bainbridge tethered the life raft to its stern, an action which eliminated the need for helicopters.)

Really?  Apparently, there's no concern that four separate snipers would be able to put a single round each into the heads of the pirates from a moving helicopter.  Apparently, they could accomplish this simultaneously and without the pirates knowing they're coming (easy when approaching by helo), maintaining surprise so as to protect the hostage.  All of this is not only possible, it's so likely to succeed that the President was some kind of spineless weakling for not jumping at the opportunity to give the order.

Interestingly, even in this expert-level marksmanship competition featuring shots from helo, they're still using fully automatic weapons and they're lucky to put the rounds within 5 feet of their target.  I'm sure hitting an 8inch target is just a walk in the park for our military.

RedState Thinks Armed Forces Command Themselves?

Obama gave the order for violent escalation last Friday, and today everything was in place for the operation to go forward.

A senior US official tells me that President Barack Obama approved a recommendation by Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen to dispatch special forces to the US scene on Friday.

These special forces were authorized to take action "in extremis" against the Somali pirates holding Maersk Captain Richard Phillips, 53, hostage on a motorized lifeboat off the coast of Somalia.

A senior official tells me that when the fourth Somali pirate was on the Bainbridge ship, Phillips moved to side of the lifeboat to relieve himself.

At that point, U.S. special forces saw their opportunity and took other three pirates out.

Captain Phillips is now safe aboard a U.S. vessel.

It's "going to make a great movie," a U.S. official adds.

RedState is having none of it:

In the end, Captain Phillips wasn’t saved by the President, but by his own courageous plunge and the deadly professionalism of our men with guns. The President, you see, was saved by the Captain.

They spin a story of the President paralyzed with fear, unable to contemplate that most horrible option of using force.  Then, when the deed is done all they can muster is "Obama doesn't deserve credit!"  

Once again, this is an utter failure of expectations management by the GOP.  They have to learn that Obama is playing long ball here, and that by trying to react with maximum indignation within every newscycle they end up looking like craven, waffling idiots, unable to craft any sort of coherent message and clearly uninterested in the task of governing.

Will this sort of frantic attack on every front eventually result in Obama's approval ratings falling, or will it serve to help keep the GOP isolated to the Talk Radio extremes?  We'll see.

Obama Love

Have you heard that Obama's teleprompter thinks for him?



I love this guy.

GOP Bad at Expectations Game

Steve Bennen write's up Obama at the G-20 so I don't have to.  In particular, note the phrases I bolded in the first paragraph:

The world leaders who assembled at the G20 reached an agreement to address the global economic crisis, but whether their plan has merit depends a bit on who you ask. On the one hand, the agreement "was more than what experts expected," and was arguably "remarkable given the discord that preceded Thursday's meeting." The LA Times said the end product "surprised many observers with its unusually substantive achievements." At the same time, the WSJ and NYTwere less impressed.

But how about President Obama's first turn on the global stage, just two months into his first term? He told reporters yesterday, "I think I did O.K." By some measures, Obama was selling himself short.

For example, there was a heated disagreement between France and China over tax havens and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Obama personally intervened, took the opposing leaders aside, and brokered an agreement based on little more than a rhetorical shift. The process seemed a little silly, but it was the U.S. president's "first moment as a statesman."

TNR's John Judis said Obama's "performance at the G-20 has been flawless." TAP's Tim Fernholzadded, "After the G-20, we can say that President Barack Obama had a successful entrance onto the world stage." The WaPo's Steven Pearlstein concluded, "All in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness. And by the standards of past summits, this one was full of accomplishment."

The Republicans suck at the expectations game.  It's like they've suddenly become bad at politics.

Can't Give the Queen what She Wants?

I just don't understand what gives the Fox/Talk Radio crowd the vapors these days.  They're hyperventilating now about the fact that the Obamas gave the Queen a video IPod, and the horrible breach of etiquette this represents.  It's funny, cuz I remember these same Republicans being appalled by this:

Wait, was it "appalled," or "never mentioned?" I can't remember.

Of course, this is made doubly ridiculous by the fact that the Queen requested the Video IPod. She had a previous generation IPod already, but she wanted the neat toy that could play video.  She should have gone for the Touch.

Update: DKos put together a video of the outrage, and a British spokesperson's succinct rebuttal.

Europe doesn't hate Obama?

I thought I had heard that Europe thinks Obama is taking America "to hell" with his stimulus plans and regulatory ideas?  Well, apparently not.  But I thought I heard that over and over again on talk radio and Fox News.  Do you think they didn't check their sources?  They wouldn't run with a story that wasn less than the truth just to make Obama look bad, would they?

Reporting from Los Angeles and London -- The G-20 leaders will pour at least $1 trillion into the global economy in an effort to stimulate recovery from a worldwide downturn and will push for greater regulation of the financial industry, officials said this morning.

In a televised news conference from London, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the key elements of the plan, including an additional $500 billion for the International Monetary Fund, $250 billion in IMF Special Drawing Rights and $250 billion to boost trade.

The leaders of the major economies also pledged to work on such regulatory issues as pay and bonuses for executives and bringing financial instruments such as hedge funds into tighter government control. Many blame the new investment instruments, including derivatives and credit swaps, for the economic contraction around the world.

"This is the day that the world came together to fight back against the global recession," Brown told reporters.

"Our message today is clear and certain. We believe that in this new global age, our prosperity is indivisible,' he said. "We believe that growth, to be sustained, must be shared, and that trade must once again become an engine of growth. The old Washington consensus is over; today we have reached a new consensus."

"There are no quick fixes. But with the six pledges that we make today, we can shorten the recession and save jobs."

The six pledges may not have been everything Obama said he wanted, but it is excellent nonetheless.  And when you're dealing with someone like Obama, a cautious poker player, it's difficult to say that his "Ask" wasn't merely a strategic opening, leading to the outcome he originally desired.  A trillion dollars is no slouch, and the work to strengthen regulations is key to establishing a healthy period of real economic growth.

The Republicans really need to learn how to set expectations.  They've turned this trip from an impending disaster, where the EU rebukes Obama harshly, into a remarkable accomplishment, with Obama brokering deals and closing the breach between American and the rest of the world.

The Magnificent Mercy of Obama

Yay, let me sing the beatitudes:

Obama's Attorney General let Senator Stevens walk away from his felony convictions today because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The message?  Prosecutions will be conducted legally, or the prosecutors themselves will suffer far worse than a behind-closed-doors verbal beating.  These prosecutors, who had Stevens dead to rights, are now tarnished forever by the public knowledge that they let him get away because they failed to do their job legally.  Furthermore, the Alaskan judge in charge of the case of leaning towards an investigation of the DoJ lawyers.

Excellent.  I love seeing good precedents set.  The entire US Attorney apparatus will learn from this day.

Contracts Only Matter When they Belong to WS?

Isn't it encouraging to see so much criticism of Barack Obama from the Left?  I love seeing accountability, even for the supposed "Chosen One" we think of as our God.

The latest round of attacks on Obama from the Left is contained in this headline (In the context of the AIG Bonuses outrage):  Obama forces Wagoner Out..Contracts only matter when they belong to WS.

I beg to differ.

First, in the case of Rick Wagoner being forced out as CEO of GM, you're talking about one person.  A single person can be prevailed upon to behave a certain way for the good of the company, but getting 60 individuals to all agree to forgo their bonuses is an impossible task -  there will be intransigent outliers, if only for the purpose of sticking it to the government.  In any 60 people there's bound to be one Joe the Plumber, right?  So, if even one refuses to give up the bonus willingly, then you're in a situation requiring the abrogation of contracts.  Since they don't have the legal powers to do that, they don't try.  If you haven't noticed, Obama's a cautious guy.  The Administration does not attempt things they aren't very sure they're going to accomplish.

The alternative would be a name and shame technique, putting pressure on the individuals refusing to forgo the bonuses, but it would be seen as sicking violence on the poor Bankers.  The mood out there is a little ugly, after all.  It would be inappropriate for the government to direct it's power at individual citizens in this way. 

Furthermore, they could easily be co-opted by the Republican Opposition.  The Bankers are a smart, typically Republican demographic, and might well come up with the idea themselves.  If a few of them simply refused, they could make the President look impotent.  There could be a Joe the Plumber amongst them, as I said.  It would be a drag, and it wouldn't recover the money from the real assholes anyway without abrogation of the contracts.

That's why these are different situations.  The Left's criticism is unconvincing.

That said, I am a little nervous about Cognitive Regulatory Capture - the fact that our economic team (Summers and Geitner) comes from wall street predisposes them to wall street-centric solutions.  We need to be vigilant on this issue to make sure they are doing the people's work, and not Goldman's.

Fournier!

Remember Ron Fournier, the partisan that nearly took a Senior Advisor job in the McCain campaign, but instead decided to go be the DC Bureau Chief for the Associated Press?  You know, the objective wire service?  He's doing a bang-up job.  Here's Fournier take on last night's White House press conference.

What kind of politician brings a teleprompter to a news conference?

A careful one.

President Barack Obama took no chances in his second prime-time news conference, reading a prepared statement in which he took both sides of the AIG bonus brouhaha and asked an anxious nation for its patience. [...]

One of the few times he summoned raw emotion came after a reporter demanded to know why it took him so long to express outrage over the AIG executive bonuses.

"It took a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

Even better, he likes to have it up on the teleprompter.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is presented as an "analysis" piece.  Just like his "analysis" of Clinton's convention speech was to count the number of times she used a variation on the pronoun "I."  The answer was in the teens.  You'd think, if that were interesting analysis, the same would be the case of McCain's speech - where he used the word "I" itself over 100 times.

And once again, we've got the AP parroting the Republican talking point of the week.  It's simply amazing that they're trying to make this stick.  They think they can paint the guy who writes with surpassing eloquence, went through 27 Democratic Debates, then another 3 with McCain, as someone who cannot think without the teleprompter doing it for him.  They make this case after Bush.

Astonishing.

Press Treats Obama Tougher

The Elite Press is a little miffed that Obama didn't call on them at the press conference, but they were impressed at the questions:

Breaking with tradition and using a prepared list, Obama did not recognize journalists with The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today -- the last four of which were not picked at last month's news conference, either. Instead, he called on reporters for Ebony magazine, Stars and Stripes, Univision, and Agence France-Presse.

Obama's selection process last night did not result in softball inquiries.

Virtually every correspondent was granted a follow-up question, which was often more sharply worded than the first.

Followups - one of the best ways that you can hold a politician to account. After all, it's significantly harder to give a non-responsive answer when aggressive followups are allowed.  It looks like stonewalling, or incompetence.  

Notably, George W. Bush generally refused to allow followups. But at least he didn't use a teleprompter (quite) as much, right? What a brilliant intellect that GWB was.

Obama Presidency a Success!

According to the guys at CNBC and the WSJ, that is, since NASDAQ is now above where it was when Obama became President:

What a stupid way to look at a Presidency.

Media Makes up Obama Campaign Promises

That damned librul media!

Dastardly!

Obama Needs a Teleprompter?

For those who say that Obama can only speak with a teleprompter, here's a link to him answering questions from the Business Forum held this week. These are technical economic questions from business leaders. He does more than fine without the teleprompter, and it's remarkable just how much the corporate class adores the guy.  They practically fawn.

Just ask yourself, how many of you could reliably make every point you wanted to when speaking publicly? When you're making an argument about consequential things, it's prudent to speak in a prepared manner - not just from the cuff.  Hence the teleprompter for speeches and extended remarks, and the no-teleprompter for questions.  Duh.

Finally, don't you think it's just a tad too rich for Republicans to complain about a President not having godlike English abilities? After eight years of Bush? Really?

Public Loved the Semi-SotU

CBS insta-poll on Obama's Semi-SotU

Stimulus is going to help me?

Before:

• 62%
  

After:

• 79%
  

And from CNN:

85% said the speech made them feel more optimistic about the direction the country is headed in (though granted, feeling more optimistic than before might be a low bar), and only 11% said it made them more negative.

And 82% say they support Obama's economic plans as outlined in the speech, with only 17% against.

An ORC poll found that 92% were somewhat or very positive about the speech.  Wow.

It was a perfectly crafted address, striking the balance between sober honesty, hope for the future, and rebuttal of Republican dishonesty. We'll turn this crisis into opportunity, let there be no doubt. I love this guy.

Overlooked in the Stimulus - Tax Cuts

This point hasn't been widely picked up, but the tax cuts in Obama's Stimulus Plan are arguably the largest in American history - targeting those tax cuts to the bottom ~80% instead of the top 5% like Bush.  So the GOP just voted against the largest tax cut in history, for people that will spend it back into the economy.

How's the Club for Growth going to feel about that?  Oh, right.  Tax cuts only count if they're tax cuts for the rich.