test
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Michelle Nunn attends DSCC fundraiser with President Obama
Michelle Nunn gave the latest indication today that she will be entering the U.S. Senate race by showing up to a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser with President Barack Obama.
The fundraiser came after Obama spoke at Morehouse College's rain-soaked commencement. Neither Obama nor U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, the chairman of the DSCC, mentioned Nunn in their remarks, though Bennet said: “We believe Georgia presents us with the greatest opportunity for a pickup.”
U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Augusta – who often tries to avoid Obama – turned down the chance to run for Senate, turning national Democrats' complete focus to Nunn, the CEO of the nonprofit Points of Light and daughter of former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. No doubt she got a hard sell from some combination of Obama, Bennet and DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil, who was spotted in the audience.
There were about 100 guests at the Arthur M. Blank family office, with an entry fee of $10,000 per couple, or $32,400 for a couple to be a “sponsor.” According to an invitation we’ve seen, the sponsors included: Arthur M. Blank, Governor Roy E. Barnes, Mayor Kasim Reed, Pinney Allen & Buddy Miller, Ken Canfield, Larry and Carol Cooper, Buddy Darden, Kirk and Barbara Dornbush, Daniel & Sonya Halpern, Samuel and Louisa Jackson, Tharon Johnson, Kristin Oblander, Justin Tanner, Michèle Taylor and Mack Wilbourn.
Reed must have gotten in Obama’s ear about the Port of Savannah; the president mentioned the need to deepen East Coast ports to prepare for bigger ships coming through the Panama Canal.
Obama also had this to say about the mood in D.C. Maybe those dinners are working?
“You’re starting to see in Washington some sense even among the most partisan folks there that we’ve got to — the balance has tipped too far away from getting stuff done. And that’s why, for example, I’m optimistic about our capacity to get immigration reform done.”
There were no specific mentions all day of the Benghazi/IRS/AP scandal troika currently dominating the Washington scene. The closest was this, after talking about the need to get beyond short-term politics.
"Which doesn’t mean that there aren't going to be politics involved; it doesn’t mean that there are not going to be some rough and tumble. And one thing that I think folks like myself and Michael and Kasim and others learn is that if you get in this business folks are going to take their shots at you -- and I've got the gray hair to prove it."
And no, there was no mention of the Georgia Dome.
Who else got to mingle with POTUS? As the local pool reporter today, I spotted Andy Young at the fundraiser. Also U.S. Reps. Hank Johnson, D-DeKalb; and Cedric Richmond, D-La. and Morehouse grad; hitched a ride down from D.C. on Air Force One this morning. Reed, Fulton County Commission Chairman John Eaves and Clayton County Commission Chairman Jeffrey E. Turner greeted Obama when he arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson airport.
The fundraiser came after Obama spoke at Morehouse College's rain-soaked commencement. Neither Obama nor U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, the chairman of the DSCC, mentioned Nunn in their remarks, though Bennet said: “We believe Georgia presents us with the greatest opportunity for a pickup.”
U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Augusta – who often tries to avoid Obama – turned down the chance to run for Senate, turning national Democrats' complete focus to Nunn, the CEO of the nonprofit Points of Light and daughter of former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn. No doubt she got a hard sell from some combination of Obama, Bennet and DSCC Executive Director Guy Cecil, who was spotted in the audience.
There were about 100 guests at the Arthur M. Blank family office, with an entry fee of $10,000 per couple, or $32,400 for a couple to be a “sponsor.” According to an invitation we’ve seen, the sponsors included: Arthur M. Blank, Governor Roy E. Barnes, Mayor Kasim Reed, Pinney Allen & Buddy Miller, Ken Canfield, Larry and Carol Cooper, Buddy Darden, Kirk and Barbara Dornbush, Daniel & Sonya Halpern, Samuel and Louisa Jackson, Tharon Johnson, Kristin Oblander, Justin Tanner, Michèle Taylor and Mack Wilbourn.
Reed must have gotten in Obama’s ear about the Port of Savannah; the president mentioned the need to deepen East Coast ports to prepare for bigger ships coming through the Panama Canal.
Obama also had this to say about the mood in D.C. Maybe those dinners are working?
“You’re starting to see in Washington some sense even among the most partisan folks there that we’ve got to — the balance has tipped too far away from getting stuff done. And that’s why, for example, I’m optimistic about our capacity to get immigration reform done.”
There were no specific mentions all day of the Benghazi/IRS/AP scandal troika currently dominating the Washington scene. The closest was this, after talking about the need to get beyond short-term politics.
"Which doesn’t mean that there aren't going to be politics involved; it doesn’t mean that there are not going to be some rough and tumble. And one thing that I think folks like myself and Michael and Kasim and others learn is that if you get in this business folks are going to take their shots at you -- and I've got the gray hair to prove it."
And no, there was no mention of the Georgia Dome.
Who else got to mingle with POTUS? As the local pool reporter today, I spotted Andy Young at the fundraiser. Also U.S. Reps. Hank Johnson, D-DeKalb; and Cedric Richmond, D-La. and Morehouse grad; hitched a ride down from D.C. on Air Force One this morning. Reed, Fulton County Commission Chairman John Eaves and Clayton County Commission Chairman Jeffrey E. Turner greeted Obama when he arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson airport.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Astronaut Chris Hadfield's Space Oddity poignant, says David Bowie
DAVID Bowie has given Commander Chris Hadfield the thumbs up for the astronaut's zero gravity version of Space Oddity.
The five-minute video posted by NASA drew a salute from Bowie's official Facebook page: "It's possibly the most poignant version of the song ever created."
In a high-flying, perfectly pitched first, the Canadian astronaut on the International Space Station is bowing out of orbit with a musical video of his own custom version of David Bowie's 1969 classic.
It's believed to be the first music video made in space, according to NASA.
Commander Hadfield's personalised rendition of Space Oddity was posted on YouTube yesterday, one day before his departure from the orbiting lab. He's wrapping up a five-month mission that began last December.
Commander Hadfield has returned to Earth aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule, along with American Thomas Marshburn and Russian Roman Romanenko, landing safely on the steppes in Kazakhstan.
Commander Hadfield, 53, a longtime guitarist who played in an astronaut rock 'n' roll band, recorded the video throughout the space station. He had some down-to-Earth help from a Canadian music team.
"With deference to the genius of David Bowie, here's Space Oddity, recorded on Station. A last glimpse of the World," Commander Hadfield said via Twitter.
The spaceman altered some of the lyrics of Bowie's original version, singing "Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing left to do." The Bowie version goes "... and there's nothing I can do." And instead of "Take your protein pills and put your helmet on," it became, "Lock your Soyuz hatch and put your helmet on".
Planet Earth provided a stunning backdrop for many of the scenes.
"It's just been an extremely fulfilling and amazing experience end to end," Commander Hadfield told Mission Control on Monday. "We're, of course, focusing very much on flying the Soyuz home now and looking forward to seeing everybody face to face. But from this Canadian to all the rest of them, I offer an enormous debt of thanks." He was referring to all those in the Canadian Space Agency who helped make his flight possible.
Commander Hadfield, an engineer and former test pilot from Milton, Ontario, was Canada's first professional astronaut to live aboard the space station and became the first Canadian in charge of a spacecraft. He relinquished command of the space station on Sunday.
He sang often in orbit, using a guitar already aboard the complex, and even took part in a live, Canadian coast-to-coast concert in February that included the Barenaked Ladies' Ed Robertson and a youth choir, and featured the song ISS, "Is Somebody Singing?"
ISS is NASA's acronym for the International Space Station.
Also last February, Commander Hadfield joined the Irish band The Chieftains and two ground-bound astronauts in a Houston concert, singing the lead on Moondance.
NASA broadcast the video on its daily space station update late on Monday morning.
One of the video collaborators was piano arranger Emm Gryner, part of the Bowie band in 1999 and 2000.
"Planet Earth IS blue," she said in her online blog, "and there's nothing left for Chris Hadfield to do. Right. Safe travels home Commander!"
The five-minute video posted by NASA drew a salute from Bowie's official Facebook page: "It's possibly the most poignant version of the song ever created."
In a high-flying, perfectly pitched first, the Canadian astronaut on the International Space Station is bowing out of orbit with a musical video of his own custom version of David Bowie's 1969 classic.
It's believed to be the first music video made in space, according to NASA.
Commander Hadfield's personalised rendition of Space Oddity was posted on YouTube yesterday, one day before his departure from the orbiting lab. He's wrapping up a five-month mission that began last December.
Commander Hadfield has returned to Earth aboard a Russian Soyuz capsule, along with American Thomas Marshburn and Russian Roman Romanenko, landing safely on the steppes in Kazakhstan.
Commander Hadfield, 53, a longtime guitarist who played in an astronaut rock 'n' roll band, recorded the video throughout the space station. He had some down-to-Earth help from a Canadian music team.
"With deference to the genius of David Bowie, here's Space Oddity, recorded on Station. A last glimpse of the World," Commander Hadfield said via Twitter.
The spaceman altered some of the lyrics of Bowie's original version, singing "Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing left to do." The Bowie version goes "... and there's nothing I can do." And instead of "Take your protein pills and put your helmet on," it became, "Lock your Soyuz hatch and put your helmet on".
Planet Earth provided a stunning backdrop for many of the scenes.
"It's just been an extremely fulfilling and amazing experience end to end," Commander Hadfield told Mission Control on Monday. "We're, of course, focusing very much on flying the Soyuz home now and looking forward to seeing everybody face to face. But from this Canadian to all the rest of them, I offer an enormous debt of thanks." He was referring to all those in the Canadian Space Agency who helped make his flight possible.
Commander Hadfield, an engineer and former test pilot from Milton, Ontario, was Canada's first professional astronaut to live aboard the space station and became the first Canadian in charge of a spacecraft. He relinquished command of the space station on Sunday.
He sang often in orbit, using a guitar already aboard the complex, and even took part in a live, Canadian coast-to-coast concert in February that included the Barenaked Ladies' Ed Robertson and a youth choir, and featured the song ISS, "Is Somebody Singing?"
ISS is NASA's acronym for the International Space Station.
Also last February, Commander Hadfield joined the Irish band The Chieftains and two ground-bound astronauts in a Houston concert, singing the lead on Moondance.
NASA broadcast the video on its daily space station update late on Monday morning.
One of the video collaborators was piano arranger Emm Gryner, part of the Bowie band in 1999 and 2000.
"Planet Earth IS blue," she said in her online blog, "and there's nothing left for Chris Hadfield to do. Right. Safe travels home Commander!"
Monday, April 29, 2013
Time to Confront Obama on Radical Islam
The time has come for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to confront US President Barack Obama.
A short summary of events from the past three days: On Tuesday morning, the head of the IDF's Military Intelligence Analysis Division Brig. Gen. Itay Brun revealed that the Syrian government has already used "lethal chemical weapons," against Syrian civilians and opposition forces. Brun described footage of people visibly suffering the impact of chemical agents, apparently sarin gas.
Hours later, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Netanyahu had told him on the telephone that "he was not in a position to confirm" Brun's statement.
It is hard to imagine the US was taken by surprise by Brun's statement. Just the day before, Brun briefed visiting US Defense secretary Chuck Hagel on Syria. It is not possible he failed to mention the same information.
And of course it isn't just the IDF saying that Syrian President Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons. The British and the French are also saying this.
But as a European source told Ma'ariv, the Americans don't want to know the facts. The facts will make them do something about Syria's chemical weapons. And they don't want to do anything about Syria's chemical weapons.
So they force Netanyahu to disown his own intelligence.
Thursday afternoon, in a speech in Abu Dhabi, Hagel confirmed, "with some degree of varying confidence," that Syria used chemical weapons, at least on a "small scale."
What the administration means by "some degree of varying confidence," is of course, unknowable with any degree of varying confidence.
Then there is Iran.
Also on Tuesday, the former head of IDF Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said that Iran has already crossed the red line Israel set last year. It has already stockpiled 170 kg. of medium-enriched uranium, and can quickly produce the other 80 kg. necessary to reach the 250 kg. threshold Netanyahu said will mark Iran's achievement of breakout capability where it can build a nuclear arsenal whenever it wants.
Yadlin made a half-hearted effort Wednesday to walk back his pronouncements. But his basic message remained the same: The die has been cast.
Due to American pressure on Israel not to act, and due to the White House's rejection of clearcut reports about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, Iran has crossed the threshold. Iran will be a nuclear power unless its uranium enrichment installations and other nuclear sites are destroyed or crippled. Now.
True, the Americans set a different red line for Iran than Israel. They say they will not allow Iran to assemble a nuclear bomb. But to believe that the US has the capacity and the will to prevent Iran from climbing the top rung on the nuclear ladder is to believe in the tooth fairy - (see, for instance, North Korea).
Iran has threatened to use it nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel. Have we now placed our survival in the hands of Tinkerbell? And yet, rather than acknowledge what Iran has done, Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon carry on with the tired act of talking about the need for a credible military option but saying that there is still time for sanctions and other non-military means to block Iran's quest for the bomb.
Perhaps our leaders are repeating these lies because they want to present a unified US-Israel front to the world. But the effect is just the opposite.
What their statements really demonstrate is that Israel has been brought to its knees by its superpower patron that has implemented a policy that has enabled Iran to become a nuclear power.
Indeed, the US has allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold while requiring Israel to pretend the course the US has followed is a responsible one.
The announcement that the US has agreed to sell Israel advanced weapons specifically geared towards attacking Iran should also be seen in this light. Israel reportedly spent a year negotiating this deal. But immediately after its details were published, the US started backing away from its supposed commitment to supply them. The US will not provide Israel with bunker-buster bombs.
It will not provide Israel with the bombers necessary to use the bombs Israel isn't getting. And anyway, by the time Israel gets the items the US is selling - like mid-air refuelers - it will be too late.
When, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the US failed to find chemical weapons in the country, then-president George W. Bush's Democratic opponents accused Bush of having politicized intelligence to justify his decision to topple Saddam. In truth, there is no evidence that Bush purposely distorted intelligence reports. Israel's intelligence agencies, and perhaps French ones, were the only allied intelligence arms that had concluded Saddam's chemical weapons - to the extent he had them - did not represent a threat.
The fact that Bush preferred US and British intelligence estimates over Israeli ones doesn't mean that he politicized intelligence.
In contrast, what Obama and his advisers are doing represents the worst case of politicizing intelligence since Stalin arrested his senior security brass rather than heed their warnings of the coming German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Never in US history has there been a greater misuse and abuse of US intelligence agencies than there is today, under the Obama administration.
Take the Boston Marathon bombings. Each day more and more reports come out about the information US agencies had - for years - regarding the threat posed by the Boston Marathon bombers.
But how could the FBI have possibly acted on those threats? Obama has outlawed all discussion or study of jihad, Islamism, radical Islam and the Koran by US federal government agencies. The only law enforcement agency that monitors Islamic websites is the New York Police Department.
And its chief Ray Kelly has bravely maintained his policy despite massive pressure from the media and the political class to end his surveillance operations.
Everywhere else, from the Boston Police Department to the FBI and CIA, US officials are barred from discussing the threat posed by jihadists or even acknowledging they exist. People were impressed that Obama referred to the terrorist attack in Boston as a terrorist attack, because according to the administration-dictated federal lexicon, use of the word terrorism is forbidden, particularly when the act in question was perpetrated by Muslims.
For the past five years, perhaps Netanyahu's greatest achievement in office has been his adroit avoidance of confrontations with Obama. With no one other than the US willing to stand with Israel in public, it is an important national interest for Jerusalem not to have any confrontations with Washington if they can possibly be avoided.
But by now, after five years, with Iran having passed Israel's red line, and with chemical weapons already in play in Syria, the jig is up.
Obama does not have Israel's back.
Contrary to the constant, grinding rhetorical prattle of American and Israeli politicos, Obama will not lift a finger to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He will not lift a finger to prevent chemical weapons from being transferred to the likes of al-Qaida and Hezbollah, and their colleagues in Syria, or used by the Syrian regime.
From Benghazi to Boston, from Tehran to Damascus, Obama's policy is to not fight forces of jihad, whether they are individuals, organizations or states. And his obsession with Palestinian statehood shows that he would rather coerce Israel to make concessions to Palestinian Jew-haters and terrorists than devote his time and energy into preventing Iran from becoming the jihadist North Korea or from keeping sarin, VX and mustard gas out of the hands of Iran's terrorist underlings and their Sunni competitors.
No, Israel doesn't want a confrontation with Washington. But we don't have any choice anymore.
The time has come to take matters into our own hands on Syria and Iran. In Syria, either Israel takes care of the chemical weapons, or if we can't, Netanyahu must go before the cameras and tell the world everything we know about Syria's chemical weapons and pointedly demand world - that is US - action to secure them.
As for Iran, either Israel must launch an attack without delay, or if we can't, then Netanyahu has to publicly state that the time for diplomacy is over. Either Iran is attacked or it gets the bomb.
A short summary of events from the past three days: On Tuesday morning, the head of the IDF's Military Intelligence Analysis Division Brig. Gen. Itay Brun revealed that the Syrian government has already used "lethal chemical weapons," against Syrian civilians and opposition forces. Brun described footage of people visibly suffering the impact of chemical agents, apparently sarin gas.
Hours later, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Netanyahu had told him on the telephone that "he was not in a position to confirm" Brun's statement.
It is hard to imagine the US was taken by surprise by Brun's statement. Just the day before, Brun briefed visiting US Defense secretary Chuck Hagel on Syria. It is not possible he failed to mention the same information.
And of course it isn't just the IDF saying that Syrian President Bashar Assad is using chemical weapons. The British and the French are also saying this.
But as a European source told Ma'ariv, the Americans don't want to know the facts. The facts will make them do something about Syria's chemical weapons. And they don't want to do anything about Syria's chemical weapons.
So they force Netanyahu to disown his own intelligence.
Thursday afternoon, in a speech in Abu Dhabi, Hagel confirmed, "with some degree of varying confidence," that Syria used chemical weapons, at least on a "small scale."
What the administration means by "some degree of varying confidence," is of course, unknowable with any degree of varying confidence.
Then there is Iran.
Also on Tuesday, the former head of IDF Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said that Iran has already crossed the red line Israel set last year. It has already stockpiled 170 kg. of medium-enriched uranium, and can quickly produce the other 80 kg. necessary to reach the 250 kg. threshold Netanyahu said will mark Iran's achievement of breakout capability where it can build a nuclear arsenal whenever it wants.
Yadlin made a half-hearted effort Wednesday to walk back his pronouncements. But his basic message remained the same: The die has been cast.
Due to American pressure on Israel not to act, and due to the White House's rejection of clearcut reports about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, Iran has crossed the threshold. Iran will be a nuclear power unless its uranium enrichment installations and other nuclear sites are destroyed or crippled. Now.
True, the Americans set a different red line for Iran than Israel. They say they will not allow Iran to assemble a nuclear bomb. But to believe that the US has the capacity and the will to prevent Iran from climbing the top rung on the nuclear ladder is to believe in the tooth fairy - (see, for instance, North Korea).
Iran has threatened to use it nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel. Have we now placed our survival in the hands of Tinkerbell? And yet, rather than acknowledge what Iran has done, Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon carry on with the tired act of talking about the need for a credible military option but saying that there is still time for sanctions and other non-military means to block Iran's quest for the bomb.
Perhaps our leaders are repeating these lies because they want to present a unified US-Israel front to the world. But the effect is just the opposite.
What their statements really demonstrate is that Israel has been brought to its knees by its superpower patron that has implemented a policy that has enabled Iran to become a nuclear power.
Indeed, the US has allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold while requiring Israel to pretend the course the US has followed is a responsible one.
The announcement that the US has agreed to sell Israel advanced weapons specifically geared towards attacking Iran should also be seen in this light. Israel reportedly spent a year negotiating this deal. But immediately after its details were published, the US started backing away from its supposed commitment to supply them. The US will not provide Israel with bunker-buster bombs.
It will not provide Israel with the bombers necessary to use the bombs Israel isn't getting. And anyway, by the time Israel gets the items the US is selling - like mid-air refuelers - it will be too late.
When, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the US failed to find chemical weapons in the country, then-president George W. Bush's Democratic opponents accused Bush of having politicized intelligence to justify his decision to topple Saddam. In truth, there is no evidence that Bush purposely distorted intelligence reports. Israel's intelligence agencies, and perhaps French ones, were the only allied intelligence arms that had concluded Saddam's chemical weapons - to the extent he had them - did not represent a threat.
The fact that Bush preferred US and British intelligence estimates over Israeli ones doesn't mean that he politicized intelligence.
In contrast, what Obama and his advisers are doing represents the worst case of politicizing intelligence since Stalin arrested his senior security brass rather than heed their warnings of the coming German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Never in US history has there been a greater misuse and abuse of US intelligence agencies than there is today, under the Obama administration.
Take the Boston Marathon bombings. Each day more and more reports come out about the information US agencies had - for years - regarding the threat posed by the Boston Marathon bombers.
But how could the FBI have possibly acted on those threats? Obama has outlawed all discussion or study of jihad, Islamism, radical Islam and the Koran by US federal government agencies. The only law enforcement agency that monitors Islamic websites is the New York Police Department.
And its chief Ray Kelly has bravely maintained his policy despite massive pressure from the media and the political class to end his surveillance operations.
Everywhere else, from the Boston Police Department to the FBI and CIA, US officials are barred from discussing the threat posed by jihadists or even acknowledging they exist. People were impressed that Obama referred to the terrorist attack in Boston as a terrorist attack, because according to the administration-dictated federal lexicon, use of the word terrorism is forbidden, particularly when the act in question was perpetrated by Muslims.
For the past five years, perhaps Netanyahu's greatest achievement in office has been his adroit avoidance of confrontations with Obama. With no one other than the US willing to stand with Israel in public, it is an important national interest for Jerusalem not to have any confrontations with Washington if they can possibly be avoided.
But by now, after five years, with Iran having passed Israel's red line, and with chemical weapons already in play in Syria, the jig is up.
Obama does not have Israel's back.
Contrary to the constant, grinding rhetorical prattle of American and Israeli politicos, Obama will not lift a finger to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He will not lift a finger to prevent chemical weapons from being transferred to the likes of al-Qaida and Hezbollah, and their colleagues in Syria, or used by the Syrian regime.
From Benghazi to Boston, from Tehran to Damascus, Obama's policy is to not fight forces of jihad, whether they are individuals, organizations or states. And his obsession with Palestinian statehood shows that he would rather coerce Israel to make concessions to Palestinian Jew-haters and terrorists than devote his time and energy into preventing Iran from becoming the jihadist North Korea or from keeping sarin, VX and mustard gas out of the hands of Iran's terrorist underlings and their Sunni competitors.
No, Israel doesn't want a confrontation with Washington. But we don't have any choice anymore.
The time has come to take matters into our own hands on Syria and Iran. In Syria, either Israel takes care of the chemical weapons, or if we can't, Netanyahu must go before the cameras and tell the world everything we know about Syria's chemical weapons and pointedly demand world - that is US - action to secure them.
As for Iran, either Israel must launch an attack without delay, or if we can't, then Netanyahu has to publicly state that the time for diplomacy is over. Either Iran is attacked or it gets the bomb.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Obama in Denver in bid to regain gun-control momentum
President Obama stopped here Wednesday afternoon to try to regain public support for his stalled gun-control agenda, using a tour of a police academy to put new pressure on Congress amid waning political urgency for more restrictive laws.
Obama’s choice to appear in a state that has experienced two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history — the 1999 killings at Columbine High School and last summer’s attack at a movie theater in Aurora — added symbolic weight to the event.
Obama’s choice to appear in a state that has experienced two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history — the 1999 killings at Columbine High School and last summer’s attack at a movie theater in Aurora — added symbolic weight to the event.
Noting that the state’s legislators have passed stronger gun legislation regarding background checks, Obama made the case that such regulations do not infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
“Opponents of common-sense gun laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed, not a thing to do with facts,” he said. “It feeds into suspicions of government, that you need a gun to protect yourself from government: ‘We can’t do background checks because the government will come take my guns away.’ The government is us. These officials were elected by you.”
The president pleaded with the public that “if you hear that kind of talk, say, ‘Hold on a second.’ If any folks out there are gun owners and you’re hearing someone talking about the government taking your guns away, get the facts.”
But Obama’s proposals, which include banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, have faced stiff resistance from the National Rifle Association, whose public relations campaign and lobbying are jeopardizing his agenda.
The president’s motorcade passed a group of protesters holding signs reading, “Stop Taking Our Rights” and “Support Our Second Amendment.” One person held a blue Obama 2012 campaign sign with the word “TREASON” written across it.
More than 100 days after 20 children and six adults were killed at a school in Newtown, Conn., public opinion polls show a drop-off in support for the initiatives, and some gun-control advocates have said they fear that time is running out for the administration.
Obama said that he has received stacks of letters from gun owners who value their Second Amendment rights and that he has read them. He said both sides can learn from each other, and he shared an anecdote about first lady Michelle Obama campaigning in rural Iowa and telling him that she can understand why people there would want a gun for protection in remote places.
Before speaking at the police academy, Obama met with a group of Colorado state and local leaders, including Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D), to discuss new gun-control measures the state has adopted.
The administration has focused in recent days on a proposal to require background checks on all private gun sales, an idea that more than 90 percent of Americans support in opinion polls.
But even that proposal appears to have a difficult route to passage as Republicans, and some moderate Democrats, have raised fears that such a law would create intrusive national registries. Several Republicans have threatened to filibuster the bill, which will require a 60-vote majority to pass.
“It is imperative that the elected officials of the American people allow all of these measures to come to a vote,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said aboard Air Force One, “because if you disagree with 90 percent of the American people, you ought to vote no.”
After speaking in Denver, Obama was scheduled to travel to San Francisco for two days of fundraising for the Democratic Party. He will continue his push on gun control Monday, when he is scheduled to appear in Connecticut.
“Opponents of common-sense gun laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed, not a thing to do with facts,” he said. “It feeds into suspicions of government, that you need a gun to protect yourself from government: ‘We can’t do background checks because the government will come take my guns away.’ The government is us. These officials were elected by you.”
The president pleaded with the public that “if you hear that kind of talk, say, ‘Hold on a second.’ If any folks out there are gun owners and you’re hearing someone talking about the government taking your guns away, get the facts.”
But Obama’s proposals, which include banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, have faced stiff resistance from the National Rifle Association, whose public relations campaign and lobbying are jeopardizing his agenda.
The president’s motorcade passed a group of protesters holding signs reading, “Stop Taking Our Rights” and “Support Our Second Amendment.” One person held a blue Obama 2012 campaign sign with the word “TREASON” written across it.
More than 100 days after 20 children and six adults were killed at a school in Newtown, Conn., public opinion polls show a drop-off in support for the initiatives, and some gun-control advocates have said they fear that time is running out for the administration.
Obama said that he has received stacks of letters from gun owners who value their Second Amendment rights and that he has read them. He said both sides can learn from each other, and he shared an anecdote about first lady Michelle Obama campaigning in rural Iowa and telling him that she can understand why people there would want a gun for protection in remote places.
Before speaking at the police academy, Obama met with a group of Colorado state and local leaders, including Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D), to discuss new gun-control measures the state has adopted.
The administration has focused in recent days on a proposal to require background checks on all private gun sales, an idea that more than 90 percent of Americans support in opinion polls.
But even that proposal appears to have a difficult route to passage as Republicans, and some moderate Democrats, have raised fears that such a law would create intrusive national registries. Several Republicans have threatened to filibuster the bill, which will require a 60-vote majority to pass.
“It is imperative that the elected officials of the American people allow all of these measures to come to a vote,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said aboard Air Force One, “because if you disagree with 90 percent of the American people, you ought to vote no.”
After speaking in Denver, Obama was scheduled to travel to San Francisco for two days of fundraising for the Democratic Party. He will continue his push on gun control Monday, when he is scheduled to appear in Connecticut.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Obama must codify the drone war
In choice of both topic and foil, Rand Paul's now legendary Senate filibuster was a stroke of political genius. The topic was, ostensibly, very narrow: Does the president have the constitutional authority to put a drone-launched Hellfire missile through your kitchen — you, a good citizen of Topeka, Kan., to whom POTUS might have taken a dislike — while you're cooking up a pot roast?
The constituency of those who could not give this question a straight answer is exceedingly small. Unfortunately, among them is Attorney General Eric Holder. Enter the foil. He told a Senate hearing that such an execution would not be "appropriate."
Appropriate being a bureaucratic word meaning nothing, Holder's answer was a PR disaster. The correct response, of course, is: Absent an active civil war on U.S. soil (of the kind not seen in 150 years) or a jihadist invasion from Saskatchewan led by the Topeka pot roaster, the answer is no.
The hypothetical being inconceivable, Paul's performance was theatrically brilliant and substantively irrelevant. As for the principle at stake, Holder's opinion carries no weight in any case. He is hardly a great attorney general whose words will ring through history. Nor would anything any attorney general says be binding on the next president, or for that matter on any Congress or court.
The vexing and pressing issue is the use of drones abroad. The filibuster pretended not to be about that. Which is testimony to Paul's political adroitness. It was not until two days later that he showed his hand, writing in The Washington Post, "No American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime." Note the absence of the restrictive clause: "on American soil."
Now we're talking about a larger, more controversial issue: the killing by drone in Yemen of al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki. Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much Paul would like it to. Yet Paul's unease applies to non-American drone targets as well. His quarrel is with the very notion of the war on terror, though he is normally too smart to say that openly and unequivocally. Unlike his father, who implied that 9/11 was payback for our sins, Paul the Younger more gingerly expresses general skepticism about not just the efficacy but the legality of the entire war.
That skepticism is finding an audience as the war grinds into its 12th year, as our hapless attorney general vainly tries to define its terms and as the administration conducts a major drone war with defiant secrecy. Nor is this some minor adjunct to battle — an estimated 4,700 have been killed by drone.
President George W. Bush was excoriated for waterboarding exactly three terrorists, all of whom are now enjoying an extensive retirement on a sunny Caribbean island (though strolls beyond Gitmo's gates are prohibited). Whereas President Barack Obama, with thousands of kills to his name, evokes little protest from yesterday's touch-not-a-hair-on-their-head zealots. Of whom, of course, Sen. Obama was a leading propagandist.
Such hypocrisy is the homage Democrats pay to Republicans when the former take office, confront national security reality, feel the weight of their duty to protect the nation — and end up doing almost everything they had denounced their predecessors for doing. The beauty of such hypocrisy, however, is that the rotation of power creates a natural bipartisan consensus on the proper conduct of this war.
Which creates a unique opportunity to finally codify the rules. The war's constitutional charter, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has proved quite serviceable. But the commander in chief's authority is so broad — it leaves the limits of his power to be determined, often in secret memos, by the administration's own in-house lawyers — that it has spawned suspicion, fear and now filibuster.
It is time to rethink. That means not repealing the original authorization but, using the lessons of the last 12 years, rewriting it with particular attention to a new code governing drone warfare and the question of where, when and against whom it should be permitted.
Necessity having led the Bush and Obama administrations to the use of near-identical weapons and tactics, a national consensus has been forged. Let's make it open. All we need now is a president willing to lead and a Congress willing to take responsibility for the conduct of a war that, however much Paul and his acolytes may wish it away, will long be with us.
The constituency of those who could not give this question a straight answer is exceedingly small. Unfortunately, among them is Attorney General Eric Holder. Enter the foil. He told a Senate hearing that such an execution would not be "appropriate."
Appropriate being a bureaucratic word meaning nothing, Holder's answer was a PR disaster. The correct response, of course, is: Absent an active civil war on U.S. soil (of the kind not seen in 150 years) or a jihadist invasion from Saskatchewan led by the Topeka pot roaster, the answer is no.
The hypothetical being inconceivable, Paul's performance was theatrically brilliant and substantively irrelevant. As for the principle at stake, Holder's opinion carries no weight in any case. He is hardly a great attorney general whose words will ring through history. Nor would anything any attorney general says be binding on the next president, or for that matter on any Congress or court.
The vexing and pressing issue is the use of drones abroad. The filibuster pretended not to be about that. Which is testimony to Paul's political adroitness. It was not until two days later that he showed his hand, writing in The Washington Post, "No American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime." Note the absence of the restrictive clause: "on American soil."
Now we're talking about a larger, more controversial issue: the killing by drone in Yemen of al-Qaida operative Anwar al-Awlaki. Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much Paul would like it to. Yet Paul's unease applies to non-American drone targets as well. His quarrel is with the very notion of the war on terror, though he is normally too smart to say that openly and unequivocally. Unlike his father, who implied that 9/11 was payback for our sins, Paul the Younger more gingerly expresses general skepticism about not just the efficacy but the legality of the entire war.
That skepticism is finding an audience as the war grinds into its 12th year, as our hapless attorney general vainly tries to define its terms and as the administration conducts a major drone war with defiant secrecy. Nor is this some minor adjunct to battle — an estimated 4,700 have been killed by drone.
President George W. Bush was excoriated for waterboarding exactly three terrorists, all of whom are now enjoying an extensive retirement on a sunny Caribbean island (though strolls beyond Gitmo's gates are prohibited). Whereas President Barack Obama, with thousands of kills to his name, evokes little protest from yesterday's touch-not-a-hair-on-their-head zealots. Of whom, of course, Sen. Obama was a leading propagandist.
Such hypocrisy is the homage Democrats pay to Republicans when the former take office, confront national security reality, feel the weight of their duty to protect the nation — and end up doing almost everything they had denounced their predecessors for doing. The beauty of such hypocrisy, however, is that the rotation of power creates a natural bipartisan consensus on the proper conduct of this war.
Which creates a unique opportunity to finally codify the rules. The war's constitutional charter, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has proved quite serviceable. But the commander in chief's authority is so broad — it leaves the limits of his power to be determined, often in secret memos, by the administration's own in-house lawyers — that it has spawned suspicion, fear and now filibuster.
It is time to rethink. That means not repealing the original authorization but, using the lessons of the last 12 years, rewriting it with particular attention to a new code governing drone warfare and the question of where, when and against whom it should be permitted.
Necessity having led the Bush and Obama administrations to the use of near-identical weapons and tactics, a national consensus has been forged. Let's make it open. All we need now is a president willing to lead and a Congress willing to take responsibility for the conduct of a war that, however much Paul and his acolytes may wish it away, will long be with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)