Bibi Leads Turds In The Road

++The Imperial Post, which has never met a war it didn't like,has an editorial that President Obama must answer the questions raised by Netanyahu about the number of centrifuges and the short time line for a nuclear bomb. They say President Obama hasn't explained any of this --maybe because the final deal hasn't been finalized.

++David Ignatius said that Bibi's speech was a zero-sum game. He thought that Bibi raised the bar to convince the American public that any deal was good.

++Jennifer Rubin got off a second column that said that Bibi destroyed all of President Obama's talking points and that Democrats and Republicans were more sensible than Obama and would stop the deal.

++Scott Ritter, an arms inspector from the Iraq days,writes in the Huffington Post that the process by which Bibi got to address the Joint Congress on the anniversary of the "Iron Curtain" speech by Winston Churchill was dubious and raised the specter of a foreign leader being given carte blanche to criticize the president of the United States.

++Trita Parsi, writes in the Huffington Post, that the whole gist of Bibi's speech was that he never ever wanted a deal with Iran. 

++Chris Matthews threw a tantrum about a foreign leader trying to hijack American foreign policy behind or in front of the back of Barack Obama. 

++Max Fisher at VOX says wait a minute. Only 5% of Americans now think that Iran is a mortal enemy compared to 25% three years ago. And that Bibi's words do not resonate with the American people.

++The Iranian foreign ministry said Bibi's speech was boring and repetitive. 

++The United States Senate is moving to pass a bill that they must approve of any Iranian pact. Do fall for it ,Barack.

++Negative reviews in non-Beltway press and favorable reviews in the Beltway. The danger remains that Bibi will feed the neo-cons thirst for war. The line that war wasn't the only alternative was the one the Beltway bought, including the Washington Post.  The problem is that the do nothing plan of Bibi's doesn't get us anywhere but on the road to war.

When the Going gets weird, The Weird Goes Pro

++ Dick and Liz Cheney attacked President Obama for not caring about terrorism today in the Wall Street Journal. Bless her heart, Jennifer Rubin let the cat out of the bag at the end of her column saying that the father and daughter team was shilling for their new front group Alliance for a Strong America. Their op-ed read like Dinesh D'Souza.

++The GOP hellbent on saving their last monument wants Ahmed Abu Khattala sent to Gitmo. The DOJ says No way, Jose. 

++The GOP wonders why getting Abu Khattala so long. The Daily Beast has an article about why the Delta Force took its time. They were rehearsing at Fort Bragg on a fortification like the man's home and planned the operation for a year. The go-ahead was held up until the FBI and the DOJ felt they had gathering sufficient evidence to try Khattala in a court of law.

++The Center for American Progress wants the Obama Administration to bomb Iraq as a counter-terrorism measure. General Petraeus doesn't like the idea because that would make us a Shiite Air Force. But remember his surge troops are the ones now fighting Baghdad.

++Anne Marie Slaughter, who used to be a member of the Obama Administration, writes an op-ed in today's New York Times advocating American actions in both Syria and Iraq and believes that such actions are in line with the UN General Charter and if we can't get approval then we should act and get approval later. This is the problem "humanitarian interventionists" have. They run up against the same problems as the neo-cons.

++Andrew Sullivan finds more about the Iraqi neo-cons hawks he doesn't like. His article in The Dish on the neo-Straussian strains of Wolfowitz and Billy Kristol is worth reading.

++Rand Paul doesn't quite know what to say because he thinks President Obama needs congressional approval to take any actions. Senators Graham and Ayotte do not.

++None of this matters because Sweeney Todd declared the Obama Presidency dead today on Morning Joe. He later told Matt Drudge that he really never became distant from the President.

++President Obama's foreign policy approval fell to 41% but like anything Obama polls show that the majority of Americans support his ideas on Iraq over Senator McCain's.

++Rachel Maddow did an excellent segment last night on the loony-tune Iraqi war boosters coming back in the media and how the right ignored the one piece of news about Benghazi that they should have cheered about--the capture of Abu Khattala. Instead Drudge has a story about meat and chicken prices going up.

++Dana Millbank and Politico got into a pissing war over Dana's excellent op-ed on the Heritage Foundation's bizarre Benghazi program which had all the conspiracy crowd there.

++Libya said today that the operation to capture Abu Khattala violated their sovereignty. 

++David Ignatius calls for a peace conference to re-draw the map of the Middle East. Basically, the Sykes-Picot agreement is defunct.

++With the architects of the Iraq war back in the news,I wish reporters would ask them about their own actions. For example, how did Wolfowitz so grossly underestimate the cost of the war--$86 billion to $2-4 Trillion. That's not just a rounding error. Or Paul Bremmer--why did he dissolve the Iraq army and aren't they the ones fighting Baghdad now? Or General Petraeus--aren't the members of the Sunni Awakening allies of ISIS now? Or Dick Cheney--Didn't our invasion bring in Al Qaeda to fight in Iraq when it had never been there before? Instead,reporters might dance around issues of the Status of Force Agreements and who sign the withdrawal agreements but the rest of the issues remain buried. 

++The only one that I saw really get beat up was John Bolton and that was on Fox News and it was by libertarians who didn't know what they were talking about.

++At least John Bolton went back to how bad Saddam Hussein was. But there is a big question: When the United States was threatening war and wanted Saddam to go, why did we not take him up on his offer?--He would go as long as he could keep $1billion. In retrospect, that was a great deal.

++The summer is turning into another BP summer. Remember the oil spill in the Gulf and the whole summer news converge about whether Obama was doing enough. This Iraq situation feels the same way. Getting Bergdahl back--bad. Capturing Abu Khattala--bad. Iraq conflict--really bad. 

++Remember shutting down the government over Obamacare? Well now, the Republicans in the Senate want to shut down the government in September over the debt ceiling because of the new EPA carbon emissions regulations. So crash the world economy because regulations will take place in a year. Good move. At least a new Depression will cut greenhouse gases, since the factories will shut down.

++Since Willard Romney was so clairvoyant on a number of issues. Willard said we just a tad away from losing the gains in freedom we earned over all the years of fighting. Whose "we" white man since no Romney has ever fought for the country. Since Willard is the man, the GOP are now counting him as a Presidential candidate again. Time to get Steve Benen out of mothballs at the Rachel Maddow Show and back on the Romney beat.

The Reactions to the Iranian deal keep coming in

++Peter Beinert in The Daily Beast writes how the deal isn't a surrender.

++Josh Rogin in In The Daily Beast writes how the World now doubts Obama's Red Line.

++John Bolton in the Weekly Daily Standard says that Obama has sold us all out and that Israel must attack Iran unilaterally.

++Charles Pierce in Esquire writes that Bolton's statement is refreshing because it shows the neo-conservatives are being frank.

++David Ignatius in the Washington Post writes how the Iran deal is how smart and secret diplomacy works. It points out that a bilateral track had been used by President Obama since March and meetings in Oman brought the deal to fruition.

++Eli Lake in The Daily Beast writes how the devil is in the details of the deal.

++Steve Benen on the Rachel Maddow blog writes how neo-conservatives are exploding because of the first negotiations between Iran and the United States in years have produced results.

++Michael Tomasky in The Daily Beast writes on how Obama crushed the neo-cons.

++After yesterday's talks between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, Bibi has dispatched his national security adviser to Washington to discuss the second phase of the negotiations.

++The Israeli press is laying into Bibi for his constant bragging that he is the one who could best represent Israel to the English-speaking world and how only he can influence the Americans but now it's clear no one listens to him. The domestic attacks are vicious ,recounting his political history and how his constant "boy cries wolf" has failed in recent years.

++In the morning The Telegraph reported that the Saudis have vowed to pursue an independent foreign policy and may strike unilaterally against Iran. By early afternoon they gave lukewarm support of the deal.

++Israelis have coined a phrase for Bibi "agreement anxiety disorder", noting his aversion to anyone reaching an agreement on anything.

Washington Confused

++At 2:30pmEST,Syria said it would sign the international chemical arms treaty, reveal its arsenal and open it to international inspection. Previously, they agreed to have the international community take control of them. 

++Ezra Klein pronounces Obama a winner in this since he narrowed his focus to the use of chemical arms and deterring Syria from using them again. Signing the treaty would mean Syria would face retribution if they used them again.

++The Senate is now furiously re-writing the authorization for military force. Meanwhile, President Obama's writers are running around re-writing tonight's speech.

++Russia is opposing France's Security Council resolution because it wants a commitment from the West it will not use force against Syria. Stay tuned since earlier in the day both Russia and China said they would not veto a resolution against Syria. I imagine there is the usual dickering around with wording.

++David Ignatius also proclaims Obama won this one by the threat of force.

The Age of Civility

After President Obama's weekly address calling for Democrats and Republicans working together to fix the nation's problems, Republicans signalled their reply. The first vote in the new House will be to repeal the healthcare reform bill. Teabaggers are positively jubilant after voicing discuss with the GOP during the Lame Duck. In the new economic rules of the House, the GOP doesn't have to explain how such a repeal would increase the national debt by several trillion or any of the negative effects on the American people. What is real classy is that the vote will occur before the State of the Union Address.

Today,Austin Goolsbee appeared on television to warn about playing chicken with raising the national debt ceiling. Previously Gentleman John Boehner said that Republicans would have to act as adults on this issue, citing the fact that the government of the United States has bills to pay and obligations to meet. Even Club of Growth Senator Pat Toomey claimed that this would be playing with fire. However, teabagger cheerleader Michelle Bachman wants to lead the vote against raising the debt ceiling. And Lindsey Graham, apparently positioning himself to avoid being teabagged in 2012, thinks Congress can not raise the debt ceiling until there is a substantive plan to cut the national debt.

Clearly,Goolsbee is annoyed at hearing the new rumblings from the Right. As he rightfully said,"this would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity." As Goolsbee points out, the United States is not even close to the position of actually defaulting on its debt. However,the foreign markets hearing this type of talk among the American political class will react and negatively. It would make it harder for the U.S. to borrow further and may in fact disrupt the markets. I would say that such talk will propel the international community to seek another reserve currency rather than the dollar.

A failure to raise the debt ceiling--an automatic bipartisan vote until the days of Republican obstructionism--will finally ensure the United States is no longer a major country. How does one expect serious countries to deal with people who are apparently crazy and do not understand international economics?

President Obama's budget--usually dead on arrival as every other president's--will be late because the Republicans in the Senate held up his nominee for OMB director.

The other war will be fought over the spending bill that was approved in the Lame Duck session. This is due to expire in March and it's renewal will be another bloody fight with the House trying to extract massive spending cuts from the Obama Administration.

To give you some idea about how nuts this coming year will be, consider that the American voters in poll after poll, before and after the 2010 mid-terms put the deficit low down on their concerns,about the same as terrorism. This should give you some idea of how out of the mainstream the new Congress is.

While Gentleman John Boehner has stated the House Republicans will not make the same mistake they did during Clinton by shutting down the Government,there is no quarantee that Boehner will be able to maintain control over the teabaggers. The teabaggers are currently suffering from triumphalism and actually believe their ideological position was endorsed by the American people. Remember they do not believe those who voted against them should be represented. It's a strange concept to them.

Of all people, Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich are lobbying to shut down the Government. A fantastic idea when you consider the country is fighting at least two wars and just recovering from a Depression. In a strange way, the United States could endure the Gingrich tantrum of the Clinton years because we were in an age of prosperity and peace.

Meanwhile 60% of the American people oppose the war in Afghanistan. As Dick Cheney said about a similar poll on Iraq,"So what?" And I agree. There is virtually nothing the American people can do to stop any of America's war-making propensities. What was astonishing to me was that, without the exception of the debate over DADT, the defense appropriations bill passed both the Senate and the House without any debate and no vocal criticism of our wars abroad. This is really incredible considering past debates since the Vietnam War days. There is virtually no desire by Congress to put a break on our wars and on our military spending.

David Ignatius writing in today's Washington Post talks about the need of the American military to transform the way it does war. He quotes Chinese defense expert Dingli Shen about how the new 21st century weapons will neutralize traditional weapons systems and strategies. Shen thinks it's terrific that the United States is spending billions on weapons systems that are obsolete and using its navy to keep the shipping lanes open for the rest of the world. Ignatius writes about the Pentagon brass still stuck in retaining "legacy power" that comes from conventional fleets and having hundreds of bases around the world. It's quite clear from reading Ignatius that not only is the Pentagon an old white elephant but it also is still fighting several wars back. And there is not a chance that the $1.2 trillion budget for the military/intelligence/terrorist complex will cut anytime soon.

Meanwhile all we hear is the sound of crickets from our robust Christian Right about real Christians being persecuted abroad. Over the holidays, Chaldean Christians in Iraq fled the country and were hunted down by death squads. On New Year's Eve, suicide bombers attacked and killed several dozen at a Coptic Church in Egypt. The devastating attack led to the Coptic Christian community furiously fighting police, whom they accused of instigating the whole event. Since both the Iraqi Christian community and the Coptic Christians are branches of some of the oldest Christian traditions, you would think they deserved some solidarity from the Christian Right. At least Pope Benedict spoke out on both incidents.

The new year has started off with the usually right-wing e-mails. One calling on all the Obama Administration officials to resign because the constitutional conservatives are now in town because of the will of the people. The other actually reinvented Barack Obama's alleged ties to the New Left. At least, this e-mail didn't mention Saul Alinsky or Bill Ayers. I guess they are getting to be old hat by now.

State governments are busy dismantling the public education system. Now with the teabaggers in the House,there is a move--symbolic of course--to eliminate the Department of Education. I will pass on outlining the negative effects this would have on millions of students and the state of higher learning. Given the challenges to the United States in adapting to the challenges of the 21st century,you would think that a country such as ours would need a national push to strengthen our educational system. Even the poorest African countries I have worked in prize education above everything else. But no, 40% of all Americans are creationists; more than 50% of Republicans are creationists and an equal percentage climate change deniers. How do you expect education to build a constituency in this environment?

In the next two years,the United States has to escape the bullet. As of now, the House Republicans are playing symbolic politics and have no interest in governing responsibly. There is no downside for them in reading the Constitution and voting against everything that actually may benefit a human being. And there really may not be a downside for them in 2012 pursuing the art of destruction. Maybe the United States really has given up hope on self-government.

This week there have been rumors that Jon Huntsman, the former Governor of Utah and now the ambassador to China, may run for the Republican presidential nomination against Barack Obama. You will recall his father was honored at the Glenn Beck Washington rally for his charity. The Huntsman clan are billionaires plus. When Barack Obama picked Huntsman it was a brilliant political move to keep a potential challenger away from the United States. Huntsman is pro-environment, gay friendly, very high-tech oriented and yet moderately conservative. I thought he was the best bet for the Republicans in the future. But alas, he will return to a party that has morphed into a pseudo-populist, proto-fascist movement that is completely beholding to corporate America. While Huntsman can operate in this milieu, he would not be welcomed by the radical right that dominates the party. It's like a normal Republican running--it's not going to happen.

John Roberts, the CEO of Supreme Court,Limited, has publically come out blasting the Senate for holding back all of Barack Obama's judicial nominees. Republican holds on Obama judges exceed that on any prior administration. I do expect some movement on this front during 2011 because the federal bench is drowning in their caseloads.

I know Julian Assange of Wikileaks is an annoying little twit and a sexist bore from Australia but what business does the United States have trying him for anything. Personally, I expect the American government is more concerned with his information about our banks than anything he released about our government. Consider that Bob Gates basically yawned off the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wikileaks. While the State Department cables made for good reading,they have received hardly any public response in the United States.

Now we enter the legal twilight zone. The DOJ has been holding a grand jury proceeding against Assange down the street here in Alexandria. Assange himself said he doesn't fear extradition to Sweden to answer the sex charges but he worries about extradition to the United States. Apparently, the DOJ is thinking about using the 1917 Espionage Act to get Assange. Sometimes it would be nice to see our government be a little more self-conscious and reflective when they bring these smoldering old statutes out for another go-around.

The 1917 Espionage Act was created to crush dissent against American entry into WWI. The Wilson Administration felt that he had to stop the public outcry against the war. This act had the strange effect of stigmatizing German-Americans and those who spoke German. My grandparents stopped speaking German because of the reaction this law provoked. Their families were originally from Alsace-Lorraine and they spoke German together as their language of romance, as opposed to their French. I have yet to figure that out.

But the most famous victim of the 1917 Law was none other than socialist party leader Eugene V. Debs, who ran for President from prison and received over 1 million votes. he later received a presidential pardon. Then fast forward to the Cold War and the Law was used to convict the Rosenbergs of "conspiring to spy for the Soviet Union." The couple wwas executed by the electric chair.

Now Julian Assange is an Australian citizen and his alleged crime was committed in cyberspace. He has no loyalties to the United States and the Australian Attorney-general announced he had broken no laws down under. Now what is stranger still is that leaking classified documents by civilians is not a crime in the United States. There was a bill passed during the Clinton Administration, which would have rectified this, but he vetoed it. And, you would have thought with Patriot Act I and II, this would have been taken care of. But no,the U.S. has to rely on a law that stands in disrepute.

We have heard the chorus of outcrys against Assange, many accusing him of treason. Even here, the Constitution provides a very limited definition of treason for the reason that the Founding Fathers anticipated that populace might consider simple dissent as treason and they wanted to quell that notion. And how can Assange , an Australian commit treason.

Of course, Assange embarrassed the United States and we expect the Government to get at him one way or the other. But could we do it in a straight up way and not invent new legal excuses.

This brings me to PFC Bradley Manning who is being held in the brig at Quantico on the suspicion he was the primary leaker to Wikileaks of at least the Iraq and Afghanistan materials. Beacuse he has not been tried, his lawyers,according to military law, can not weigh in and protest the conditions of his confinement. From visitors and Manning himself,he is restricted to his cell without access to any publications, is woken every five minutes by guards and allowed once a day to exercise in another cell for about an hour. His visitors claim he is udnergoing sleep deprivation. Should we care? Yes, because he hasn't been charged with anything and the conditions of his confinement in isolation should at least be humane. The other problem here is the single accuser is an old hacker friend of his, who has a history of mental illness, which may or may not affect the accuracy of his claims that Manning was indeed the infamous Wikileaks leaker.

As anyone who reads this blog notes I am a big supporter of President Obama. But I thought he made an atrocious mistake in signing an Executive Order that allowed detainees at Gitmo to remain confined there without charge because they were either too dangerous to let out or that the United States government's case against them were too tainted by allegations of torture that we couldn't get a conviction. In effect, the Executive Order allows the President to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without any legal remedies.This is an enormous mistake. From a simple perspective, it just kicks the can down the road and it allows this type of behavior to be considered the norm in the future. It's also against America's judicial traditions--both civilian and military. And, of course, against international law. But we're an Empire and we make our own legal reality.