A Very Short-Term Biden Perspective

You really can't blame Joe Biden.

On May 12, 2012 the Vice-President told a Meet The Press audience he is "totally comfortable" with the notion of men marrying men and women marrying women.  He then was forced to endure the condescension of the President, who apparently had not yet fully evolved, commenting that his second-in-command "probably got out a little bit over his skis, but out of generosity of spirit." Under the figurative gun, Biden's spokesperson had to remark that the President "has been the leader on this issue from day one, and the vice president never intended to distract from that."

Soon thereafter, Obama evidently had fully evolved, as he recognized that he could not allow his running mate to appear more so than he.    The shift in public support for same-sex marriage accelerated and on November 6, three states (Maine, Maryland, Washington) approved an initiative and/or law legalizing gay marriage while one (Minnesota) rejected a ban.  Only one state (North Carolina), affirming a same-sex marriage ban, went the other way.  And the Obama-Biden duo won re-election.

The odds Barack Obama's immediate subordinate will obtain the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination took a blow in January when President Obama scored on 60 Minutes an interview with Hillary Clinton which "teetered on an endorsement of her 2016 presidential bid."   Clinton, for reasons obviously beyond that of a nod and a wink from the sitting president, is the choice of far more Democrats than Biden (or anyone else) for that nomination.

So don't get too angry with Joe Biden.  It's understandable that he made a remarkably inane statement at a pre-campaign, campaign event over the weekend. On Saturday, at Senator Tom Harkin's annual steak fry in Iowa, Vice-President and Democratic presidential hopeful Biden exclaimed "a lot of people criticized me for speaking out, not long ago, about gay marriage. I could not remain silent any longer. It's the civil rights of our day. It's the issue of our day."

For people who support same-sex marriage, it is a civil rights issue and perhaps the most important one of the day, depending on what one considers a civil rights issue, such as women's rights (which Biden traditionally has been strong on).    But those "lot of people," Mr.Vice-President?  Perhaps people related to Priorities USA Action, the Democratic SuperPac promoting Obama's re-election, or individuals devoted to little else than the re-election of the person, Barack Obama.  However, liberal bloggers at the time (and thereafter) supported Biden's declaration and Republicans, conservatives, and other Obama-haters seemed not to care very much.

But that's minor.  Biden actually stated "it's the issue of our day."  There are several reasons- issues- no one except the candidate who recognizes he deserves a little love for getting out in front on the issue should believe same-sex marriage is the issue of our day.  

Nevertheless (as the graph, below, from wikipedia via Forbes indicates). Biden appears oblivious to the increase in the percentage of the share of income in this country going to the top 1%.  Measured since 1910, it was at its lowest in the late 1970s and creapt upward to 23.5% in 1910   That would be the highest since 1928, not coincidentally the year before the advent of the Great Depression.



























This trend has only accelerated. In her Wall Street Journal (!) blog, Brenda Cronin noted that from 2009 to 2012, the top 1% received 95% of the total gain in income. In 2012, the richest 10% received more than half of all income, its largest share since record-keeping began in 2017.

The income gains of the wealthy, a Democratic contender might explain, are coming at the expense of the wealthy, as this graph from the Congressional Budget Office reveals:

Illustrating an inverse correlation internationally between reduction in marginal tax rates and increases in the pre-tax income share of the top 1%, Emmanuel Saez demonstrates (graph, below) that the 1% have a greater share of national income than it does in (17) other developed countries.

That is income. The disparity in wealth is far greater, as indicated in the  pie charts (below) from 2007 data from the Survey of Consumer Finance, calculated by Ed Wolff, and presented by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

If he were to frame the argument as either other nations are doing it better or the wealthy are too wealthy, Republicans would summon faux outrage and the mainstream media would be intimidated, with both urging voters to reject  "class warfare" and the "politics of envy." Biden might then shame the media,by reminding it that the people want (chart, below)  a more equitable distribution of wealth than prevails today.

Still, the vice-president would not have to stress the fleecing of America by the uber-rich, but rather the declining prospects of the middle class over the past four decades and its diminishing share of the fruits of American prosperity. "Widely, unequal societies," economist Joseph Stiglitz has written, "do not function efficiently and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable in the long term."

It would not be so difficult to emphasize, with a little historical perspective, that low tax rates for the wealthy, and trade deals unfavorable to consumers, are brought by lobbyists who squeeze most Americans and erode their living standards. Biden could argue that the squeeze on the middle class is far more "the issue of our day" than is same-sex marriage. And that would distinguish himself from the likes of Clinton, Cuomo, Mark Warner, and even Mark O'Malley.



Share |

Water Mafia

Michelle Obama is an extremist and radical provocateur.  Her latest pronouncement is especially provocative, controversial, even un-American.  Politico's Josh Gerstein caught up with the First Lady at a high school in Watertown, Wisconsin, where she dangerously claimed

I've come to realize that if we were going to take just one step to make ourselves and our families healthier, probably the single best thing we could do is to simply drink more water.  It's as simple as that. Drink just one more glass of water a day and you can make a real difference for your health, for your energy and the way that you feel.

Now she has gone too far!

A kidney specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, argued

I think, unfortunately, frankly, they're not basing this on really hard science. It's not a very scientific approach they've taken...To make it a major public health efort, I think I would say it's bizarre..... The idea drinking water increases energy, the word I've used to describe it is: quixotic. We're disingned to drink when we're thirsty... There's no need to have more than that.

The president of the American Public Health Association, Dr. George Benjamin, cautioned "There is a lot of controversy about how much water you need to drink as water.  I think certainly you should be drinking as much fluid as you need" (which, presumably, would be coffee, soda, or, better yet, scotch and soda).

And, of course, Rush Limbaugh, who claimed "Big Bottled Water, or Big Bottled Water is Big Soft Drink. That's who's pushing this."  Ever the populist, he seemed to be calling for a Million Oil Baron march on Washington, remarking

You know, I've always been amazed.  The price of bottled water is far more expensive if you measure it by the gallon. When you go to the store and buy it, it's far more expensive than a gallon of gasoline. 

The guys that produce the water don't have to do anything.  They don't have to drill for it, they don't have to explore for it, they don't have to get permission from the government to go do things wherever they want. They don't scour the world. They don't have to go down 5,000 feet below the ocean floor to get it.  They just turn on somebody's tap, and they claim it comes from some spring.  I always thought if I was in the oil business, I'd really be ticked off that the bottled water guys are able to charge that much.

Rush Limbaugh's mega-mansion lies in Palm Beach in southern Florida on its east coast.   It's a well-populated area, where gasoline apparently costs less than the $1.00-$1.50 per gallon charged almost everywhere for bottled water.  It faces an unparalleled population boom as tens of thousands of his listeners descend on the area to take advantage of $1 gallon gasoline.  It's back to the future, circa 1980!

But though Rush clearly needs to get out more, his argument about "the price of bottled water" is intended to divert attention from Obama's aim.  She did not recommend individuals pick up a gallon or 24-pack of Deer Park, Nestle's, Poland Spring, Dasani or any other specific brand-name product.  She did not advocate even the consumption of bottled water in general and, as available evidence has it, is not pimping for any company.

She's merely promoting the ingestion of water- from a bottle, straight from the tap, filtered from the tap, however you want it.   And while Gerstein notes  "the new pro-water drive has the support of bottled water companies, tap water providers, reusable bottle makers and companies that provide water filtering equipment," he adds "as a price of admission to the campaign, they've been required not to criticize one another or other beverage choices."   Doubtless, though, Obama is aware that the high-fructose corn syrup commonly used in soft drinks not artificially, sweetened  is a major cause of numerous ailments, including (but not limited to) heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, and tooth decay... when used in moderation.

Obama probably has at least a working knowledge, moreover, that, as a reporter for The Daily Beast explained

One recent report in General Dentistry found that heavy consumption diet soft drinks can erode teeth as much as much as crystal meth or crack cocaine. A 2012 study found that drinking a diet soda every day can lead to strokes, heart disease, and is often associated with other unhealthy behaviors. And a 2010 study found a link between women who drank diet soda while pregnant and the risk of preterm delivery.

Perhaps drinking more water won't give any one person a sudden or prolonged burst of energy, desired weight loss, or a lifespan akin to that of Methuselah (definitely not that one). But skeptics of this facet of Michelle Obama's "Get Moving" campaign appear to be missing the forest for the trees.  Human beings will drink- beer, whiskey, wine, fruit juice, "fruit drinks," coffee, tea, or whatever their beverage of choice. Obama is not ordering anyone to drink anything, nor even trying to shame people into consuming a particular item. She is merely advocating what is, for most people and for the nation, the most healthful choice.



Share |

Who Insulted The Intelligence Of Americans?

Alex Pareene is spot-on in his analysis of Vladimir Putin's scandalous op-ed in The New York Times,  an example "of good old-fashioned utterly amoral American capitalism."  It was placed by the public relations firm Ketcham, which has planted columns in various media outlets spinning Moscow's positions.  It has also worked on behalf of Bush II's Medicare prescription drug program and No Child Left Behind, and most recently on behalf of the Obama Administration.  "Anything for a buck" appears to be the firm's guiding principle.

Most of Putin's claims, Pareene points out, are accurate, though mostly "he is clearly enjoying his ability to just repeatedly poke America with sticks."   And apparently, several American politicians are inadvertently giving the Russian president the satisfaction he craves.

Senator John McCain's words are particularly intriguing.  He tweeted "Putin's NYT op-ed is an insult to the intelligence of every American."

Perhaps these old guys have to stop tweeting, for it tempts them to say stupid things.  Or maybe they should tweet away, given that a tweet seems to be an excuse for saying stupid things.  No one, for instance, has stopped to remind Senator McCain of this character:

That would be Sarah Palin, who without John McCain's determination to place her a heartbeat from the presidency would be just another hunter somewhere in the Alaskan wilderness.  She never would have become a Fox News pundit, and never would we have heard her say:



-"Elizabeth Warren has almost confessed to her Marxist views";
-"advocating a boycott of Chick-Fil-A "has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights";
-"right now, the inner-circle that he has are some Chicago thugs";
-President Obama "is manipulating the domestic supply of energy," which  is leaving us "enslaved to foreign countries and  their sources of energy";
-"Obama seems to want to return to the days before the Civil War" when people were not considered equal.


And those, from Media Matters, were uttered only since Palin's ticket was defeated and she later resigned as governor of Alaska.  As John McCain's chosen V.P. candidate, when she arguably had more credibility than she does now, 59 percent of voters believed she was not qualified to be vice-president.  But the fellow who could have turned her down in favor of a credible figure says Vladimir Putin's statements are "an insult to the intelligence of every American."

Yes, Vladimir Putin is a hypocrite. So what does that make John McCain?


Share |

Demographics May Not Be Destiny

Chris Cillizza, weathervane that he is, spoke for most of the punditocracy when in May he wrote

The Republican National Committee’s “Growth and Opportunity Project”, a 100-page autopsy of what went wrong in 2012, is an attempt to re-start a party that has stalled out nationally — having come up short in consecutive presidential elections and having suffered popular vote defeats in four out of the last five contests.

Much of the document is dedicated to addressing the demographic problems that confront Republicans with a shrinking white population and rising number of Hispanics entering the electorate.

“We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” reads the report. “If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

That’s 100 percent right. (Heck, we wrote a whole chapter in the “Gospel According to the Fix” about the Republicans Hispanic problem.) But words alone don’t tell the story of both the necessity and the challenge of Republicans finding a way to broaden their demographic coalition.

Because Republicans never, ever will win another election outside of the South, border states, or the northern Rockies unless they appeal to Hispanics.

Oops:

Colorado’s state senate president and another legislator have conceded in an unprecedented recall election triggered by their push for stricter gun control measures. The outcome is likely to be viewed as a referendum on the hot-button issue that has divided the country this year.

The senate leader, John Morse of Colorado Springs, and state Sen. Angela Giron of the Democratic-leaning city of Pueblo were targeted by a highly contentious recall effort that drew big-name donors on both sides of the debate. The legislative recall effort is the first in state history.

With about 80 percent of voted counted, the Denver Post and other local media outlets reported that Morse had conceded Tuesday night. The final counts showed Morse was voted out 50.9-49 percent. Giron was ousted 56 percent to 44 percent.

Most analysts attribute the loss to the gun control issue and support by Giron and Morse of measures which included expanded background checks and limits on the size of magazines, popular initiatives almost everywhere.  Other individuals, such as NBC's Chuck Todd, point to the active involvement of Michael Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns, though there is insufficient mention of "New York City" and the mayor's religion.  (Race isn't the only untouchable issue in polite discourse.) The impact of this factor in energizing conservative voters, however, was limited, given that turnout in the election was very low.

Admittedly, it was only elections in two parts of a state, rather than a nationwide contest or state-by-state contests.. In off-year elections, the minorities (predominantly blacks and Hispanics) who go to the polls often take a pass.  But it is in some of those off-year elections that many state legislators are elected, and it is no coincidence that most of the victors are Republican. They then turn their sights on voter suppression (as well as restricting the reproductive rights of women) because the votes of minorities can only cause trouble for them.

State elections, which are dominated by whites, the affluent, and special interests, are important. And as we saw in Colorado, they can be won by conservative white voters without regard to Hispanics.  In three years, when the Democratic Party will neither be represented on the presidential ballot by an incumbent nor have the strategic advantage of running against eight years of demonstrable incompetence, those non-Hispanic whites still will be allowed to vote.  Their interests (or what they perceive as their interests), enhanced by Repub success in voter registration, may carry the day, making a mockery of blind faith in the power of demographics.




Share |

Consolidating Their Gains

Bill Keller, writing an op-ed in The New York Times, believes Americans who want greater attention paid to domestic problems than to external (alleged) threats are dangerous to the national security, akin to the forces which urged the U.S.A. to stay out of the war on the continent circa 1940. He contends

Isolationism is not just an aversion to war, which is an altogether healthy instinct. It is a broader reluctance to engage, to assert responsibility, to commit. Isolationism tends to be pessimistic (we will get it wrong, we will make it worse) and amoral (it is none of our business unless it threatens us directly) and inward-looking (foreign aid is a waste of money better spent at home).

“We are not the world’s policeman, nor its judge and jury,” proclaimed Representative Alan Grayson, a progressive Florida Democrat, reciting favorite isolationist excuses for doing nothing. “Our own needs in America are great, and they come first.”

Steve M. is having none of that, and comments

But what's the contemptuous term for politicians who don't do anything to solve the domestic problems that concern real Americans? 

You can't blame three-quarters of Americans for feeling that domestic difficulties are getting short shrift from the political establishment right now -- the economic downturn never seems to end on Main Street, even if Wall Street is thriving. But a majority of Americans felt that domestic problems were getting short shrift even in 2005, when we were allegedly living through good economic times. Except they weren't good economic times for most people -- incomes for ordinary Americans remained flat, and if you weren't borrowing from home equity or a line of credit, you were probably running faster and faster just to stay in place.

And the political establishment didn't seem to care -- then or now.

What do we call politicians who give short shrift to ordinary Americans' real needs? If they want to retreat from the world, we condemn them as "isolationists." What do we say when they want to retreat from Main Street America, treating Americans' problems as something they shouldn't get involved with? 

Why don't we have an insulting term for that?

Perhaps we can call such people "1% truthers."  The Associated Press reports

The gulf between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America is the widest it's been since the Roaring '20s.

The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year — their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash. And the top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. And it grew again last year, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

One of them, Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez, said the incomes of the richest Americans surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January. In 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.

The richest Americans were hit hard by the financial crisis. Their incomes fell more than 36 percent in the Great Recession of 2007-09 as stock prices plummeted. Incomes for the bottom 99 percent fell just 11.6 percent, according to the analysis.

But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.

The top 1 percent of American households had pretax income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.

It's the same old story, one which began 35-36 years ago because the share of the wealth held by the 1% has been on the increase since it bottomed out in 1973.   And it will continue to get worse unless the Democratic Party, the one less possessed by corporate interests, stops nominating people like this.




Share |

Syria Bringing Out The Worst


What is worse- lying about intelligence or minimizing the Holocaust?

Both were on display on Monday's Piers Morgan Live on CNN.   Morgan began questioning his guests by asking Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense for President GWB, "how much responsibility do you feel -- it's very tricky question this, but I'm going to throw at you anyway. For the lack of trust in this Administration's claims about chemical weapons used by Assad and people saying what is all because of alliance of Iraq?"  Wolfowitz responded

No Piers, they were no lies, everybody saw the same intelligence and a lot of people changed their tune about it afterwards. The real point is look, people are concerned not because of the intelligent I think so much as they're concerned about the possibility of American casualties and on that point I would actually agree with Secretary Kerry who says there's -- this is not Iraq, it's not Afghanistan.

Everybody saw the same intelligence.   Last week, however, Sidney Blumenthal wrote in Salon

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD...

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam’s WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell’s speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods.

Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam’s WMD programs. “The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn’t, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons,” one of the former CIA officers told me.

On the eve of Sabri’s appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam’s case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a “cutout” who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was “excited” about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri’s information was at odds with “our best source.” That source was code-named “Curveball,” later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”

It is one of the lingering urban myths of President Bush's Iraq policy that no one knew and no one could have known.  However, the evidence was there but had to be manipulated, ignored, or suppressed. CIA deputy director John McLaughlin saw the intelligence.  Deputy Director George Tenet saw the intelligence. President Bush saw the intelligence.  But Secretary of State Colin Powell and Congress did not see the intelligence, and National Security Advisor Wolfowitz says "everybody saw the intelligence."  (Blumenthal doesn't mention National Security Advisor Mushroom Cloud Rice, who may have not been considered important enough to tell the truth to, or to be lied to.)

Persistent, too, is the urge to compare to the Holocaust whatever one particular dislikes.  It should not be surprising that this old chestnut was raised by Joe Lieberman (interviewed with Woflowitz), who disingenuously created the loathsome term "Jewish-American."   Thankfully, we have no "Catholic-American" or "Protestant-American" (does not sound quite right, does it?). As God  reminded us in The Last Testament- A Memoir:  "breaking news from Mt. Sinai:  Judaism is a religion."

And on Monday, Lieberman went Holocaust on us, which is a new low for him (or maybe not).   Morgan had shown video of Secretary of State Kerry nearly incoherently arguing

The real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until Assad, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein.

Very short term effort that degrades this capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we're talking about doing. Unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

That was over the top.    Bringing up Hitler to urge Congress "to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators" was nearly absurd, given that Assad has nowhere near the designs on his region that Adolph Hitler had.  But American politicians have claimed for the past fifty years that failure to take military action in a particular instance is akin to Neville Chamberlain's sell-out at Munich, popularly referred to as "appeasement."

Nevertheless, the former Connecticut senator took it a step further when, responding to Morgan's criticism of Kerry's remark as nearly ambiguous, he maintained

Well, I'm sure John Kerry wishes he hadn't said unbelievably small. I noticed that in the briefing that Tony Blinken, the Deputy of National Security adviser gave this afternoon, he described that an attack as being limited and -- but the size of that's much a better phraseology. But I'll tell you Secretary Kerry had a point that we've been challenged here, not just by the use of gas which links Bashar al- Assad to Adolf Hitler. But by all that happened during the '30s as the US particularly watch drawn by isolation at some back, watched Hitler and the facets (ph) of move forward, and finally come in at a late hour and think out decisively.

Lieberman not only agreed with the Secretary of State but additionally gave a nod and a wink to the Holocaust when he pointed to "all that happened during the '30s."  It may be only a difference in degree, but a difference of degree in winter (perhaps from 31 to 30) can mean the difference between clouds and a blizzard.



Share |

Maybe A Way Out


The Obama Administration denies, I think credibly, that it aims for regime change in Damascus, Secretary of State John Kerry even cautioning action would consist of a “very limited, very targeted, short-term effort.” President Obama, less credibly, has denied that the threat of missile strikes against Syria involves his or the nation's credibility. Secretary of State Kerry, though, has avoided denying that saving face is an issue and last week told MSNBC's Chris Hayes

But if we don’t do this, Assad will have the message that he can use these weapons with impunity. We will have turned our back on the next batch of children, on the next batch of parents.  We will have turned our back on the international norm, we will have lost credibility in the world and I guarantee you, if we turn our backs today...

Today's news, consequently, may offer the Administration a way out.  Reuters reports

Syria welcomes a Russian proposal to place the nation's chemical weapons under international control, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said on Monday after talks in Moscow, praising the Kremlin for seeking to "prevent American aggression".

Moualem, who spoke to reporters through an interpreter after Russia expressed hope the proposal could avert military strikes against Syria, stopped short of saying explicitly that President Bashar al-Assad's government accepted it.

"I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.

There are more than a few ifs, ands, or buts attached but this might point the way toward preventing a big mistake by the Administration.   And it comes on the heels of further evidence that while government forces were behind the chemical attack outside of Damascus, it probably was not ordered by Assad.According to The Guardian yesterday

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

Assad sought to exonerate himself from the August attack in which hundreds died. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," he said in an interview with CBS.

But the intercepts tended to add weight to the claims of the Obama administration and Britain and France that elements of the Assad regime, and not renegade rebel groups, were responsible for the attack in the suburb of Ghouta, Bild said.

Representative Alan Grayson, in an op-ed in The New York Times Friday, suggested that he was unsure the attack had the approval of even the Syrian general staff.  He notes the documentary record includes only a four page unclassified summary and a ten page unclassified summary and explains

gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.  

This comes from the Administration of a President who upon taking office told his staffers "I will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness .... Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."  And which President later issued a memo reading

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Congress, at this point, is in no mood to authorize military action opposed by the American people.  Even if (as is likely) Bashir al-Assad is not fully committed to placing all chemical weapons under international control, his apparent willingness to work out some kind of a deal gives President Obama a possible escape hatch from issuing an unpopular order whose stated aims are murky and weak.


Share |