Tag Archives: barack obama

Can Obama sell Democrats’ legislative victories?

Washington (CNN) — A legislative win is a win — but not necessarily when it comes to swaying voters facing the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.

High unemployment and fears over an ever-increasing federal debt are weighing heavily on Americans. That could drown out President Obama’s message as he heads out on the campaign trail to tout Democrats’ legislative wins: health care reform, financial regulatory reform and economic stimulus projects, among others.

“Right now he is facing an uphill battle,” said Vanderbilt University political scientist John Geer. “I don’t think there’s much that can be done about that. He’ll sharpen the message. But when economies are soft, incumbents have a tough time.”

And members of Congress, bracing for a tough election, got a frank assessment Wednesday of where the economy is headed.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the economic outlook remains “unusually uncertain.” But he said that while there are growing signs of weakness in the nation’s economic recovery, Bernanke and other top Federal Reserve officials still expect “continued moderate growth, a gradual decline in the unemployment rate, and subdued inflation over the next several years.”

Read more on Bernanke’s assessment

In addition to championing Democrats’ legislative wins, Obama is being urged to continue to go after Republicans — and lay out an argument that conditions in the country won’t improve if the opposition takes control of Congress after the midterm election.

So far, that strategy is being employed.

Video: Financial reform signed into law

Video: Obama urges Senate to act on jobs

Obama recently traveled to Missouri to help fellow Democrat Sen. Robin Carnahan in her crucial Senate race.

“The last thing we should do is go back to the very ideas that got us into this mess,” Obama said at the campaign event. “That’s the choice you are going to face in November. … a choice between falling backward or moving forward.”

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll would seem to support that strategy, according to CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The poll, released in late June, found that Americans are angry at both the Republican and Democratic parties for the economy, but they continue to blame the GOP slightly more than the Democrats for the country’s current economic woes.

Fifty-three percent said they are angry at both parties; only 7 percent are angry only at the Democrats and 9 percent are angry only at Republicans.

But that’s not necessarily good news for the Democrats, since an anti-incumbent mood tends to hurt the party with more incumbents. Some argue, however, that it suggests 2010 may not be a precise replay of 1994 when Republicans grabbed control of both legislative chambers from Democrats.

“Democrats are saying ‘Look, let’s make this a referendum on Barack Obama as the future and the Republicans wanting to go back to the past — and Republicans wanting more of the same policies that got us into the economic mess in the first place,’ ” CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger said.

That strategy worked for Democrats in 2006 and 2008, she said, when they told voters change was needed.

“It’s a very good decision on [Democrats'] part obviously, because that’s the way they get some of those voters back — particularly, independent white men who are deserting them,” Borger added.

Another problem for Obama’s legislative campaign tour? That those policies will be portrayed as big-government.

“It’s difficult in the economic environment because people are nervous,” she said. “Polls show that people are more worried about the deficit than getting tax cuts. They’re worried about government spending and worried about too much government. … So he wins Wall Street reform but doesn’t get credit for it because we’re in a different political environment.”

But that is the environment right now. What if the economy were to improve?

“If the economy right now was showing tremendous growth and jobs were being created, he’d have no problem making the argument [for Democrats to be re-elected]. But we’re not there right now,” Geer said.

Economic conditions are not just a product of policy — but also the natural economic cycle, he added.

“Ronald Reagan’s economy took off in part due to some policies he pursued but also because of natural business cycles just like for Clinton. So there’s a lot of it outside the control. Right now, I suspect Obama’s getting a little too much of the blame … we’ll see if he is successful.”

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, along with CNNMoney.com’s Scott Spoerry and Chris Isidore, contributed to this report.

Can Obama sell Democrats’ legislative victories?

Obama, Netanyahu emphasize strength of U.S.-Israel ties

Washington (CNN) — U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized the strength and durability of ties between their two countries Tuesday — part of an effort to dispel the notion that relations between the United States and Israel have frayed in recent months.

They said they had discussed new steps that can be taken to revitalize a Middle East peace process that many observers believe has recently stalled.

The two leaders also took aim at Iran, highlighting common efforts to prevent that country from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

The meeting — their fifth since Netanyahu took office last spring — took place at the White House against a backdrop of speculation that the two leaders are increasingly at odds on a range of key issues.

The “bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. The United States remains “unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security.”

Reports of damaged relations between Israel and the United States “aren’t just premature, they’re just flat wrong,” Netanyahu insisted.

Video: Netanyahu in Washington

Video: Obama to meet with Israeli PM

Video: Middle East peace process reviewed

Video: Peace process reviewed

The two leaders made a point of publicly shaking hands twice, and Netanyahu thanked Obama for offering support in both private talks and public comments.

Obama, however, also stressed the importance of moving toward direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. Presently, Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas aren’t talking directly. They are communicating only through U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who serves as a go-between for negotiations.

Moving toward direct talks was a topic when Obama met with Abbas on June 9.

“We agreed that, should a progress be achieved, then we would move on to direct talks,” Abbas said after that meeting.

Netanyahu said Tuesday that he is ready for direct talks — a step he has repeatedly endorsed in the past.

Abbas has refused to meet with Netanyahu until Israel promises to stop building settlements. Israel’s settlement policy has become point of friction between Israel and the United States.

Relations between Obama and Netanyahu reached a low point in March, when Israel announced plans during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden to construct more than 1,000 new houses in East Jerusalem. The announcement outraged the Obama administration and led to the Palestinians’ withdrawing from agreed-upon indirect negotiations with Israel.

In a visit later that month to the United States, Netanyahu was presented with a set of concessions that the White House wanted to see Israel make in an effort to restart the negotiations.

Neither government detailed what the exact nature of the concessions were, but sources on both sides said a halt in East Jerusalem construction was among the demands from the Obama administration.

Also on the agenda: Israel’s controversial embargo blocking the flow of goods into Gaza, which turned deadly in May when Israeli forces stormed a vessel that was part of a Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla. At least nine people were killed.

Obama on Tuesday commended Israel for easing limits on goods going to Gaza, saying there had been “real progress on the ground” that was happening “more quickly and more effectively than many people anticipated.”

The president said the United States wants to “ensure the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas.”

Aside from Israeli-Palestinian relations, many Israelis worry about Iran’s intentions with its nuclear program. Netanyahu had been expected to urge Obama to keep the pressure on Tehran.

Netanyahu said Tuesday that recent sanctions adopted by United Nations are helping to delegitimize Iran’s nuclear program. The sanctions “have teeth” and “bite,” he asserted.

CNN’s Fred Pleitgen, Dan Lothian and Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.

Obama, Netanyahu emphasize strength of U.S.-Israel ties

Republicans take sides over latest Steele controversy

Washington (CNN) — Republicans lined up on opposite sides Sunday over comments by the chairman of the Republican National Committee that the Afghanistan war launched by former President George W. Bush was “of (President Barack) Obama’s choosing” and may be unwinnable.

Speaking from Afghanistan, GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina lambasted Michael Steele for the comments, which McCain called “wildly inaccurate” and Graham characterized as “uninformed, unnecessary, unwise, untimely,” while follow Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said Steele should apologize to the military.

However, conservative GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, in a statement to CNN, supported Steele and said the RNC chairman’s characterization of the war was correct.

“He is guiding the party in the right direction and we (the GOP) are on the verge of victory this fall,” said Paul, who mounted an unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. “Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.”

Video: Paul praises Steele’s comments

In comments at a Republican fundraiser in Connecticut Thursday, a YouTube video shows the RNC chairman declaring of the war in Afghanistan, “This was a war of Obama’s choosing.”

“This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” he added.

Steele has stepped back from his original comments by emphasizing his support for the war.

“The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan,” Steele said in a statement intended to clarify his controversial comments.

It may be too late for him. Prominent Republican voices are calling for Steele’s resignation, including Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney; Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and former South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who finished second to Steele in the RNC chairman’s race last year.

Both McCain and Graham questioned Steele’s ability to keep his job, but said it was up to Steele and the RNC to make that decision.

“I think that Mr. Steele is going to have to assess whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee,” McCain said on the ABC program “This Week.” Graham said in a separate interview on the CBS program “Face the Nation” that Steele’s comments did not represent mainstream GOP thinking.

“It’s not the Republican Party’s position, my Republican Party’s position,” Graham said.

At the same time, Graham joked that “the good news is Michael Steele is backtracking so fast he’s going to be in Kabul fighting here pretty soon.”

DeMint, in an interview on “FOX News Sunday,” called Steele’s comments unacceptable.

Steele “needs to apologize to our military, all the men and women who’ve been fighting in Afghanistan,” DeMint said, adding: “This is a war we can win and we must win.”

Paul, meanwhile, wants the United States to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

“I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today,” Paul said. “He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.”

Steele’s critics are supporting “Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war,” Paul said of the Democratic House speaker and president.

“The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military,” Paul said. “Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”

However, Pelosi last week voted for an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that would have placed tough restrictions on funding for the war in Afghanistan — including a demand for a detailed troop withdrawal plan and a threat to pull money for the war if the military stays beyond next summer.

The amendment failed, but more than half the House Democratic caucus and nine Republicans voted for it, despite a White House veto threat if the final bill included the provision.

Both Graham and McCain said the United States must remain in Afghanistan as long as it takes to achieve the goal of preventing the country from again falling under Taliban control and becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda.

“The reason we came here is to secure America,” Graham said, adding it was “imperative we say to our friends and enemies alike we’re not leaving here until we’ve succeeded.”

CNN’s Mark Preston and Tom Cohen contributed to this report

Republicans take sides over latest Steele controversy

Blame game could ‘boomerang’ on Obama, strategist says

(CNN) — When signs of a severe economic downfall emerged more than two years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama was quick to point a finger at the man he hoped to replace.

Seventeen months into his administration, the message is often the same, and Republicans say it’s time for him to drop the Bush bashing and take ownership of the problem.

“Nothing makes a president look weaker than pointing the finger at past administrations,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. “By blaming somebody, it looks like you are playing politics and people just want jobs. They don’t care about whose fault it is. Playing the blame game only boomerangs on yourself.”

Obama repeated that message this week when talking about the still-sputtering economy, twice reminding those at a town-hall meeting in Wisconsin that he “inherited” the economic mess.

It’s a familiar message from his days on the campaign trail when criticisms of President Bush were as common as policy proposals.

“History will not judge President Bush kindly for his failure to act in a way that could have prevented or alleviated this economic crisis,” Obama said in March 2008 shortly after Bear Sterns’ collapse, slamming Bush for failing to instill confidence in the American people.

Video: Obama addresses jobs numbers

Recent surveys suggest Obama isn’t the only one holding the Bush administration and Republicans culpable.

Though the Democrats controlled Congress in the last two years of the Bush administration and have controlled both the White House and Congress for a year and a half — 41 percent of people surveyed in a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said Republicans are responsible for the current economic problems. Twenty-eight percent blamed Democrats, and 26 percent said both parties share responsibility.

According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted in April, 59 percent blamed Bush for the economy, compared with 25 percent who said Obama is at fault.

Job numbers released Friday got mixed reviews. The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy lost jobs for the first time this year, as modest hiring by businesses only partly offset the end of temporary Census Bureau jobs.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.5 percent from 9.7 percent in May. Economists had forecast it would climb to 9.8 percent, but the improvement was due mostly to discouraged job seekers not bothering to look for work and no longer being counted in the labor force.

Obama on Friday vowed to do everything in his power to create jobs, but the problem, according to economist Barry Bosworth, is there’s not much more he can do.

“What can he do on the jobs other than sit around and wring his hands in agony?” he asked. “What could he do? That’s the fundamental problem that we now face because it’s a global problem.”

Coming out of the Group of 20 conference, it was clear Obama’s plans to continue stimulus spending weren’t in step with other nations’.

“The whole world is going to turn toward fiscal restraint now, and he can either join it or he’ll be an outlier,” said Bosworth, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former adviser to President Carter.

After the numbers came out, Obama said the country is headed in the right direction but added, “The recession dug us a hole of about 8 million jobs deep.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, echoed the positive indicators, noting that they followed “nearly a decade of failed Republican policies.”

But Bosworth said it’s not fair to put all of the blame on the past administration.

“They didn’t cause that crisis. Lots of people contributed to it. I really do not think that you can blame administrative authorities for what happened. You can blame a lot of economists because we didn’t see it coming in the exact way it did, but there were many dimensions,” he said, pointing out that in retrospect it’s easy to recognize there was an unbalanced economy.

Bosworth said Obama now needs to move away from blaming Bush because the worst of what happened wasn’t Bush’s fault.

“I don’t see that we are looking at a crisis that was caused by the Bush administration, and I don’t think we are looking at a crisis where the Obama administration has a fundamentally different response to the crisis,” Bosworth added, noting that the Troubled Assets Relief Program was passed under the Bush administration.

Economic recovery has been slow, but there are signs of improvement. The stock market, while wobbly, has risen since the lows reached shortly after Obama took office, and the economy is growing again.

Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said Obama needs to make the argument that the economy is on the climb and the stimulus has worked.

“The message has got to be optimistic and positive. It can’t simply be, ‘I inherited a mess and I’m doing the best I can.’ It’s got to be, ‘I inherited a mess, but we’ve turned the corner and things are getting a lot better,’ ” he said.

The White House needs to go on a confidence campaign and perhaps take a page from President Reagan’s playbook, Epstein said.

“He really needs to spell out how we are coming back and it’s morning in America again,” he said.

Blame game could ‘boomerang’ on Obama, strategist says

Kagan pledges open mind, impartiality

Washington (CNN) — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation’s highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise “nothing less than a fair shake for every American.”

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is “to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint,” Kagan said.

“I will make no pledges this week other than this one — that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons,” she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. “I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law.”

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation’s highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama’s first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee’s seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan’s judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan’s qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Video: Kagan faces a jury: The Senate

Video: What’s ahead for Elena Kagan?

Fast facts: Elena Kagan

5 big issues to watch for

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is “a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women.”

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

“While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases,” Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan’s experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

“Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?” asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?”

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a “drift net” for any disqualifying fact in Kagan’s record, saying the GOP effort failed.

“I believe you are eminently confirmable,” Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan’s lack of judicial experience by saying: “Frankly, I find this refreshing.”

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court’s shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts “palpable.”

“In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit” a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan “a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court.”

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan’s record is full of “warning signs” that she may be what he called a “results-oriented” justice — which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then “appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views.”

“This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan’s work as a Supreme Court clerk,” Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall’s personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

“Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background,” Durbin said.

Kagan pledges open mind, impartiality

Obama in Canada for economic summit

Toronto, Ontario (CNN) — President Obama arrived in Ontario on Friday for a series of high-stakes economic meetings with leaders from around the world.

Obama, who was greeted in Toronto by America’s ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, is set to meet first with his counterparts in the G-8 nations, followed a broader G-20 summit over the weekend.

The meetings are taking place against a backdrop of continued economic uncertainty, with demands for more government stimulus balanced against fears of runaway deficits. At home, the Obama administration is struggling to push a new economic relief package through an increasingly skittish, debt-wary Congress. Overseas — particularly in Europe — leaders are increasingly being forced to enact unpopular fiscal austerity measures.

Also hovering over this weekend’s meetings is the specter of protests and violence, which have plagued other recent meetings of world economic leaders.

Friday morning, before departing the White House, Obama referred to agreements reached in the first two G-20 summits he attended and added, “This weekend in Toronto, I hope we can build on this progress by coordinating our efforts to promote economic growth, to pursue financial reform, and to strengthen the global economy.

Video: Poised to pass financial reform

RELATED TOPICS

“We need to act in concert for a simple reason: This (recent economic) crisis proved and events continue to affirm that our national economies are inextricably linked — and just as economic turmoil in one place can quickly spread to another, safeguards in each of our nations can help protect all nations.”

Obama fears that a rollback too soon from government stimulus packages would send the world back into recession. The European Union, on the other hand, has sent a letter to all G-20 leaders asking for substantial budget cuts to come no later than 2011.

Also high on the agenda will be reforms to global banking regulations. Although all G-20 nations have pledged banking reforms, the reforms being considered in Europe and North America are diverging. Britain, France and Germany are calling for taxes on banks to pay down deficits and cushion future financial shocks. The U.S. government wants to discourage additional taxes, which officials fear would stunt consumer demand.

The weekend’s sessions will offer a first appearance on the world stage for British Prime Minister David Cameron and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan. Both leaders arrived in Toronto on Thursday.

The G-8 meeting opens Friday at Deerhurst Resort in the Muskoka region of Ontario. The G-20 meeting opens Saturday in Toronto.

CNN’s Jim Boulden contributed to this report

Obama in Canada for economic summit

Source: McChrystal likely to resign over magazine comments

Washington (CNN) — America’s top military commander in Afghanistan is unlikely to survive the fallout from remarks he made about colleagues in a magazine profile to be published Friday, according to a Pentagon source who has ongoing contacts with the general.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal will likely resign Wednesday, the source said. McChrystal’s fate is expected to hinge on a meeting scheduled Wednesday with President Obama, who was “angry” after reading the general’s remarks in Rolling Stone.

The “magnitude and graveness” of McChrystal’s mistake in conducting the interview for the article were “profound,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said McChrystal had “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment.”

McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which he and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday’s edition of Rolling Stone.

“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal said in a Pentagon statement. “Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard.”

Video: Civilian bosses slammed

Video: McChrystal article author speaks out

Video: Obama: ‘Poor judgment’ from general

Video: Obama ‘angry’ over McChrystal article

McChrystal has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal’s fate, but told reporters “all options are on the table.”

Obama, questioned about McChrystal before a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon, said he had not made a decision.

“I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment, but I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make that final decision,” he said.

McChrystal is prepared to resign if the president has lost confidence in him, a national security official told CNN. Most of the Pentagon brass, the official said, hopes he will be upbraided by the commander-in-chief but sent back to continue the mission.

The White House will have more to say after Wednesday’s meeting, Gibbs said. He noted, however, that McChrystal did not take part in a teleconference Obama had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other top officials on Tuesday.

Several elected officials have strongly criticized McChrystal but deferred to the president on the politically sensitive question of whether the general should keep his position. A couple of key congressmen, however, have openly called for McChrystal’s removal.

In the profile, writer Michael Hastings writes that McChrystal and his staff had imagined ways of dismissing Vice President Joe Biden with a one-liner as they prepared for a question-and-answer session in Paris, France, in April. The general had grown tired of questions about Biden since earlier dismissing a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered.

“‘Are you asking about Vice President Biden,’ McChrystal says with a laugh. ‘Who’s that?’”

“‘Biden?’ suggests a top adviser. ‘Did you say: Bite Me?’”

McChrystal does not directly criticize Obama in the article, but Hastings writes that the general and Obama “failed to connect” from the outset. Sources familiar with the meeting said McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the room full of top military officials, according to the article.

Later, McChrystal’s first one-on-one meeting with Obama “was a 10-minute photo op,” Hastings writes, quoting an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f—ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed.”

The article goes on to paint McChrystal as a man who “has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict,” including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and national security adviser Jim Jones.

Of Eikenberry, who railed against McChrystal’s strategy in Afghanistan in a cable leaked to The New York Times in January, the general is quoted as saying, “‘Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, “I told you so.’”

Hastings writes in the profile that McChrystal has a “special skepticism” for Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating Taliban members into Afghan society and the administration’s point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry, according to the article. ‘Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke,’ he groans. ‘I don’t even want to open it.’ He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance.

“‘Make sure you don’t get any of that on your leg,’ an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have been strongly critical of McChrystal in the wake of the story. House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, called McChrystal the latest in a “long list of reckless, renegade generals who haven’t seemed to understand that their role is to implement policy, not design it.”

McChrystal is “contemptuous” of civilian authority and has demonstrated “a bullheaded refusal to take other people’s judgments into consideration.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, became the first member of the Senate Democratic leadership to call for McChrystal to step down, saying that the remarks were “unbelievably inappropriate and just can’t be allowed to stand.”

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, deferred to Obama on the question of a possible McChrystal resignation. He said the controversy was sending a message of “confusion” to troops in the field. I think it has “a negative effect” on the war effort, he said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, urged a cooling off period before a final decision is rendered on the general. My “impression is that all of us would be best served by just backing off and staying cool and calm and not sort of succumbing to the normal Washington twitter about this for the next 24 hours.”

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jim Webb of Virginia — also key senators on defense and foreign policy issues — were each strongly critical of McChrystal’s remarks, but noted that the general’s future is a decision for Obama to make.

Karzai weighed in from abroad,urging Obama to keep McChrystal as the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. The government in Kabul believes McChrystal is a man of strong integrity who has a strong understanding of the Afghan people and their culture, Karzai spokesman Waheed Omar said.

A U.S. military official said Tuesday that McChrystal has spoken to Biden, Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and other officials referenced in the story, including Holbrooke, Eikenberry and Jones.

An official at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul said Eikenberry and McChrystal “are both fully committed” to Obama’s Afghan strategy and are working together to implement the plan. “We have seen the article and General McChrystal has already spoken to it,” according to a statement from an embassy official, making reference to McChrystal’s apology.

“I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome,” McChrystal said in the closing to his apology.

Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates, however, struck a less optimistic tone during an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

The comments made by McChrystal and other top military aides during the interview were “not off-the-cuff remarks,” he said. They “knew what they were doing when they granted the access.” The story shows “a deep division” and “war within the administration” over strategy in Afghanistan, he contended.

McChrystal and his staff “became aware” that the Rolling Stone article would be controversial before it was published, Hastings said Tuesday. He said he “got word from (McChrystal’s) staff … that there was some concern” about possible fallout from the story.

Obama tapped McChrystal to head the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan in the spring of 2009 shortly after dismissing Gen. David McKiernan.

CNN’s John King, Suzanne Malveaux, Barbara Starr, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

Source: McChrystal likely to resign over magazine comments

Obama speech on BP oil spill a call to action for clean energy

By

Linda Feldmann,

Court: No habeas rights for prisoners in Afghanistan

ag-house-judiciary

Court docket: No habeas rights for prisoners in Afghanistan
Obama wins what Bush searched for: the correct to maintain suspects without having judicial oversight on the Bagram air base.

By David G. Savage and Christi Parsons, tribune washington bureau

7:36 PM PDT, Might 21, 2010

The Obama management has won the legal correct to maintain its terrorism suspects indefinitely and without having oversight by judges — not at Guantanamo or in Illinois, but rather on the Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Inside a 3-0 choice, the U.S. appeals court docket in Washington ruled for that management Friday and mentioned the Constitution and its correct to habeas corpus doesn’t extend to foreign prisoners used through the U.S. army in Afghanistan simply because it’s a war zone. The judges dismissed claims from 3 prisoners who had been taken to Bagram from Pakistan and Thailand and are already used for as lengthy as seven many years.

“It is undisputed that Bagram, indeed the whole nation of Afghanistan, remains a theater of war,” mentioned Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative who was appointed by President Reagan. Joining him had been two Democratic appointees, Judges David Tatel and Harry Edwards.

The choice could bring an ironic end to many years of legal wrangling more than prisoners used through the U.S. army. The ruling, unless overturned through the Supreme Court docket, seems towards the give the Obama management what the George W. Bush management experienced lengthy searched for: a location wherever foreign prisoners could be used through the army away from achieve of attorneys and courts.

For months, the Obama management has debated plans to utilize Bagram as an choice to Guantanamo to get a little quantity of prisoners caught outside Afghanistan. Presently, only a dozen or fewer from the Bagram prisoners are foreign fighters, Defense Department officials have mentioned. But that amount quickly could grow.

The court docket choice came a day following the Home Armed Providers Committee voted to block the management from retrofitting a state jail at Thomson, Ill., to maintain high-value prisoners from Guantanamo.

The management nevertheless hopes to transfer the a number of dozen remaining prisoners from Guantanamo, however it will require approval from Congress. At exactly the same time, a minimum of 645 prisoners are used on the Bagram jail, most connected towards the war in Afghanistan.

Civil liberties advocates denounced Friday’s ruling.

It “ratifies the harmful principle how the U.S. government has unchecked energy to capture individuals anyplace within the globe, unilaterally declare them enemy combatants and topic them to indefinite army detention without any judicial evaluation,” mentioned Melissa Goodman, a lawyer for that American Civil Liberties Union.

“Just simply because the plane landed at Bagram rather than Guantanamo ought to not mean they are able to be used indefinitely without having any court docket evaluation,” mentioned Andrea Prasow, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch.

Kirk Lippold, the former commander from the U.S. warship Cole along with a fellow with Army Families United, praised the ruling like a “clear vindication” from the military’s authority “to fight the war on terror by preventing terrorists from getting access towards the American court docket program.”

The White Home and Justice Department experienced no comment about the ruling.

Following 2001 and also the launch of war in Afghanistan, the Bush management sent hundreds of foreign prisoners from Afghanistan, Pakistan and also the Mideast towards the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, believing they might be used there and questioned away from achieve of attorneys or courts.

But attorneys went towards the Supreme Court docket arguing that long-term prisoners experienced a correct to plead their innocence prior to an independent judge. They decried Guantanamo like a “law-free zone.”

They won a series of victories on the Supreme Court docket, such as a 5-4 ruling in 2008 that mentioned the Constitution gave these prisoners a correct to habeas corpus simply because Guantanamo was thousands of miles from a battlefield and experienced been occupied as sovereign U.S. territory to get a century. At exactly the same time, the justices mentioned this correct to some court docket hearing didn’t extend to battlefields or war zones.

Afterward, the Bush management insisted the correct to habeas corpus didn’t extend to Iraq or Afghanistan. And in 2009, the Obama management adopted exactly the same view.

A federal judge in Washington ruled that prisoners who had been shipped towards the Bagram jail from other countries experienced a correct to challenge their detention, just like the prisoners who had been sent to Guantanamo.

The Obama management appealed and won a reversal in Friday’s choice. In its opinion, the appeals court docket acknowledged the management could “evade judicial evaluation of executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active conflict zones.”

White Home officials mentioned Friday they’re moving forward having a strategy to buy the vacant state jail in Illinois like a feasible area for that remaining Guantanamo detainees.

They mentioned the Home committee vote this week doesn’t have an effect on the federal government’s capability to buy the Thomson jail. Cash for that acquisition was set aside within the federal spending budget for following year, and also the sale could take location as quickly as Oct. 1.

“We have usually maintained that we require elevated jail facility,” mentioned White Home Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, adding how the proposed law might avoid modifications towards the jail but doesn’t prohibit the facility’s buy.