NBC has posted a few clips from Brian Williams's White House special airing tonight. Most of them show jocular aides putting on a happy face for the cameras, but at least one shows a not-so-pleased Rahm Emanuel booting the camera crew from his office.
"Alright, you guys can go now," a curt Emanuel says. "I'm gonna read the Times. C'mon, c'mon. I got some stuff I've got to catch up on. I'll catch up with you later."
Something tells me he didn't go out of his way to catch up with them later.
Former President Jimmy Carter said today that he disagrees with President Obama's decision to keep under wraps photos of detainee abuse.
Carter said he thought the photos should be released and probably would not harm American troops because America's image in the world couldn't get much worse.
"I think it's hard to realize how much anger there already is based on the revelations that have already been made," Carter told CNN's Campbell Brown.
"And any knowledgeable person within the Arab world or around the rest of the countries on Earth know that these pictures exist," Carter added. "They can now only imagine how bad they are, and maybe the actual publication of them wouldn't exacerbate an already bad situation."
At the same time, Carter said he would not criticize Obama's decision because the President must deal with the potential consequences.
"I don't agree with him, but I certainly don't criticize him for making that decision," Carter said.
Carter demurred on whether the U.S. should prosecute the architects of enhanced interrogation policies, but called for a "complete examination" of what happened.
"Prosecuting is too strong a world," Carter said. "What I would like to see is a complete examination of what did happen, the identification of any perpetrators of crimes against our own laws or against international law...And then after all that's done, decide whether or not there should be any prosecutions."
At least some bloggers are claiming that the report's findings are vindicated by the most recent act of violence against an abortion provider.
"[T]he general intent of the report, which was chock full of warnings about 'lone wolf extremists' capable of violence, now looks perfectly defensible, even reasonable," Greg Sargent wrote this morning.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) issued a statement labeling the murder "terrorism" and demanding that the federal government to respond in kind.
"We call on the new attorney general Eric Holder and head of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to treat these murders in the same way they would treat politically-motivated domestic terrorism of any other kind and put the full resources of their two departments behind that effort," NOW President Kim Gandy said.
Conservatives and pro-life activists argue that the murder was the act of a single, deranged individual and not indicative of a larger threat.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) issued a statement condemning the killing and labeling it antithetical to the pro-life movement's philosophy.
"National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation," said NRLC Executive Director David O'Steen. "The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal."
Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin, one of the fiercest critics of the report, is pre-emptively warning that backlash is imminent.
"Prepare for DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's defenders to gloat about vindication," she wrote last night.
This debate will undoubtedly rage on the blogosphere, but what will really be interesting to watch is whether any members of Congress, including some who had been critical of the DHS report, will change their stance. Stay tuned.
Florida state Sen. Dan Gelber dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary in that state, clearing the path -- for now -- for Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) to win the Democratic nomination.
Gelber told supporters he wanted to "step back" from the race, setting up a 2010 showdown for Meek and either Gov. Charlie Crist (R) or former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R).
"The terrain has changed dramatically."I'd wish Dan luck in any endeavor that he pursues, but he doesn't need luck," Meek said in a statement. "He is a friend who puts party first and his message to Florida Democrats that we must unify around a slate of candidates is a powerful statement that I wholeheartedly embrace."
"Dan is a natural leader who will continue to serve our state with distinction in any capacity he chooses and our party is better off because of him," Meek added.
Guest hosting Bill Bennett's radio show this morning, Steele told conservatives to back off the racial aspect of Sotomayor's nomination:
"I'm excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position," Steele said. He added that instead of "slammin' and rammin'" on Sotomayor, Republicans should "acknowledge" the "historic aspect" of the pick and make a "cogent, articulate argument" against her for purely substantive reasons.
Steele warned that because of the attacks, "we get painted as a party that's against the first Hispanic woman" picked for the Supreme Court.
"We don't need to play this the way the Democrats have played it in the past," Steele said, adding that Republicans can't do this because they don't have the "liberal media" on their side, the way Dems did. Said Steele: "MSNBC will rip everything we have to say up into shreds."
There will be consequences for North Korea's decision to test a nuclear weapon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said today.
The international community must "reign in the North Koreans" and force them to honor their obligations under international law, Clinton said at a press conference today.
"North Korea has made a choice," she said. "It has chosen to violate the specific language of the U.N. Security Council resolution, [resolution] 1718. It has ignored the international community. It has abrogated the obligations it entered into through the six party talks, and it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner towards its neighbors.
"There are consequences to such actions. In the United Nations as we speak, discussion are going on to add to the consequences that North Korea will face coming out of the latest behavior, with the intent to try to reign in the North Koreans, and get them back into a framework where they are once again fulfilling their obligation and moving toward denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."
Dick Cheney's speech tomorrow on national security will be carried live on the cable networks immediately following President Obama's address on similar topics, giving the former Vice President a huge platform to pick a fight with Obama.
Greg Sargent reports that CNN and MSNBC will cut to Cheney at 10:45 AM, right after Obama's major address at 10AM. (Sargent simply assumes that Fox News will do the same, which is probably a correct assumption.)
Democrats and liberal bloggers are already pushing back against the notion that Cheney's opinion is somehow equivalent to the President's. It's certainly true that what the President of the United States has to say about national security will have more implications for U.S. policy than the former Vice President's thoughts, but the scheduling of these two addresses, as well as the network's willingness to cover Cheney, may at least partially undermine the White House's goal for tomorrow's address.
The administration is hoping to use tomorrow's speech to cool down the heated debate surrounding interrogation policy, Pelosi's spat with the CIA, the decision not to release photos of detainee abuse, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, etc. It's the same tactic Obama applied to the economy in an April 14th address at Georgetown University.
Now that Cheney--Obama's most visible opponent on the issues he'll address--will effectively rebut the President on live TV, one has to wonder if tomorrow's events will simply add fuel to the fire.
The AP reports that the Pentagon "has no plans" to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military:
"I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don't ask-don't tell will be repealed," Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon.
[snip]
Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both have discussed the issue with Obama.
"They're aware of where the president wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal don't ask-don't tell," Morrell said.
But I wouldn't go as far as Jillian Bandes at Townhall, who cites this as evidence that "there will be no revoking of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy in the U.S. military."
Marc Ambinder has more on the Obama administration's cautious policy in repealing the policy, a goal he insists they're committed to:
You can see the outline of the strategy in the administration's decision to let stand an appeals court ruling requiring the military to explain why being gay is, in itself, a reason to have fired a highly regarded lesbian Air Force major. The effect of not appealing the ruling will put the burden on the government to explain to skeptical judges why being gay is inherently incompatible with military service, something the administration (and many in the military) believe is very hard to prove, let alone justify. The hope here is that by allowing the military to make its best case--and then seeing that case be torn apart by the courts, a critical mass of opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, will build.
This strikes me as exactly the opposite technique Bill Clinton used to (clumsily) address the issue early in his term. Rather than picking a fight with the military and facing the backlash--both within the Pentagon and the general public--the Obama administration is putting the ball in the military's court.
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates does not like his job, the cabinet secretary said in a recent interview.
In a profile airing on 60 Minutes last night, Gates accidentally called himself the "Secretary of War" and described the painfulness of sending soldiers into war.
"The truth of the matter is being Secretary of War in a time of war is a very painful thing," Gates told CBS's Katie Couris. "And it's not a job anybody should like. How can you like a job when you go to Walter Reed and you know you sent those young men and women in harm's way? Every single person in combat today I sent there. And and I never forget that for a second. So no, I don't enjoy my job. "
Gates also offered a colorful if somewhat curt reserved analysis of the situation in Afghanistan. Pressed on whether U.S. soldiers would be gone from the country within four years, Gates said answering that would require too many hypotheticals-- what he called a "fairy story."
Pakistan intelligence services, he said, was "pay[ing] both sides" in Afghanistan because they're unsure who will win.
And the fact that we are not fighting the Islamic militants whom we funded and supported during the Cold War simply proves "that history is ironic."
Offering a tepid comparison of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Gates labeled his old boss "committed, questioning, [and] eager to make a decision and move on." Obama, on the other hand, is "deliberative, decisive and calm."
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
