[Peace-discuss] Lying war criminals

[C. G. Estabrook]

[It's an interesting week in American politics when the hopes of the opposition 
to America's Middle East war rest with the *Republicans* in Congress.  They came 
close to crimping the belligerent and neoliberal policies of the White House and 
the Congressional Democrats.  Unfortunately Americans have been so thoroughly 
misled as to think that opposition to the war -- and to the bailout of the 
richest people in the society -- have a place within the Democratic party. 
Given control of the Congress in 2006 and of the executive in 2008 *specifically 
to end the war*, the Democrats have instead by lies and misdirection worked to 
expand the war -- and save the profits of the rich -- as strongly if more 
effectively as the Bush administration.  As the Obama administration augments 
the killing throughout SW Asia and NE Africa, the rest of the world begins to 
recognize -- even if Americans don't -- that the president elected in 2008 is a 
lying war criminal.  --CGE]


	Obama, on cell, wins war funds
	By: David Rogers
	June 11, 2009 08:00 PM EST

House-Senate negotiators reached agreement late Thursday on a $105.9 billion 
wartime spending bill after last-minute assurances from President Barack Obama 
that he will use all his powers to prevent the disclosure of controversial 
photographs depicting the treatment of detainees held by the U.S. military.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel rushed to the Capitol in the evening to 
personally deliver this message after the talks began to unravel. The president 
participated via the speaker on Emanuel's cell phone as senators gathered around 
in the first floor offices of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And Chairman 
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) later read aloud a letter from Obama pledging to use 
every "legal and administrative remedy" available to prevent the disclosure of 
the pictures.

The underlying bill is vital to Obama’s foreign policy agenda as well as major 
domestic needs such as advanced funding to cope with the threat of pandemic flu 
next winter. But the administration has stumbled repeatedly and more than ever 
has found itself whipsawed by not just Republicans but the Democratic left.

Central to Thursday’s drama was a Senate amendment adopted with little debate 
but designed to frustrate efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union in 
federal courts to force the release of the photos.

Democratic leaders had already decided that the provision should be dropped 
because of liberal opposition to any tampering with the Freedom of Information 
Act. And House negotiators upheld this position on a 5-3 vote.

But after caucusing with his colleagues, Inouye suddenly was hesitant to go 
forward when faced with a motion by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of 
Kentucky, insisting that the Senate hold firm.

The talks abruptly recessed, prompting Emanuel’s arrival soon after. And when 
they reconvened, Inouye came armed with the president’s letter — and solid 
Democratic votes to kill McConnell’s motion.

Addressed to Inouye and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., 
Wis.), the letter was significant at two levels. First, it marked the clearest 
statement yet by the White House recognizing the political problems posed by the 
Senate amendment — and the threat to the bill. Second, Obama left open the 
option that he could use his executive power to classify the photos as secret if 
things go badly for him in the courts.

In the letter, Obama begins by restating his opposition to the release of the 
photos, saying it won’t add “any additional benefit to our understanding of what 
happened in the past and the most direct consequence of releasing them would be 
to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

He goes on to cite a favorable ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
— which also happened to come Thursday — that will give the administration time 
to go next to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the president pledges to “take every 
legal and administrative remedy available to me” to ensure the detainee photos 
are not released.

In fact, prior to the letter, Republicans and an increasing number of Democrats 
were already urging Obama to use his executive powers to designate the photos as 
classified and therefore protected under secrecy laws.

Leading the charge was Obama’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who went 
to the Senate floor Thursday, saying it was time for the president to “stand up 
to the left wing in his party.” But no less than Senate Majority Leader Harry 
Reid (D-Nev.) later told reporters flatly: “The pictures are not going to be 
released,” regardless of what is in or out of the war funding bill.

Prior to Emanuel’s arrival, Inouye refused comment on any recommendations he has 
made to the administration but signaled that he also would welcome the president 
doing more to protect the photos. “There are only a few options, and the White 
House has to decide,” said one leadership aide.

In many respects, the dicey politics run back to the administration’s insistence 
that the same war funding bill be used to carry billions in new financing for 
the International Monetary Fund. Obama personally pledged the funding at an 
international meeting in April, but it has turned into a political nightmare for 
his Democratic allies, given the political crosscurrents in the House.

Republicans have threatened to withhold their votes for the final package, which 
now includes the IMF funding. And this means Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has 
had to try to win back some of the 51 anti-war Democrats who opposed the war 
funding when it first passed the House in May.

While the White House hung back on the sidelines, House leaders concluded long 
ago that it was imperative to drop the Senate amendment, which was seen by many 
liberals as an intrusion on the Freedom of Information Act.

Underlying the whole debate is a real anxiety among many Democrats over Obama’s 
increased military commitment to Afghanistan and a new U.S. partnership with its 
neighbor Pakistan. Leftwing bloggers even boasted that convergence of events 
could be a chance to kill the war funding outright.

This anxiety was evident again Thursday in House debate on a parallel Foreign 
Affairs bill demanding that the administration come forward this summer with a 
more comprehensive plan for the long-term “security and stability” of Pakistan 
while also demanding greater accountability from Islamabad as well.

“We appreciate the urgency of the situation in Pakistan and the need for 
appropriate flexibility,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard 
Berman (D-Calif.). “We are simply asking Pakistan to follow through with the 
commitments it has already made. If the president is unable to make these 
determinations, then we should be asking ourselves much deeper questions about 
what we really hope to achieve in Pakistan.”

Indeed, the level of assistance is substantial. The combined military and 
economic aid in the package for Afghanistan is close to $5 billion, and 
Pakistan’s portion could exceed $3 billion, counting funds it also receives as a 
coalition partner facilitating U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

Most striking is the level of funds to begin a greatly expanded U.S. role in the 
training and equipping of Pakistani troops who will be asked to carry out more 
counterinsurgency operations against Taliban forces operating in their country 
and along the border with Afghanistan. This aid will move first through the 
Department of Defense but later the State Department in two installments, 
totaling $1.1 billion by Oct. 1.

Like the detainee photos, Obama has been less sure footed in dealing with his 
plans to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo. This is a signature 
issue for the administration, but the bill provides none of the money sought by 
Obama to carry out the closing. And the final language would bar the transfer of 
any prisoners into the U.S. except for the purposes of prosecution and only 
after a detailed plan explaining the cost, legal rationale and risks has been 
provided to Congress.

Among domestic issues, a total of $7.65 billion is provided to cope with the 
threat of the H1N1 flu recurring. Included in this total is $5.8 billion that 
will be available as an emergency contingency to be used as needed supplemental 
federal stockpiles and develop and administer vaccines. The administration hopes 
this may help pick up votes as well in states where the flu has been most 
prevalent.

A last and controversial addition to the package is a $1 billion down payment 
toward a new “cash for clunkers” initiative designed to encourage consumers buy 
for newer, more efficient cars and light trucks. The rebates run from $3500 to 
$4500 depending on the relative energy savings, but even Democrats are suspect 
that it has become more of a bailout for auto dealers.

In fact, environmentalists allied with Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and 
Susan Collins (R-Maine) had proposed an alternative bill this year that insisted 
that the car owner at least move up 7 miles-per-gallon to qualify and achieve a 
13 miles-per-gallon improvement to get the full rebate.

The agreement Thursday shoots lower, with a threshold of just 4 
miles-per-gallon, for example. And a lower income family that buys a used car — 
however more efficient — would not qualify.

New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget 
Committee, made a vain attempt to strike the whole funding and won three 
Democratic votes, including Feinstein. But Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) backed 
the initiative, and Gregg lost 17-13.

Clearly relieved after a roller-coaster day, Inouye looked across to Obey: “May 
I say we adjourn smiling,” Inouye said.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23660.html