http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/politics/14cong.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print Unease Grows for Democrats Over Security By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats are voicing growing unease over the Obama administration’s national security policies, including the seemingly open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and the nettlesome question of what to do with prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. House leaders have yanked from an emergency military spending bill the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center, saying he had not provided a plan for the more than 200 detainees there. The White House has said the center will close by Jan. 22, 2010. It is virtually certain that the Democratic majorities, with solid Republican support, will approve $96.7 billion in spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other military operations. But with votes in the House on Thursday and in the Senate next week, the discomfort among Democrats points to a harder road ahead for Mr. Obama and the prospect of far more serious rancor if conditions worsen overseas. The unease, particularly over the war in Afghanistan, is greatest right now in the more liberal ranks of the Democratic caucus and is more evident in the House than in the Senate. But American troop levels and war costs in Afghanistan will soar in the coming year, and party leaders, including Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, have warned that Democrats will most likely give the administration just one more year to get a handle on the military situation there before they start losing patience. Mr. Obey said he would give the White House a year to demonstrate progress, just as he gave the Nixon administration a year to show progress in the Vietnam War inherited from the Johnson administration. “With respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am extremely dubious that the administration will be able to accomplish what it wants to accomplish,” Mr. Obey said last week. “The problem is not the administration’s policy or its goals. The problem is that I doubt that we have the tools there that we need to implement virtually any policy in that region.” Mr. Obey, who entered Congress in 1969, added: “At the end of the year, Nixon had not moved the policy, and so I began to oppose the war. I am following that same approach here.” The House spending bill requires that the Obama administration deliver a report early next year on progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though it does not set any benchmarks for American military performance. On Guantánamo, Senate Democratic leaders now say they plan to include the money to close the prison in their version of the supplemental military spending measure, but with tight restrictions that for now would ban the transfer of prisoners to the United States. Before using the money, the administration would also have to submit a plan to Congress detailing how it would close the camp. Republicans are not oblivious to the Democrats’ internal disagreements. In the Senate, the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is making speeches nearly every day about the dangers of shuttering the Guantánamo camp. Some liberal Democrats are expressing outright opposition to continuing the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, and are planning to vote against the spending bill. “There is no need in the 21st century to do this, to make us safe,” Representative Alan Grayson, a freshman Democrat from Florida, said of the continuing American-led wars. “This is a 19th-century strategy being played out at great expense in both money and blood in the 21st century, in the wrong time at the wrong place.” “It’s wrong,” Mr. Grayson added. “That’s why I am going to vote against it.” Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said the administration had not provided a clear enough plan to reassure lawmakers about the operations in Afghanistan. “We keep asking for a plan,” Mr. Murtha said. “I think the Democrats are nervous just because they haven’t seen a plan yet.” Mr. Murtha also cautioned the administration about taking any steps that would prolong the operations in Iraq. “I can see a lot of consternation with the Democrats because a lot of them felt that the election was all about getting out,” he said. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said he was struggling with how to vote on the supplemental military spending bill. “What is our policy in Afghanistan?” Mr. Nadler asked. “Is it an open-ended commitment to remake the country? I don’t know. That would worry me.” Even lawmakers who are supporting the spending bill say they want to see better progress in the military operations overseas. “The difference between the last administration and this one is the difference between night and dawn,” said Representative Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat from Virginia. “But we’re looking for day.” Mr. Murtha said debate over the administration’s national security policies would only intensify over the next few weeks as Congress begins to consider the full military authorization bill for next year. “This is going to be a problem from now, through the big bill, through the next year,” he said, adding that discontent will grow if the situation worsens in Iraq or Afghanistan or if there are further events like the killings of five American soldiers by a fellow American that underscore the severe strain on the troops. “The public is not focused on the war at all,” Mr. Murtha said. “But they are going to be focused on it if it goes bad.”
I thought Obama read a plan off a teleprompter at least once during the campaign... Translation: "A dollar spent on Iraq is a dollar not spent on my personal airport!" The reality is that it's easy to talk a good game when you're a candidate but it's a very different thing to have to govern. It's go bad if you can generate a lot of bad PR for it like you did all along.
The reality is that it's easy to talk a good game when you're a candidate but it's a very different thing to have to govern. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely By EVAN PEREZ WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized. On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies. The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court. Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise. "This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said. The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations. The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions." The administration's move to block the release of military detainee photos was welcomed by Republicans in Congress and by some military family groups but condemned by the ACLU and others. Mr. Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had all raised concerns with the White House about releasing the detainee photos. Mr. Gates and the commanders worried that the pictures would spur new anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. —Yochi J. Dreazen contributed to this article. Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com
I was wondering why he answers himself on his own posts so much. Although I do like his posts, I don't always agree with them.
What has President Obama done so far that deserves praise? And yes, Denny has posted articles critical of Republicans, especially on the matter of illegal immigration.
Generally, he doesn't respond to points he made--in other words he doesn't have a conversation with himself. He'll post an article in one post and then his response or another article in a subsequent post.
Obviously the writer needs to go waterboard somebody to get it out of their system. Or maybe accompany Dick Cheney on a hunting trip and get shot in the face.
I don't think I've posted anything positive about republicans. I don't vote for them. I think I was critical in a recent post about how they lost their message, as one example. I don't have to like Democrats, do I? My second article posted in this thread I found to be positive about Obama. He's governing in this case and not doing something for political benefit of him or his party. My first post is an article verbatim. My second post is my analysis and/or commentary. You can trust my first post isn't something I've edited to change the meaning. In a lot of cases, it's useful to document the progression of an ongoing story. Like "Pelosi denies being briefed" and days later it comes out she was, so a post of the 2nd story in that thread makes sense.
