http://www.boomantribune.com A Progressive Community Copyright 2005-2009 - Booman Tribune Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT Booman Tribune &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; Booman Tribune &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; Subscribe with PlusmoSubscribe with The Free DictionarySubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with NewsAlloySubscribe with Live.comSubscribe with Excite MIXSubscribe with Yourminis.comSubscribe with Attensa for OutlookSubscribe with WebwagSubscribe with netomat HubSubscribe with Podcast ReadySubscribe with FlurrySubscribe with WikioSubscribe with Daily Rotation http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/6f42CqNGAO8/42686 I don't necessarily disagree with the <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-press-must-have-the-ability-to-ask-questions/2013/05/24/8e9ce4ba-c356-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html?hpid=z3">Editorial Board's</a> position on the inappropriateness of calling James Rosen a potential co-conspirator in the unlawful disclosure of classified information, but I don't appreciate them mischaracterizing the DOJ's position. Contrary to the <i>Post</i>'s assertions, the DOJ did not tell the judge that Rosen merely asked for information and used flattery to obtain it. They pointed out that Rosen concocted a plan to make covert communications possible, including the use pseudonyms, pseudonymous email accounts, and secret symbols. <p> Within the insular Beltway, it's considered preposterous that James Rosen might have been spying against his own government, especially on behalf of North Korea. And I think it <i>is</i> probably preposterous. I don't think Rosen's lame and ineffectual attempts at spy-craft indicate any sophisticated training, nor do I think they are especially unusual methods for reporters who work on national security. <p> However, we should at least take this case into the realm of the hypothetical. Since intelligence agencies prefer to use reporters as official cover in many cases, and since reporters who work on national security are prime recruitment opportunities, our counterespionage people have to take into account the possibility that a leak is not just a leak. When they uncover a reporter engaging in spy-craft in order to manipulate a source and to conceal their tracks, they need to investigate. <p> Just because a reporter seems like a known quantity, if the damage from the leak is significant enough and the reporting is irresponsible enough, the FBI pretty much has to take a look at it. <p> So, basically, the <i>Washington Post</i> just made me less likely to agree with them because they didn't seem to understand what the actual stakes were. Just because James Rosen isn't a North Korean intelligence asset (or the dupe of one) doesn't mean that he isn't stupid enough to do just as much damage as if he were. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/25/2911/42686">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=6f42CqNGAO8:ywrmB55k4vM:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/25/2911/42686 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/25/2911/42686 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/Nx4L5PCi3u0/271 Votes on Farm Bill amendments often do not follow predictable partisan lines, so it can be interesting (for geeks, anyway) to see how senators are voting. For example, Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135">amendment</a> that would have "require[d] that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale" that has any genetically engineered ingredients "have a label on [it] indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."<p> So, who's against labeling genetically engineered food? It turns out that half the Democratic caucus is against it. As you might expect, midwestern Democrats were the most reluctant. Even the very progressive Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin wasn't going to mess with Monsanto. Joe Manchin? He was with Bernie. So was Jon Tester.<p> Of course, not a single Republican thought that consumers should know what they're putting in their body. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/195438/271">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=Nx4L5PCi3u0:wT6mtirPHHo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/24/195438/271 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/195438/271 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/lVv3SBzAgS0/39976 I enjoyed reading Robert Kaiser's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-three-reasons-congress-is-broken/2013/05/23/8b282d2c-b667-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html">take</a> on why Congress no longer functions. For nineteen months, Mr. Kaiser had an inside seat on the drafting of the Dodd-Frank <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act">Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act</a></i>. He did not find the experience uplifting. But he was, at least, reporting on something that worked. The bill became a law, and that is increasingly rare. <p> Kaiser identifies three reasons why Congress can't get anything done. Politics always trumps policy, but the disparity has never been worse. Staffers do all the work. Nothing ever gets debated anymore. <p> If I could summarize these three things and reduce them down to one basic conclusion it is that most members of Congress neither know anything about policy nor care about policy at all. I don't mean the big things like being pro or anti-choice or generally pro-worker or pro-employer. I'm talking about the nitty-gritty stuff that makes the government function. The legislators don't even do that kind of work anymore. <p> Kaiser blames some of the usual suspects, primarily fundraising requirements and the personality types that excel at that kind of thing. But I really think the single biggest reason that Congress is filled with policy illiterates is because one party (and it controls the House) is filled with "benighted...tea party know-nothings." <p> In my opinion, the Republican Party, including people who are more mainstream than the tea party folks, is so steeped in anti-government ideology, and so beset by erroneous and even magical beliefs, that it creates a breakdown in dialogue. To give an example of what I'm talking about, think back to the first real outbreak of the tea party. During the last summer recess of 2009, while Max Baucus was dragging his feet on ObamaCare, lawmakers were confronted with waves of angry protesters at their townhall meetings. Barney Frank had a memorable experience at his Dartmouth, Massachusetts townhall, when a woman brandishing a picture of Obama made out to look like Hitler, asked Frank why he was supporting the president's Nazi policy on health care. <p> <object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYlZiWK2Iy8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYlZiWK2Iy8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object><p> Rep. Frank first responded by asking her "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Then he concluded with, "Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table; I have no interest in doing it." <p> For most Democrats, that's really the choice they face when it comes time to consider sitting down with a Republican and trying to have a conversation about how to bring down the debt or deal with climate change or stimulate the economy or slow the growth of health care costs. <p> About the only time Congress functions at all is when committees are doing actual markups of bills. That's when, for the most part, a lot of the partisanship gets dropped by the wayside. It'd be even better if these markups weren't televised, but that's a trade-off with transparency, isn't it? <p> I remember watching Sen. Chris Dodd marking up his HELP version of ObamaCare and being amazed at how constructively Tom Coburn was working to improve the bill. Coburn introduced many good amendments that were readily accepted by the Democrats. And then he walked out to cameras and denounced the whole process.<p> There are still skilled legislators in Congress like Henry Waxman and Orrin Hatch, but they're becoming a rarer breed. I think Thad Cochran is a solid legislator and I kind of hope he doesn't retire. But, for the most part it no longer matters whether people are skilled or not, because the Republican Party isn't interested in running the federal government anymore. They just want to destroy it. <p> Did you read about the brouhaha in the Senate this week between Susan Collins and John McCain (on one side) and Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul (on the other)? <p> They were arguing over whether or not to appoint conferees to enter negotiations with the House on a Budget Resolution. A Budget Resolution is a blueprint for writing appropriations bills. It doesn't go to the president for a signature and it isn't a law. All it does is say that Commerce gets x amount of money and Interior gets y, and Transportation gets z, etc. Then the relevant committees figure how they're going to spend the money. But Sen. Mike Lee was arguing that he would not allow the appointment of conferees without assurances that the committee would not do something to extend the debt limit. John McCain tried to explain to him that the debt limit could only be extended by passing a law that the president signs, and that it couldn't be extended by a mere resolution. <p> John McCain discovered what it is like to argue with a living room table. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/1301/39976">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=lVv3SBzAgS0:n2tr-MKYHZU:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/24/1301/39976 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/1301/39976 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/NCYIej6IVs4/2711 I <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=search&offset=0&old_count=30&type=story&topic=&section=&string=awlaki&search=Search&search_archive=yes&count=30">wrote</a> about Anwar al-Awlaki two times before he was killed and two times after he was killed, each time arguing that the Obama administration should be forced to submit their evidence to a court before they kill an American citizen. It appears that the president <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/155133/069">agrees with me</a>, at least to the degree that he isn't satisfied with the process used for Awlaki. <p> <blockquote>This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. <b>For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process.</b> Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.<p> But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.<p> That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.<p> Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.<p> <b>Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch – avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased oversight</b>.</blockquote><p> I very much prefer the judicial authority to the oversight board. We don't need a real-life death panel deciding the fate of U.S. citizens. We need to protect American citizens from any process whereby they can be killed by their government without even one judge signing off on it. There are no serious constitutional issues here except people's constitutional right to not be killed by their government without any due process. That's for U.S. citizens. As to the non-citizen targets of lethal action, I don't see why the judicial branch needs to be involved since it <i>would</i> tend to create a encroach on executive power. I am encouraged, however, that here, too, the president is not satisfied with the status quo and actually wants to give away some of the authority and discretion he has had to make these kinds of decisions. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/10535/2711">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=NCYIej6IVs4:0LB7UdgwyGs:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/24/10535/2711 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/10535/2711 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/QLnc5uJU4B8/0117 Can't say I didn't see this coming. George Zimmerman's lawyers have released copies of text messages and pictures from Trayvon Martin's cell phone in an attempt to smear his reputation before the trial. The defense previously filed a motion with the Trial Court to allow these same texts messages and images to be admitted as evidence, but just in case the Judge rules against them at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for next week, they are making certain the public <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/zimmermans-lawyers-release-text-messages-of-trayvon-martin.html">sees them</a> before the trial begins anyway:<p> <blockquote>MIAMI — Intending to draw a fuller, perhaps more negative portrait of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in early 2012, a lawyer for Mr. Zimmerman released new material on Thursday that depicted Mr. Martin as troubled at school and enamored of a “gangsta” culture. [...]<p> Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, appeared to be offering prospective jurors in the Zimmerman case, which is to start in June, another version of Mr. Martin’s life. The evidence would presumably counter any attempt by prosecutors to portray Mr. Martin, who had no criminal record, as a victim with an unblemished personal life. Although gangsta rap and gangsta culture can portray a violent lifestyle, their following is wide and their proponents say they are meant to describe the reality of the streets, not promote it. <p> Mr. Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, has said he shot Mr. Martin in self-defense after Mr. Martin attacked him. Mr. Martin was inside a gated community, walking to his father’s girlfriend’s home in Sanford, Fla., when Mr. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, spotted him. He reported Mr. Martin to the police as a suspicious person and got out of the car to follow him, prosecutors said. </blockquote><p> The texts include discussions by Trayvon with his peers about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/zimmermans-lawyers-release-text-messages-of-trayvon-martin.html">guns, his use of marijuana, his expulsion from school</a>, and the admission that he got into a fight with another teen in which he got the <a HREF="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/23/george-zimmerman-lawyers-release-trayvon-martins-cellphone-data-to-discredit-killed-teen/">crap beat out of him.</a><p> <blockquote>A third topic of conversation is organised fighting. One message to a friend refers to an apparent contest with another youth late in 2011, with Martin writing: “he got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground an I couldn’t do ntn.”</blockquote><p> Obviously, Trayvon cannot speak for himself as to what happened on the night when George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Watch <s>superstar vigilante hero</s> alleged murderer, gunned the teen down after following him on foot in disregard of directions by the police dispatcher to wait for the police to arrive, because, as Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher, Trayvon looked suspicious, that he looked like he was on drugs, and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html?_r=0">"these assholes, they always get away."</a> So Zimmerman's attorneys are doing what defense attorneys invariably do: blame the victim for getting himself killed by the sole survivor of the conflict - the man charged with second degree murder. <p> It's <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.404.html">unlikely this "evidence" will be deemed admissible</a>. If the defense attorneys really believed they could get it admitted at trial, they would not release the contents of Trayvon's cell phone texts to the public in this manner. However, by taking this step, they do accomplish one significant thing - prejudicing the jury pool against the teenager who everyone agrees was killed by their client. As the attorney's for Trayvon's parents point out, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/defense-releases-photos-texts-trayvon-martin-19245279#.UZ9J4JwQFtA">none of this information is relevant to the issue of whether George Zimmerman legitimately acted in self defense</a> on the night of he used his firearm to shoot an unarmed Trayvon Martin dead.<p> <blockquote> Attorneys for Martin's parents said in a statement that the photos and texts were irrelevant to the trial and could pollute the jury pool.<p> "Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?" they said. "If so, this stereotypical and closed-minded thinking is the same mindset that caused George Zimmerman to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon, an unarmed kid who he didn't know."</blockquote><p> "Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because [insert racial stereotype of young black males here]?" Why yes, yes they are. And standard operating procedure or not, it stinks. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/74646/0117">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=QLnc5uJU4B8:lAtPMHxPnJg:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> Steven D &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; opentalk 2013/5/24/74646/0117 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/24/74646/0117 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/3TtVLpXuMqg/391 The <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/opinion/obama-vows-to-end-of-the-perpetual-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Editorial Board</a>:<p> <blockquote>President Obama’s speech today was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.</blockquote><p> Without admitting any mistakes on his part or any personal overreach, the president basically rebuked twelve years of U.S. counterterrorism policy today and mapped out a road to a sane and much more sustainable future. It was what most of us hoped we would get four years ago, but some of us never wavered in our faith that this is where the president's real sympathies lay. <p> It hasn't been easy to stomach some of Obama's counterterrorism policies over the last four and a half years, and sometimes it seemed like he was going to permanently institute some of Bush and Cheney's worst legacies. Knowing that the alternative was immeasurably worse was often slim solace. <p> I weathered through it, having a firm but unprovable conviction that most of the worst that I was witnessing was seen as necessary to secure reelection and prevent a restoration of the truly insane and dangerous policies now current in the neo-fascist Republican Party. <p> His speech today was carefully crafted, but reading between the lines it is clear that he thinks many of the policies that he himself has pursued are misguided, dangerous, unsustainable, and need to stop. I agree. I have agreed through gritted teeth for more than four years. <p> Turning the ship of state around without being battered on the shoals was an incredible task to ask of anyone. We saw the resistance to the obvious move of closing Gitmo and holding civilians trials. We can only imagine the backlash that would have occurred had Obama actually tried to hold people legally accountable for what they did during the Bush years. Through it all, I had faith that I had pegged this man correctly and that he shared my values. <p> He has three and a half years to unravel what it took eleven years to create. I don't know of a single individual in this country who I could better trust to execute the mission. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/204315/391">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=3TtVLpXuMqg:MqZaTKHVp4g:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/23/204315/391 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/204315/391 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/GOdwcJR12zU/069 Here is the president's speech on the future of American counterterrorism and war fighting against terrorism groups. I have to say that my faith in the president has been vindicated. This is pretty close to the speech I would write myself. And, with the exception of my concern about getting too embroiled in Syria's nightmare, these are policies I have long advocated. This is the major progressive turn we were hoping to see four years ago, and it is in many ways reminiscent of Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, except that Obama still has three and a half years to go to implement these policies. <p> <div style="height: 600px;width: 600px;overflow: auto;border: 1px solid #666;background-color: #fff6d5;padding: 8px; ">The Future of our Fight against Terrorism<p> Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery<p> National Defense University<p> May 23, 2013<p> As Prepared for Delivery --<p> It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.<p> For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to Constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.<p> With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our shores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could. <p> And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and – to this day – our interests in a vital region. <p> Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses – hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law. <p> After I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress. <p> Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts. <p> Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them. <p> These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation – and world – that we leave to our children. <p> So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face. <p> Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP –the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. <p> Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hizbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives – in loose affiliation with regional networks – launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations. <p> Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon. <p> Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11. <p> Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts. <p> Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. <p> First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces. <p> In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al Qaeda can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies. <p> Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future. <p> Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic. <p> But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains. <p> In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. <p> To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership. <p> It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality. <p> Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives. <p> Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense. <p> And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday. <p> In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes. <p> Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set. <p> This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. <p> But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. <p> Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars. <p> So yes, the conflict with al Qaeda, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services – and indeed, have no functioning law. <p> This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. <p> For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP. <p> This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil. <p> But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team <p> That’s who Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki. <p> Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes – which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups – even against a sworn enemy of the United States – is the hardest thing I do as President. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people. <p> Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested – the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch – avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these – and other – options for increased oversight. <p> I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. <p> So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort. <p> This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship – because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears. <p> Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures – even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists. <p> America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges. <p> But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run. <p> Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders. <p> As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my Administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam. <p> Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension. <p> The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. <p> Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th. <p> All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact – in sometimes unintended ways – the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing. <p> The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands. <p> And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects. <p> To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can. <p> The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people –almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home. <p> As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my Administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened. <p> Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee. <p> Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law. <p> I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future – ten years from now, or twenty years from now – when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children? <p> Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you…is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom – “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.” <p> America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al Qaeda. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as President, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us. <p> I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.” <p> I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened. <p> I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.” <p> I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs. <p> I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.” <p> That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with. <p> Now, we need a strategy – and a politics –that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear – that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom. <p> Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.</div><p> Within the constraints of American political realities, these are impressive corrective measures. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/155133/069">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=GOdwcJR12zU:KdUhR-Nwj3Y:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/23/155133/069 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/155133/069 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/Q7xsX_NQyjM/9910 Since Conor Friedersdorf has <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/did-james-rosens-story-on-north-korea-do-any-harm/276152/">responded</a> to me, I will respond to him. James Rosen cited sources in North Korea with the ability to describe the government's four-point response plan to the imminent implementation of UN sanctions. This tipped off the North Korean government that their deliberations were not secure, and strongly indicated a human source. It is hard to see how it would not be interpreted that way by the North Korean government or by the average reader. <p> And that's the damage. There is nothing to be agnostic about. Using your logic, maybe World War Two wasn't such a bad thing since we wound up with the Bomb first, which might not have happened otherwise. I mean, one never knows, right? Who can foresee all the consequences? Maybe Rosen's article scrambled all North Korea's plans and disrupted their government, sending them on a wild goose chase to find a non-existent leaker. <p> The point remains the same. The leak was damaging. It was harmful to our ability to recruit and retain intelligence agents worldwide. It most likely burned a very valuable source. And the government would have been irresponsible not to make a very aggressive effort to identify the source of insecurity on their Korean team. Saying that the government should tolerate such leaks is moronic. <p> What's debatable is not the hunt for the leaker but the methods used to find the leaker. The <a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/affidavit-for-search-warrant/162/">affidavit</a> is long and the legal issues are complicated, but that's where this debate should be focused. Did Rosen do something illegal? Can he be fairly described as a coconspirator? How is this case different from other cases where reporters solicit classified information, if at all? <p> These are real questions. But the legitimacy of finding the leaker is <i>not</i> a real question.<p> That's why I called you a wanker. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/12547/9910">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=Q7xsX_NQyjM:jXSoQfAptlM:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; opentalk 2013/5/23/12547/9910 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/12547/9910 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/_QTdOPcvdBI/5121 George Will does his part for the new Republican minority outreach program by penning a column that compares our nation's first black president to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-illegitimate-nlrb-ignores-the-rule-of-law/2013/05/22/4be5db9a-c248-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z2">George Wallace</a>. I guess Nathan Bedford Forrest was a bridge too far. What does George Wallace have to do with the National Labor Relations Board? Well, nothing, but that's not the point. The point is that the NLRB wants employers to post information alerting their workers of their right to form a union. According to Mr. Will, this is roughly as Maoist as compelling restauranteurs to post reminders about hand-washing in their restrooms, and clearly an unconstitutional violation of our oligarchs' right to be silent. What's more, Mr. Will is under the firm impression that when the DC Circuit of Appeals makes a ruling, that is the end of the matter and no appeal is possible or necessary before the government must comply with that ruling. So, for example, when the DC Circuit ruled that the president improperly made recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate was not in fact in recess, that meant that the administration had to immediately agree with that ruling and disband the NLRB for lack of a quorum. And his failure to do so is exactly like when George Wallace "stood in the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent two young blacks from registering as students." <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/11190/5121">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=_QTdOPcvdBI:yPTVsbKX3FE:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/23/11190/5121 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/11190/5121 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/E1t4HNytWpU/1893 Washington DC is all atwitter about White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler's decision not to notify the president that an Inspector General report on the Internal Revenue Service was going to reveal that the IRS had improperly harassed right-wing groups pretending to be social services organizations. Apparently, the president was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-irs-issue-senior-white-house-aides-were-focused-on-shielding-obama/2013/05/22/9183902c-c228-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html">supposed to get involved</a> prior to the completion of the report so that he could bias the results. Fortunately, David Plouffe doesn't have any time for this bullshit. <p> <blockquote>Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis said Ruemmler lacks political and media savvy. He said she had “an obligation to give the president a heads-up and generally describe what might be coming down the track [on the IRS] so you can do crisis management planning.”<p> Plouffe rejected that criticism, saying, “I know blowhards like Lanny Davis have posited this question, but they’re dead wrong.” Obama, he said, has “plenty of people who give him political advice. He needs a top-flight lawyer who’s going to run a good process, and that’s what she’s done.”</blockquote><p> There's basically nothing that could endear me more to Plouffe than him unapologetically denigrating Lanny Davis. That, in a nutshell, is why I preferred Obama to Clinton. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/10650/1893">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=E1t4HNytWpU:IUzUWm9wEYA:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/23/10650/1893 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/23/10650/1893 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/CJWqOmbZdJQ/142 Okay, so <a href="http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/senate-ratings-changes-the-political-environment-turns-on-democrats/">Stu Rothenberg</a> just downgraded the Democrats' chances of winning the 2014 Senate races in Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia, and South Dakota. Why? <p> <blockquote> While national polls haven’t shown a shift in the public’s opinion of President Barack Obama’s performance, recent controversies have, in my view, significantly changed the political landscape.</blockquote><p> Basically, he thinks that these scandals will dog the president from now until next November and they will whip the Republicans into a frothy frenzy. <p> I think there is something to what he's arguing, but this is the kind of analysis that he uses to change the rating in six races? This far out, we don't have much to go on other than challenger/recruit quality, past performance, and the red or blueness of the states. We only have a good idea who the Republican candidate will be in West Virginia and South Dakota, and that is assuming tea baggers don't reject strong candidates in favor of witches and fans of rape babies. <p> I guess Rothenberg was basing his previous analysis on the kind of desultory hopelessness of the current Republican Party, so any sign of enthusiasm on their side warrants a reassessment of the whole political landscape. Still, when the immediate reaction of the public to these so-called scandals is to give the president a slight uptick in approval, I don't think it's safe to say that this bullshit is resonating even in red states. <p> And, as long we're basing our analysis so heavily on our ability to predict the future mood of the country, what about the Dow Jones Index being at an all-time high, or the short-term deficit looking much better, or the likelihood that the Republicans will push these scandals past the breaking point of most moderates while refusing to honor our country's debts and shutting down the national parks? <p> I mean if we are crystal ball watching now, Republican enthusiasm is only one piece of the puzzle, right? <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/225958/142">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=CJWqOmbZdJQ:SpxYkzEmEhE:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/22/225958/142 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/225958/142 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/r-9-GK980qM/8197 <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/what-stop-the-leaks-hardliners-dont-realize-they-cant-and-wont-ever-win/276104/">Conor Friedersdorf</a> can be infuriating. He constructs an entire argument based on the premise that a) you can never totally eliminate damaging leaks of classified information, and b) that if you are too effective in limiting those kinds of leaks, you will just encourage people to bypass responsible corporate reporters and go to WikiLeaks or Anonymous. <p> Let me give Mr. Friedersdorf a hypothetical. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that there is a foreign country that has been in an official state of war with the United States for 60 years and that they have nuclear weapons and that they are a totalitarian society based on a Cult of Personality, and that they periodically shoot off missiles and other projectiles at their southern neighbors who are our close ally, and that they are developing more and better nuclear weapons and rockets and are a threat to proliferate that technology to countries like Iran. Let's say that we were about to slap new United Nations sanctions on this country and we wanted to know how they might react. Let's say that the CIA managed to get an asset high up in this country's government who was willing to give us insights on how the country might react. And let's say that this source told the CIA that the leadership would react in four ways, one of which would be to do another nuclear test. <p> Okay, are you still with me, Friedersdorf? <p> So, the CIA gets this very valuable and sensitive information and they distribute it to a small list of people who are cleared to know about such classified affairs. These are analysts and policymakers and military planners who have to be able to anticipate how the world might go all wobbly at a moment's notice. <p> Then one of the analysts decides that it is very important that a reporter from <i>Fox News</i> not only get this information but that he learn <i>how</i> the CIA got it. And then the <i>Fox News</i> reporter doesn't ask the CIA about it. He doesn't try to find out whether it might be a problem if he reports this information. He just reports it. Like two hours after he gets the information. He tells the world that we have a source high up in the government of this foreign country. You know, maybe we could have overheard this information with our spying equipment. Maybe an intelligence officer from a foreign ally could have stolen the information. <p> So, now we have a very hard to get source not only pissed off at us but terrified for his life. And every other current or potential source in the world has to figure talking to us is a terrible idea. <p> The thing is, this isn't a hypothetical. This is exactly what happened in the case of <i>Fox News</i> reporter James Rosen. So, what is the government supposed to do in a case like this? Should they follow this advice from Friedersdorf? <p> <blockquote>It doesn't matter if the "stop the leaks" folks believe their cause is righteous, or even if they're right that we'd be better off if all leaks could be stopped. They can't be stopped. The question is how best to minimize their costs and maximize their benefits. The answer is to discourage leaks, but to tolerate it when they filter through journalists, an approach that has served the U.S. well.</blockquote><p> I'm not even going to give the obligatory nod to the First Amendment here. It doesn't serve our country well to tolerate leaks that burn assets who can help us avoid (potentially nuclear) war. There is not even an element of whistle-blowing in this case. The government did precisely what it was supposed to do. Nothing was served by divulging this information. It was incredibly damaging. James Rosen should be fired and never given another job where he is expected to dig up classified scoops. <p> This isn't even a remotely close call. <p> And I think it really does damage to the credibility of the defenders of press freedom to defend this guy or to criticize the government for figuring out who his source was. <p> The only part of this story that is troubling at all is the news that the government treated Rosen as a possible co-conspirator. Stick to that angle, and you'll have my sympathy. Tell me that the government has to "tolerate" leaks of this kind and I'm just going to call you an idiot. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/20937/8197">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=r-9-GK980qM:daNQZMsHA34:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/22/20937/8197 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/20937/8197 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/_NUDNZOGOfI/8499 A British soldier was <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/police-respond-serious-incident-woolwich?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position1">attacked</a> and killed on the street in the Woolwich section of London. His assailants hit him with a car and then attacked him with a knife and a machete. Afterwards, they dragged the victim into the street and began asking bystanders to take pictures. One person actually taped a statement from one of the murderers, who said:<p> <blockquote>"We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don't care about you."</blockquote><p> When the armed police showed up, the men moved toward them in a menacing manner and were shot and wounded. They are in the hospital. <p> Now, <a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/05/22/comment-muslims-must-not-apologise-for-terror-they-are-no-mo?">Ian Dunt</a> says that Muslim leaders and organizations should not be issuing condemnations or apologies because they bear no responsibility for the attacks. I understand his point, but the truth is that it is a very good idea to make it as clear as possible that they condemn murdering British soldiers in the streets of London. The purpose is not so much to condemn (although that is appreciated) as to calm tensions and protect their people from reprisals. <p> Moreover, <i>somebody</i> is responsible for what these two men did. Maybe it's someone on the internet. Maybe it's someone at one of the local mosques. No doubt, British foreign policy invites blowback, but these men spoke with London accents. They were Brits who turned against their own country, much like (at least one of) the Boston Bombers. That kind of betrayal gets to the heart of the issue of whether Muslims can be trusted to live in British society, and it can't be addressed if Muslim leaders refuse to disassociate themselves from the crimes. <p> British society cannot be expected to tolerate members of a religious minority that won't condemn crimes against their own military and their own citizens. Maybe in some abstract sense condemnations would not be required, but in the real world they are both required and quite prudent. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/15427/8499">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=_NUDNZOGOfI:z_ZqdiUfbSk:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/22/15427/8499 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/15427/8499 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/C0GjB6qMfnE/420 The Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia is a real <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/ew-jackson-three-fifths-clause-slavery.php">piece of work</a>. He's the first person I've seen argue that the three-fifth's compromise in the Constitution was an <i>anti</i>-slavery provision. <p> <blockquote>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.</blockquote><p> "All other Persons" means slaves. Negroes. Black folks. The South wanted them counted for Census purposes so that they could have more members in the House and thereby could better protect the institution of slavery. The North didn't want them counted at all, since they couldn't vote. Thus, the compromise. <p> Ironically, under the Articles of Confederation, when the issue was solely about taxation, the North and South took the opposite sides in the debate. The North wanted slaves counted and the South did not. But when it came to representation in Congress, the South was willing to take the extra tax burden in order to have more power. And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise">it worked</a>.<p> <blockquote>The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, it dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.</blockquote><p> So, E.W. Jackson, who happens to be black, has a very interesting interpretation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. He appears to be insane. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/122320/420">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=C0GjB6qMfnE:yKs0Gh9kuas:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/22/122320/420 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/122320/420 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boomantribune/Svpw/~3/qWuTmj50seQ/3455 If I understand it correctly, the last time we had to raise the debt ceiling, the Republicans balked and decided to merely suspend the requirement that we operate with a debt ceiling. That suspension has sunsetted as of May 19th. Treasury Secretary Lew <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/300507-as-us-again-hits-debt-ceiling-extraordinary-measures-become-standard">announced</a> that he would implement the "standard set of extraordinary measures" to avoid defaulting on our debt. <p> <blockquote>On Friday, the Treasury stopped issuing State and Local Government Series securities (SLGS). State and local governments buy the securities as they work to refund municipal bond deals. Issuing those securities takes up space under the debt limit.<p> The Treasury also has the power to halt new investments in federal employee retirement funds, which would be reimbursed once the limit is hiked. It also can stop reinvesting in its Exchange Stabilization Fund used to buy and sell foreign currencies. All these moves can free up billions of dollars the government can use to meet critical bills, and give Washington time to strike a debt-limit compromise.</blockquote><p> This is just how we operate now, like a Banana Republic. However, there has been a little wrinkle in the Republicans' plans. They thought we'd be out of money this summer and they would be able to force another hostage crisis over the debt ceiling to extract concessions on the budget. But then we ran a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/business/us-posts-113-billion-surplus-in-april.html?_r=0">$113 billion surplus in April</a>, and now Secretary Lew assures Congress that we can make it past Labor Day without defaulting on our debts. <p> With their hostage-taking plans in ruins, Republican senators began <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-moderates-feud-with-conservatives-over-stall-tactics-on-budget/2013/05/21/b60b3500-c262-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html">cannibalizing</a> each other on the Senate floor yesterday. To understand what was going on requires some explanation. <p> The way the budget process is supposed to work is that both the House and the Senate pass a budget in the spring. They reconcile their two budgets into one budget. Then the responsible committees figure out how they are going to spend the money they have been allotted. Appropriations bills are drafted in the late summer and early fall. And then those bills are passed in each house, and reconciled with each other and passed again. That's how it is <i>supposed</i> to work, but it's been a while since things actually worked out that way. <p> Strictly speaking, there is no requirement that Congress pass a budget, and they haven't agreed to one in recent years. While the House has passed a serious of Paul Ryan budgets, the Senate hasn't bothered to pass anything or make any attempt to reconcile their priorities with Ryan's. <p> The Senate's failure to pass a budget became a rallying cry for conservatives who kept complaining that the Democrats were not using "regular order" to work on the budget. So, this year, the Senate Democrats finally decided that they would pass a budget. They accomplished that 59 days ago. <p> The next step is supposed to be the selection of conferees to serve on a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee">Conference Committee</a>. That's what is called "regular order." The House and Senate select their conferees, and then the Conference Committee hammers out a compromise. Yet, it appears that in passing a budget, the Senate Democrats have called some kind of bluff, because the Republicans absolutely refuse to allow the selection of conferees. <p> Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has a conspiracy theory that the Democrats will use the Conference Committee to get rid of the debt ceiling. John McCain thinks he is an idiot. <p> <blockquote>On the other side, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.) questioned that argument, noting that Democrats couldn’t do anything in conference without the approval of the House — which, McCain said, “happens to be a majority of our party.”<p> “So we don’t trust the majority party on the other side of the [Capitol] to come to conference and not hold to the fiscal discipline that we want to see happen? Isn’t that a little bit bizarre?” McCain said.<p> McCain and Collins also argued that the stall tactics look ridiculous after months of GOP complaints about the refusal by Senate Democrats to adopt a budget. The first Senate budget in three years won approval 59 days ago, and Republicans have been dragging their feet every since.<p> “What are we on my side of the aisle doing?” demanded McCain.</blockquote><p> Since the budget is really nothing more than a blueprint for making appropriations decisions, it's a worthless document if it isn't passed in the spring because the fiscal year ends on September 30th. The Republicans can't get concessions on the budget by refusing to lift the debt ceiling if the debt ceiling won't become a crisis until early September. <p> What's actually happening is a <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/house-republicans-plot-debt-ceiling-strategery.html">freak-out</a> on the conservative side because circumstances have conspired against them. <p> <blockquote>No one expects budget negotiations to go smoothly. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has said he views the debt limit deadline as critical to forcing an agreement. But that deadline has now been pushed to well after Labor Day.<p> In recent conversations with reporters, Collins has called the stall tactics “absurd;” McCain called them “insane” and “incomprehensible.” </blockquote><p> Here's how <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/09/18148087-taking-the-politics-of-extortion-past-the-breaking-point?lite">Steve Benen</a> describes the situation:<p> <blockquote>Congressional Republicans made a series of assumptions, all of which have turned out to be wrong. They assumed Senate Democrats couldn't pass a budget. They assumed Democrats wouldn't want a budget process considered under regular order. And they assumed the budget talks, if they occurred, would happen around the same time as the need for a debt-ceiling increase.<p> GOP lawmakers were terribly disappointed, then, to see Senate Democrats do exactly what they were asked to do, and the economy improved quickly enough to push off the debt-limit deadline until fall.<p> But with their plans foiled, Republicans are stuck with no Plan B, no leverage, and no credible threat. </blockquote><p> Part of the problem involves the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/295477-reid-to-seek-consent-to-convene-budget-conference-">House rules</a>. If the Conference Committee were to convene, and if it were unable to come to an agreement after 20 days, then members of the House (including Democrats) could begin initiating votes on "instructing the conferees." And that would spell the end of any semblance of leadership control over the budget process. <p> Another part of the problem is that having a public conference committee would force the Republicans to show their intransigence on taxing the wealthy and their insistence on slashing popular programs and entitlements. Their positions have a surface level of support with a large segment of the public, but that support evaporates when it becomes concrete. To get the kind of cuts they want, they need a Grand Bargain because they need to be able to blame the Democrats for complicity in the unpopular parts of the budget. They won't be able to do that if they use regular order. <p> So, here we are. The Republicans don't know what to do. They are fighting each other. The conservatives have <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301105-mccain-bucks-party-by-objecting-to-restrictions-on-budget-conferees#ixzz2U1woXXph ">stopped making sense</a> even to John McCain. <p> <blockquote>“What are we on my side of the aisle doing? We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that are absolutely out of line and unprecedented," McCain said. "So all I say to my colleagues is, can't we after all those hours – I forgot what hour in the morning it was – after all those votes, after all that debate, after all that discussion and we came up with a budget and now we won't go to conference. Why is that?”</blockquote><p> It's because they're crazy and incompetent. <p><a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/10921/3455">Discuss</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?a=qWuTmj50seQ:UJA2E_03aXk:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/boomantribune/Svpw?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> </div> BooMan &lt;admin@boomantribune.com&gt; news 2013/5/22/10921/3455 Sat, 25 May 2013 12:40:01 GMT http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/5/22/10921/3455 Use the text box to search Booman Tribune string http://www.boomantribune.com/search/