Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Obama. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Obama. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Scandals prompt comparisons between Nixon, Obama administrations

  • NixonObama_ReutersAP_0513_660.jpg

    In this split image, former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon gives his farewell speech to members of his cabinet and staff in the East Room of the White House, following his resignation Aug. 9, 1974. And President Barack Obama speaks on the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny in the East Room of the White House in Washington, May 15, 2013Reuters/AP

The chorus of comparisons between President Obama and the only president to resign in disgrace is growing by the day, as the administration’s scandals appear to pile up.

Whether the comparisons are fair or not, columnist George Will perhaps led the charge -- after citing the Article of Impeachment against President Nixon in an opinion piece this week.

Will recalled the line: "He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner."

Scores of websites and blogs have since invoked the Nixon comparison, as did Sen. Orrin Hatch, who speaking to reporters about the IRS scandal said Tuesday, "I've never seen anything quite like this, except in the past during the Nixon years."

The Boston Herald's front page on Tuesday was also emblazoned with the headline, "I Know Nothing," with a sub-headline reading: "(coincidentally, that's what Nixon said.)”   

The president is dealing with several scandals at once, including the fallout from the Benghazi terror attack, the Justice Department’s seizing of phone records from the Associated Press and the IRS’ program of singling out Tea Party and other groups for scrutiny.

While Obama has called the IRS targeting of conservatives "outrageous," and late Wednesday announced the resignation of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, investigations are just now getting under way.

There is no evidence, as of yet, that the scandal leads to the Oval Office. But the comparisons to Nixon are inevitable. While the disgraced Nixon did, indeed, use the IRS to target political enemies, he may have been seeking to avenge friends and supporters who, themselves, had been targeted by the IRS in earlier presidencies --  among them  Elvis Presley, Billy Graham and John Wayne.

Regardless of the motive, one thing separates today’s IRS from that of earlier administrations -- its technological capability.

The IRS's mainframe computer in Martinsburg, W.Va., is among the world’s most powerful. As of October 2010, the Internal Revenue Service had the capability to sift through emailing patterns associated with millions of individual Internet addresses.

Sources tell Fox News the IRS continues to collect tax data, but they also are now acquiring huge volumes of personal information on taxpayers’ digital activities, from eBay auctions, Facebook posts, and, for the first time ever, credit card and e-payment transaction records.

And unlike in the Nixon administration, the IRS is, under the Obama Administration, set to expand its workforce by 15,000 to collect health information in accordance with provisions of the president's Affordable Care Act by the end of this year.

Jennifer Stefano, a member of Americans for Prosperity -- who gave up her own quest to form a Tea Party group with friends in 2010 after the IRS threatened to examine her emails, Facebook and Twitter accounts -- voiced concern of a scenario that was perhaps more Orwellian than Nixonian.

“What my concern is, is that four years after the IRS has expanded to police the nation's health care law, how many stories of abuse are going to emerge from this and what will be the impact? It will be far greater than sidelining political voices. It will affect their lives and their health. This is wrong,” she said.


View the original article here

Now we know -- Team Obama both corrupt and incompetent

As a metaphor for big government, it is hard to top the Justice Department’s seizing of journalists’ phone records from The Associated Press.

Unless, of course, you think the best example is the Internal Revenue Service turning the screws on groups it viewed as conservative and, therefore, unworthy of fair treatment.

The Obama administration is both corrupt and incompetent. It is a double whammy that spells trouble for the nation, at home and abroad.

Or maybe the winner is the sneaky spreading of ObamaCare’s tentacles, with insurance companies now predicting the law will drive up the cost of individual premiums by as much as 400 percent.

There are no losers in this race to the bottom — except the American people. It is tempting to ask whether they’ve had enough Hope & Change, but the question is premature. With 44 months to go in the reign of the Great Mistake, the gods are not done punishing us.

To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post, click here.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.


View the original article here

President Obama & the press -- how to heal a dysfunctional relationship

Before I went to work covering the White House as a journalist, I worked in the mental health field for 20 years. And yes, I think that what I learned in mental health gives me a good perspective as I now cover politics and policy. 

In each field, interventions are often needed! And this White House is a case in point.

Right now, for sure, the Obama administration is having plenty of problems: There’s the Benghazi talking points leak, the IRS revelations of looking at Tea Party groups, and, finally, the AP phone records being looked at by the Justice Department.  Whew!

The president needs to show leadership, and he needs to start with better and more honest communication.

Each of these is an important concern in its own right, but I see them as part of a pattern of communication dysfunction. If the president and his team could communicate better, they could govern better.   

I should say immediately that I voted for President Obama twice.  So I am not coming at my criticisms and concerns from the ideological right.  

Indeed, I want to see Barack Obama succeed, just as I want to see the United States of America succeed. That’s why I hope for the much-needed intervention.   

The key point here comes from my experience with “family systems theory.”

Family systems theory says that people behave in set patterns; those patterns can be mapped, and they are predicable. 

Families have clear messages and rules which are never articulated but are nevertheless understood by family members. 

All families have boundaries. How they are formed or violated says much about the family system.  

Finally, those family rules are usually set by the heads of the families.   

The White House press staff and the White House press corps can be thought of as a family system; they all must, like it or not, live under the same roof.  And yes, the White House “family” has a head--that would be White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.  

To put it bluntly, Carney and his team have put in place “rules” that guarantee that the White House will not be a happy family.  

The first such “rule” is disregard for the press corps. Not everyone likes reporters, but they are human beings, and they have feelings. And yet Carney & Co. routinely keep the pressies waiting past published times for events.   

In addition, in their decisions as to who gets to ask questions, they show a further contempt for the press corps. Perhaps most flagrantly, at least lately, on May 10th, Carney held a special “deep background” briefing on Benghazi held for certain selecct members of the White House Press corps--the rest of us were excluded.  

If a family therapist would take the chronic lateness and the preference of certain members of the press who are allowed to have a voice it would be clear that the system is anything but open. It is what would call it a “closed” system, and that means trouble.

Yet as with any dysfunctional relationship, the pain has a way of feeding back to all family members. It’s not just the White House press corps that suffers, it’s also the White House press staff.  

However, the big loser is the president himself, and his policies. His messaging has been thrown off by what is being done in his name.

Indeed, we can see how the dysfunctionality of the White House-White House press corps relationship has poisoned the whole of the administration’s policy efforts. Because, after all, policymakers, inside and outside of the White House, take their cues from the “head of household.” And that person, of course, is Jay Carney’s boss, the president of the United States.   

Even if the IRS folks were career staff or Bush era holdovers you do not need to be Dr. Freud to understand that the implicit message is that it is OK to limit what is said, to edit what is said or even to allow political thought and considerations to be a part of official actions. 

It is well known that reporters have been given access or not depending on the kinds of stories that are written or broadcast. 

If the message from the top is that signaling out groups (the IRS actions) or monitoring the press was unacceptable (the AP phone records) my guess is that this would not have happened.

Seeing this this from a family systems perspective, we only need to look at the overall actions to determine what rules this system has been operating under.

Boundaries have been violated. Gregory Hicks from the State Department testified before Congress last week that he was criticized for his management style only after he talked to a Member of Congress--before that he received nothing but compliments. That’s not a healthy signal to send.  

Moreover, the Associated Press’s phone records were taken by the Justice Department.  The Benghazi talking points were rewritten and rewritten, seemingly with the goal of obscuring the truth. Indeed, we can see that  Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State violated the boundaries of her job, so did the IRS, so did the Justice Department.

The system is crying out for help, for openness, for respect of boundaries and for new rules.

The president needs to show leadership, and he needs to start with better and more honest communication. That means answering all the press corps' questions, even from the smaller news outlets, even if the answers are in writing.  It means not editing out what people want to say and acknowledging different viewpoints and perspectives.

It is the only way to heal this very dysfunctional system. I hope the president makes this much-needed intervention.

Ellen Ratner is Washington Bureau Chief for Talk Radio News Service and a Fox News contributor.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Obama loses mainstream media support as Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals grow

Brushfire season has come early to Washington. The Obama administration had been trying to stamp out persistent complaints over Benghazi. On Friday, a second fire broke out as we found the IRS lied and deliberately targeted conservative groups for special investigation.

As the IRS fire burned out of control, Fire Chief Obama tried to put out the Benghazi inferno by attacking the GOP. 

It was too late. 

Then, a third blaze caught everyone – especially the media – off guard. The poorly named Justice Department “used a secret subpoena to obtain two months of phone records for Associated Press reporters and editors without notifying the news organization,” reported NBC News.

The same administration that caught heat for lying to journalists about editing the Benghazi talking points also is investigating journalists. 

That’s when it’s not investigating Tea Party groups, pro-Israel Jewish groups, businesses and just about everybody else.

The Obama administration has been at war with the media since before it was elected the first time.

The Washington Post explains such “subpoenas of records from news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general.” In other words, this attack on press freedom goes all the way to Eric Holder.

All three networks hit hard on the IRS Monday, with NBC calling it “damage control” and “IRS firestorm.” Both NBC and CBS covered the attack on the very people who were reporting the other scandals.

Seven of the top 10 newspapers had at least one Obama disaster on their front page Tuesday. There was so much “Scandal,” you expected Kerry Washington to show up. The IRS fiasco was on all seven, with The Chicago Tribune’s headline “IRS Scandal Growing” reflecting a typical sentiment. 

The nation’s top two political papers – The Washington Post and New York Times – both had multiple stories. The Post devoted two stories to the IRS and another to the AP fiasco. The Times had one story each. The IRS stories showed the probes “reached the highest levels of the agency in May 2012” – six months before the election.

Our besieged president led USA Today. The paper had a worried picture of Obama responding to both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. The headline read: “UNDER FIRE: Scrutiny of reporters adds to administration’s woes.” The paper ran two stories beneath it – a Q&A about the first two scandals and another story on the “AP phone records.”

Obama is rapidly became the butt of jokes. Big time lefty Jon Stewart devoted 10 minutes of his program to the scandals, repeatedly dropping a bleeped F-bomb in frustrated response to both the IRS scandal and the AP investigation. David Burge, the funniest man on the Internet, joked on Twitter: “And now I think we all know why Obama picked Biden as VP.” And Jay Leno led off his show with several digs at the president.

Forget Gate 1 (Benghazi – horrific and deadly), Gate 2 (Nixonian – even down to the language used) and focus on Gate 3. This one is so bad that the liberal, pro-Obama Huffington Post ran headlines like “ASSOCIATED MESS!” and my current favorite “DOJ WTF.” Since Obama is taking us back to the Nixon era, I’ll paraphrase LBJ. If Obama has lost HuffPo, he’s lost. Period.

Now, HuffPo and the rest of the media are fickle and still love Obama. But this fits a pattern of anti-media attacks and deception. 

It appears journalists have temporarily noticed. 

AP President and CEO Gary B. Pruitt wrote a scathing letter to Holder saying “there can be no possible justification” for what his department gathered. “We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” he continued.

I can see him being upset. But don’t act so surprised. The Obama administration has been at war with the media since before it was elected the first time. Obama kicked three reporters off the campaign plane in 2008 because their papers backed his opponent.

He followed that with an endless crusade against conservative media or any who criticized him. The administration went after Fox News, Drudge, Tea Party inspiration Rick Santelli and even liberal CNBC host Jim Cramer.

A full-scale spat with the press corps led sometime sane Helen Thomas to compare the administration to Nixon. (Ah, there’s that Nixon guy again.) Obama stayed aloof from the press and his agencies shut them out. 

The federal government locked out the press from the disastrous BP oil spill – so much so that CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune all complained. 

And that’s only the highlights.

The press can no longer say the Obama scandals are a case of smoke but no fire because they are getting burned, too. There’s a hellacious amount of fire and it’s spreading. 

If Obama can’t contain it, the fires will merge into one mighty conflagration – and light up just how awful his administration has been to the press and opponents.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.


View the original article here

Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals -- will buck ever stop with Obama?

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?” 

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

Benghazi may not be "Obama's Watergate," as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.” 

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread. 

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi: 

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.  

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions.  The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover,  their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.


View the original article here

Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals -- will buck ever stop with Obama?

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?” 

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

Benghazi may not be "Obama's Watergate," as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.” 

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread. 

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi: 

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.  

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions.  The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover,  their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.


View the original article here

Obama bemoans partisan jams at Democratic fundraiser in New York

  • Obama_Angu (23)0513_397.jpg

    May 13, 2013: President Barack Obama waves as he steps off stage after speaking at a Democratic fundraiser at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York.AP

Huddling with A-list celebrities and top re-election donors, President Barack Obama bemoaned the partisan forces that have stymied compromise in Washington as he raised campaign cash for Democrats in New York.

At a cozy suppertime fundraiser Monday, Obama said he had hoped his election in 2008 might "break the fever" of partisanship and gridlock that has stood in the way of his agenda. When those hopes proved unfounded, he looked to his re-election, believing a second consecutive victory might deliver the final blow.

"It's not quite broken yet," Obama said to laughter from some of the 60 donors who gathered in the home of film producer Harvey Weinstein, a major donor and bundler for Obama's re-election campaign. "I am persistent, and I am staying at it."

The star-studded fundraiser was the first of three events Obama headlined Monday in New York, making good on his commitment to go all out for Democrats ahead of the 2014 elections. Pop icons Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel were among those who nibbled on desserts in a modest living room in Weinstein's West Village brownstone.

Obama said he genuinely believes some congressional Republicans are open to compromise, but they fear the party's conservative base and what talk show host Rush Limbaugh might say about them. At the same time, he pushed back against Democrats who want Obama to react by adopting a more defiant Democratic tone.

"My intentions over the next 3 1/2 years are to govern, because I don't have another race left," Obama said. "If we've got folks on the other side who are prepared to cooperate, that is great and we are ready to go."

But if Republicans show their top priority is winning elections, Obama said, he wants to make sure Democrats can exact consequences come Election Day.

At an evening event in a nearby neighborhood, Obama said he expected an immigration overhaul was possible this year. He reflected on his March trip to Israel, telling a group including prominent Jewish donors there's a deep desire for peace among Israelis and Palestinians, although "the window for opportunity is growing smaller by the day."

The fundraising jaunt comes at a difficult time for Obama, whose administration is facing heated questions over the handling of a deadly assault on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and an admission by the Internal Revenue Service that tea party groups were singled out for scrutiny. Meanwhile, Obama's months-long campaign to forge closer ties with lawmakers from both parties by courting them at dinners, on the phone and at the golf course has yielded dubious results. His second-term efforts to enact new gun control laws and avert automatic spending cuts were both thwarted by bitter disagreements in Congress.

Tickets started at $16,200 for two events benefiting the Democratic National Committee, which is still retiring debt it incurred last year during Obama's re-election.

Obama also appeared at a joint fundraiser for the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees, where he told about 140 donors at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel that the fate of his agenda rests largely on whether Democrats can shore up their Senate majority and reclaim control of the House. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was among the guests at the surf-and-turf dinner, where donors paid $7,500 to attend or $32,400 to chair the event.

Monday's fundraisers are among at least 20 fundraisers that Democratic officials say Obama has committed to headlining ahead of the 2014 elections -- many of them outside Washington.


View the original article here

Gitmo prisoner says Obama has 'abandoned' detainees

A Guantanamo Bay detainee says he feels abandoned by President Barack Obama and the world after more than 10 years at the U.S. prison.

"I believe that President Obama must be unaware of the unbelievably inhumane conditions at the Guantanamo Bay prison, for otherwise he would surely do something to stop this torture," Yemeni prisoner Musa'ab Omar Al Madhwani wrote in a federal court declaration this year.

About a month later, Obama renewed his vow to close the U.S. detention center in Cuba, but acknowledged one key obstacle: "It's a hard case to make because I think for a lot of Americans, the notion is `out of sight, out of mind."'

Al Madhwani is a strong example of the political thicket that Obama faces as he makes another run at fulfilling a 2008 campaign promise to close the prison -- or at least transfer some detainees back to their countries. For one, Al Madhwani is from Yemen, and the administration has prohibited the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to that country since January 2010 because of security concerns after a would-be bomber attempted to blow up a U.S.-bound airliner on instructions from Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

For another, Al Madhwani already has lost a court challenge to his detention, despite the judge's conclusion that he was not a security threat to the U.S. Of 26 documents the government relied on containing statements Al Madhwani had made at Guantanamo, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in Washington threw out 23, concluding they had been tainted by coercive interrogation by U.S. forces prior to his arrival at the Cuban prison.

That taint would make it difficult to convict Al Madhwani in a civilian court, or even a military tribunal, increasing the odds that Al Madhwani will remain in the limbo of indefinite detention. Many other detainees are in the same situation. To date, only two prisoners have been convicted in a trial by military tribunals at Guantanamo, and both were reversed by the federal appeals court in Washington (although one remains under review). The five other convictions of Guantanamo prisoners came through plea bargains.

In Obama's first week in office, he signed an executive order to close Guantanamo, but Congress has used its budgetary power to block detainees from being moved to the U.S.  On Saturday, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized what he called Congress' "unwise and unwarranted restrictions on where certain detainees could be housed, charged and prosecuted."

"Throughout history, our federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice," Holder told law school graduates of the University of California, Berkeley. "They have enabled us to convict scores of people of terrorism-related offenses since Sept. 11."

Like most of the 166 prisoners remaining at Guantanamo, Al Madhwani is participating in a hunger strike to protest his detention and prison conditions. "Indefinite detention is the worst form of torture," wrote Al Madhwani, who is in his 11th year at the prison and has never been charged with a crime.

The judge said he found Al Madhwani's testimony about harsh treatment at the hands of U.S. forces in Afghanistan prisons to be credible.

"Before Guantanamo, he had endured 40 days of solitary confinement, severe physical and mental abuse, malnourishment, sensory deprivation, anxiety and insomnia," Hogan said. But the judge ruled that statements Al Madhwani made during two military administrative hearings at Guantanamo were reliable and sufficient to justify holding him, because he had been "part of" Al Qaeda.

Still, the judge seemed to come to that conclusion reluctantly.

"As a young, unemployed, undereducated Yemeni, Petitioner (Al Madhwani) was particularly vulnerable to the demagoguery of religious fanatics," Hogan wrote in the January 2010 opinion. He was "at best, a low-level al-Qaida figure."

Last month, a Constitution Project task force on detainee treatment, concluded that the U.S. engaged in torture in treatment of suspected terrorists. The high-profile task force listed Al Madhwani's case as an example of court findings of evidence of torture and abuse. The Constitution Project is a nonpartisan Washington-based thinktank.

Of the prisoners remaining at Guantanamo, 86 have been cleared for transfer to other countries, but Al Madhwani isn't one of them. That "really causes us to scratch our heads, because we believe, of all the people we've met, he's as harmless as any of them," said Al Madhwani's lawyer Darold Killmer, who also represents some detainees who have been cleared for transfer.

This year, Al Madhwani filed a motion in the D.C. federal court for humanitarian relief, claiming that Guantanamo officials had shown "deliberate indifference" to his medical needs. Hogan denied the motion, ruling that federal law bars him from reviewing claims about an enemy combatant's conditions of confinement.

In support of his failed motion, Al Madhwani wrote:

"Both of my parents have died during the time that I have been in prison in Guantanamo Bay. They were waiting for me to come home and now they are gone. I am afraid that my entire family will be dead before I am released from this prison. ... I have no reason to believe that I will ever leave this prison alive. It feels like death would be a better fate than living in these conditions."

Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, said the U.S. remains in armed conflict with Al Qaeda, and that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, allows for the detention of enemy forces.

While the U.S. has prosecuted some detainees, he said, it isn't obligated to conduct trials while hostilities continue.

Al Madhwani insisted he's done nothing against the U.S. and never would.

"But if anyone believes that I have done anything wrong, I beg them to charge me with a crime, try me and sentence me. If not, release me."

Obama expressed the same sentiment two weeks ago when he said: "The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried -- that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop."


View the original article here

Media can't ignore Obama IRS, Benghazi scandals

Watching the Friday briefing with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, it was easy to believe the media were going to hit hard on the Obama administration. 

Carney had to endure 46 questions about two big scandals hitting his boss – Benghazi and the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The Washington Post later called it a “feeding frenzy.”

Over the weekend, the top 10 newspapers seemed to lose interest. On Sunday, just two of the eight that published that day had any mention on their front pages. 

But by Monday, the stories had returned with a vengeance. Half of the top 10 papers – including the influential trio of The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal – all featured the IRS scandal on the front.

Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the Tea Party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control?

USA Today had the lead headline: “GOP Demands Obama Apology” and the Post got hold of the “draft audit by the inspector general that has been given to Capitol Hill.” 

The Denver Post once again devoted front-page play to the IRS scandal, running the same Washington Post story under the headline: INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT: IRS’s scrutiny went beyond keywords to target ideology.”

The New York Times also aired the IRS scandal on its front page Monday, but focused less on the scandal and more on how the GOP would use it against Obama. “I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On.” The Wall Street Journal led with the tax scandal under the bold headline: “Wider Problems Found at IRS.”

On Sunday, only The Washington Post and Denver Post mentioned either scandal. The Denver Post had the story in a prominent place under the headline: “TEA PARTY TARGETED: IRS leaders knew in 2011: A draft of IG report seems to contradict the commissioner’s words.”

The Washington Post mentioned the scandals in a front-page story, but in typical Postian fashion, put them in Obama context. Under the headline, “Can Obama avoid curse of 2nd term?” the paper discussed the “two flaring controversies.”

To put that in perspective, early on Sunday, even the lefty Huffington Post had the tax story featured prominently. The headline “Plot Thickens in IRS, Tea Party Debacle” was accompanied by three other stories further down the page. 

Naturally, since HuffPo has been downplaying the attacks in Libya, there were only two words about the “Benghazi Drama.”

The scandals kept moving forward over the weekend. On the IRS disaster, we became aware that “senior officials at the Internal Revenue Service were aware that its agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011.” National Review revealed “the IRS may also have given extra-special attention to the tax-exempt status of some Jewish groups for political reasons.”

The Washington Post reported that not only are top IRS officials math deficient, they are truth deficient. The paper explained “the IRS made no mention of targeting conservative groups in five separate responses to congressional inquiries between Nov. 18, 2011, and June 15, 2012.” Too bad that story was buried on page A6 Sunday.

As the Benghazi scandal escalated, the lawyer of whistleblower Gregory Hicks revealed he’s no GOP stalking horse. “Mr. Hicks is a Democrat. He voted for Hillary – I’ve yet to announce this – he voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama twice,” attorney Victoria Toensing told WMAL.

On Sunday morning, the talking head shows dwelt heavily with both issues. Conservative George Will told ABC’s “This Week,” “we would have all hell breaking loose,” if President George W. Bush had used the IRS against left-wing groups. Will hammered home his point by reading from the Impeachment Articles of Richard Nixon and how they specifically referred to misuse of the IRS.

On CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” former Time magazine reporter Margaret Carlson had the audacity to blame conservatives for how poorly the Benghazi scandal was covered. “The right wing went so far on this story, ‘it’s Watergate, it’s impeachable,’ we couldn’t hear Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard. It did take somebody who is just a meat and potatoes reporter.”

Scheduling conflicts limited the weekend impact of network news, but conservatives still mocked “Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran for his network’s hypocrisy. Moran tweeted about the IRS scandal on Friday: “A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration: IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups.” That night, his own show ignored the scandal.

The question remaining is how the media handle both scandals going forward. Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the Tea Party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control? 

The question remaining is how the media handle both scandals going forward. Will journalists allow the IRS attack on the tea party to drown out the Benghazi follow-up or will they link them to an administration spiraling out of control? 

The Benghazi scandal has gone too far to be completely ignored, but the major media probably only have room for one Obama disaster at a time. So expect the focus on the IRS to largely push it out of the Washington conversation.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.


View the original article here

Obama administration gives wind farms a pass on eagle deaths, prosecutes oil companies

  • wind_farm_photo.jpg

    A wind farm in Colorado is shown here. (AP Photo)

The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation has found.

More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Each death is federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind energy company has been prosecuted, even those that repeatedly flout the law.

Wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, is a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan. His administration has championed a $1 billion-a-year tax break to the industry that has nearly doubled the amount of wind power in his first term.

The large death toll at wind farms shows how the renewable energy rush comes with its own environmental consequences, trade-offs the Obama administration is willing to make in the name of cleaner energy.

"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this," said Tom Dougherty, a long-time environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West, until his retirement in 2008. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."

Documents and emails obtained by The Associated Press offer glimpses of the problem: 14 deaths at seven facilities in California, five each in New Mexico and Oregon, one in Washington state and another in Nevada, where an eagle was found with a hole in its neck, exposing the bone.

One of the deadliest places in the country for golden eagles is Wyoming, where federal officials said wind farms had killed more than four dozen golden eagles since 2009, predominantly in the southeastern part of the state. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the figures. Getting precise figures is impossible because many companies aren't required to disclose how many birds they kill. And when they do, experts say, the data can be unreliable.

When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or that revealing it would expose trade secrets or implicate ongoing enforcement investigations.

Nearly all the birds being killed are protected under federal environmental laws, which prosecutors have used to generate tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from businesses, including oil and gas companies, over the past five years.

"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent based in Cody, Wyo.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says it is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities and seven have been referred to the Justice Department. A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to discuss the status of those cases.

In its defense, the wind-energy industry points out that more eagles are killed each year by cars, electrocutions and poisoning than by turbines. Dan Ashe, the Fish and Wildlife Service's director, said in an interview Monday with the AP said that his agency always has made clear to wind companies that if they kill birds they would still be liable.

"We are not allowing them to do it. They do it," he said of the bird deaths. "And we will successfully prosecute wind companies if they are in significant noncompliance."

But by not enforcing the law so far, the administration provides little incentive for companies to build wind farms where there are fewer birds. And while companies already operating turbines are supposed to do all they can to avoid killing birds, in reality there's little they can do once the windmills are spinning.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors the size of jetliners.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cell phones -- they don't look up. As they scan for food, they don't notice the industrial turbine blades until it's too late.

Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an interview with the AP before his departure, denied any preferential treatment for wind. Interior Department officials said that criminal prosecution, regardless of the industry, is always a "last resort."

"There's still additional work to be done with eagles and other avian species, but we are working on it very hard," Salazar said. "We will get to the right balance."

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles. The regulation is currently under review at the White House.

The proposal, made at the urging of the wind-energy industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill a set number of bald or golden eagles. Previously, companies were only eligible for five-year permits.

"It's basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they're saying `trust us for oversight'. This is not the path forward," said Katie Umekubo, a renewable energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued in private meetings with the industry and government leaders that the 30-year permit needed an in-depth environmental review.

But the eagle rule is not the first time the administration has made concessions for the wind-energy industry.

Last year, over objections from some of its own wildlife investigators and biologists, the Interior Department updated its guidelines and provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law.

Under both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the death of a single bird without a permit is illegal.

But under the Obama administration's new guidelines, wind-energy companies don't face additional scrutiny until they have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife or habitat.

That rare exception for one industry substantially weakened the government's ability to enforce the law and ignited controversy inside the Interior Department.

"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not do this for the electric utility industry or other industries," Kevin Kritz, a government wildlife biologist in the Rocky Mountain region wrote in internal agency comments in September 2011. "Other industries will want to be judged on a similar standard."

The Obama administration, however, repeatedly overruled its own experts. In the end, the wind-energy industry, which was part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines, got almost everything it wanted.

"Clearly, there was a bias to wind energy in their favor because they are a renewable source of energy, and justifiably so," said Rob Manes, who runs the Kansas office for The Nature Conservancy and who served on the committee. "We need renewable energy in this country."


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 12 tháng 5, 2013

Team Obama desperate to distract Americans from Benghazi truth

ABC New’s Jonathan Karl and Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard have both produced some excellent new reporting on the Benghazi scandal.

Mr. Karl has uncovered emails showing how talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice during her appearances on five Sunday morning talk shows were profoundly misleading.

And in an upcoming Weekly Standard piece, Mr. Hayes reports on the concern inside the CIA, starting with Director David Petraeus, over the efforts to weaken the Agency’s proposed language.

What did Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton know, when did they know it, and did they direct Ms. Rice directly or indirectly to mislead the American public?

These journalists have done much to advance our understanding of what happened during and after the attack on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, but there still remain critical, unanswered questions. 

For example, on whose behalf were State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland and deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes – both of whom played key roles in altering the Benghazi talking points – acting when they objected to the CIA’s language characterizing Benghazi as a terrorist incident?

It’s unlikely that the decision to gut the CIA-draft by expunging any reference to terrorism or possible Al Qaeda links was done by Ms. Nuland or Mr. Rhodes, both communications people.  It’s far more likely that they were doing the bidding of people further up the chain of command at the State Department and the White House.  

Was Ms. Nuland getting orders from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, either directly or through her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills?  Was Mr. Rhodes being told by White House Senior Advisors David Plouffe or Valerie Jarrett to strike any embarrassing reference to Islamic extremists?  

For the record, according to Mr. Hayes’ earlier reporting, here’s what the participants of that Saturday morning White House meeting agreed upon:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated.

The investigation is ongoing, and the U.S. government is working with Libyan authorities to help bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Note what’s missing: Any reference to the anti-Muslim YouTube video. Yet Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, repeatedly blamed the YouTube video during her Sunday morning talk show appearances.  

So who – after the White House meeting on Saturday, September 15 occurred – insisted on this further revision to the talking points and directed Ms. Rice to scapegoat the video? It’s reasonable to assume that people higher-up in the State Department and White House did so.  Then the question is, why?  

Ms. Nuland has publicly distanced herself from the final talking points and Ms. Rice’s appearances, making clear she wasn’t at the Saturday morning meeting and didn’t prepare Ms. Rice for the Sunday talk programs, according to Mr. Karl.  

Jake Hayes, then deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning, has similarly been distanced from any preparation work with Ms. Rice.  His name appears in emails Mr. Hayes reports on.

That still leaves lots of people in the West Wing and the Secretary’s suite at State to be heard from.

We get a hint of the Administration’s mindset from a new tweet from one of President Obama’s closest confidants, David Axelrod, who tweets:

“@DavidAxelrod: Can't help but feeling that If Ken Salazar were the front runner for '16, the House GOP be holding hearings on the BP oil spill.”

Team Obama wants to make this all about partisan politics.  The hope is to distract Americans from what really matters: who in the Obama administration is responsible for presenting the American people an utterly false account of what happened in Benghazi despite having known the truth within hours after the attacks?  

What did Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton know, when did they know it, and did they direct Ms. Rice directly or indirectly to mislead the American public two months before a presidential election rather than admit Benghazi was a terrorist attack?

Members of Congress have plenty of time to discover the truth.  They should use their subpoena power to do just that.  Because this story matters.

Karl Rove is a Fox News political analyst and a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. He is the author of "Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight" (Threshold Editions, 2010) and helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.

 


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

Obama doubles down in advocating active government, as GOP warns of excess

A passage in President Obama's recent commencement address at Ohio State University has highlighted the stark contrast between his view of the role of government and that of his Republican opponents, and it may portend tough political clashes for the remainder of his term.

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," Obama told graduates. "Some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices."

Critics point out the fear of government tyranny was also a prime motivator of the founding fathers as they crafted the Constitution.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive," Thomas Jefferson said.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," Ben Franklin said.

But Obama follows "a different tradition," Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute said. "He comes from the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and the so-called progressive movement that sees government as a wonderful, good thing that is supposed to take care of us."

Jefferson might be dismayed at just how "energetic" our government has become. Measured per household, the federal government is spending more than at any time in its history. Data compiled by the Heritage Foundation shows that since 1965 spending has grown by 152 percent, from $11,900 to $30,015 per household in 2012. Spending is expected to rise to $34,602 per household by 2022.

Many fear the U.S., burdened by high taxes, deficit spending and unprecedented debt, is edging toward a European style economy. "If we become more like Europe, and that's basically what president Obama was implying we should be like in his Ohio state address, we're going to have the exact same problems," Mitchell said, "a very stifling tax burden that discourages productive behavior while at the same time having an excessive public sector that lures people's into unproductive activity."

Lorelei Kelly of the New America Foundation disagrees. She thinks the president's Ohio State address was tailored to the talents of a tech savvy younger generation. She hopes their skills will one day  transform bureaucratic inefficiencies into effective, responsive governance.

"At the end of the day, everybody wants traffic signals that work, schools for their kids to go to that are safe and an economy that's connected," she said.

"Young people have a tremendous role to play in a very positive sense, because they understand their whole world view is connected," she said. "Everybody loves to beat up on the government and sound like we can do more with less, but the truth is what we need to start thinking about is how to update, modernize and reform our government."

Even so, after Saturday's ceremony, graduates at Ohio State and hundreds of other colleges around the U.S. will step into a world marked by the harsh realities of scarce jobs, aging parents and the looming costs of entitlements -- all challenges that will test their faith in government as few generations have been tested.


View the original article here