President Obama Commits To Carrying Out Bush Plan To Leave Iraq By End of Year

There's quite a bit of Internet angst among certain folks complaining that President Obama is somehow engaging in a change of course about the continued presence of US troops in Iraq when he announced today that but for a contingent of troops to guard the US embassy in Baghdad, all the troops will be returning to their primary bases by the end of the year.

President Obama isn't changing US policy. He's carrying it out.

This is a US policy enacted by President Bush and enacted pursuant to a Status of Forces Agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, Iraq and the US agree that all American forces would be withdrawn no later than December 31, 2011. That was an agreement entered into on November 17, 2008, and also called for US combat forces to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities no later than June 30, 2009. These are timetables put in place by President Bush, and President Obama is carrying them out (and incidentally belatedly keeps a campaign pledge from 2008.)

That isn't to say that the agreement couldn't be amended. The US and Iraqi government were trying to negotiate a plan to continue basing troops in Iraq, but the Iraqis didn't want to grant immunity to US troops operating there and the US wasn't going to keep troops in Iraq should they be subject to prosecution locally.

Now, does this adversely affect Iraq's security? Absolutely. It means that they have to stand up against an ongoing threat from neighboring Iran (some things never change) without a US countervailing presence. Are they nearly as capable as they should be (or were when the US was backing them up)? No, but by bringing the troops home, the Army can begin the process of reducing its costs, reduce manpower and assets deployed, replace used and worn out equipment, and most importantly, allow troops to return to their home bases to rejoin their families. On the whole, this benefits the US and reduces a major source of government expenditures for the long term.

I would have liked to see an ongoing military deployment of troops there - invited to remain by the Iraqi government precisely as a means to stabilize the region and to thwart potential moves by Iran, but that wont be the case - at least for now. We're still in places like Bahrain, and their sociopolitical situation is a mess - so shifting certain assets to Iraq could make sense from that perspective as well.

NYC Preparing for 10th Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks as Law Enforcement Deals With Credible Terror Threats To NYC and DC

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that murdered nearly 3,000 people in NYC, Washington, DC, and Shanksville, PA, law enforcement is seriously worried about al Qaeda and spinoff/inspired terrorists carrying out attacks against either the commemorations or other targets in the United States.

"We have received credible information very recently about a possible plot directed at the homeland that seems to be focused on New York and Washington, D.C.," a senior administration official told CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.

The official said the plot was believed to involve three individuals, including a U.S. citizen, who may have entered the United States. U.S. officials believed the threat was a vehicle laden with explosives, but "the intelligence picture is not completely formed," the official said. "Not enough is known about the potential operatives and their plotting."

Another source gave CNN conflicting information about possible details of the threat.

A senior law enforcement official involved in briefings about the matter told CNN Justice Department Producer Terry Frieden that his best information is that the three individuals had not yet entered the United States.

It should come as no surprise that al Qaeda sought to carry out attacks on the eve of their most heinous accomplishment; that kind of information was among the trove of data recovered in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. They would love nothing more than to rub it in and carry out still more deadly attacks and doing so in New York City would be as high profile as it gets.

Presidents Obama and Bush will both be in New York City to commemorate the day and to dedicate the National 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero. The NYPD is already preparing for heightened security and a ring of steel and cameras is being butressed with all manner of visible and hidden measures to protect the dignitaries attending the ceremonies and to prevent terrorists from carrying out attacks.

These include concrete blocks placed across streets to restrict car traffic, sealed manhole covers and other steps that the NYPD have taken in past high visibility events.

Concrete blocks placed at Vesey and Broadway

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Even as the security situation is being firmed up and law enforcement and intel services are attempting to ascertain the nature and type of threats, efforts are being made to prepare the area around Ground Zero for the dedication, including hanging a flag on the new Fiterman Hall:

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

The 9/11 memorial is undergoing its final preparations and the perimeter fencing is also being prepared for the upcoming opening.


Also, St. Paul's Chapel has been handing out white ribbons to leave notes tied to the wrought iron fence:

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

The Rebuilding of Ground Zero, Part 143

Construction continues throughout Ground Zero, including the 9/11 Memorial and Museum complex. In the past week, various components of the museum were installed in the underground museum, including a damaged fire truck, and a cross of steel recovered from Ground Zero that was later displayed at a nearby church.

The installation of the cross has resulted in a lawsuit by American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey, claiming that the cross was impermissible under state and federal Constitutional law:

But the move quickly provoked a lawsuit from American Atheists, a nonprofit group based in New Jersey. It argued that because the cross is a religious symbol of Christianity and the museum is partly government financed and is on government property, the cross’s inclusion in the museum violates the United States Constitution and state civil rights law. The lawsuit, in turn, provoked the ire of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest law firm, as well as others.

Now, the dispute over the “World Trade Center cross” is becoming the latest in a string of heated conflicts over how to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks. It comes less than two months before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and in the wake of a feverish debate over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque within blocks of the trade center site.

Marc D. Stern, who is the associate general counsel of the American Jewish Committee and has long studied church-state issues, said the lawsuit presented “an extra-difficult case.”

“It’s a significant part of the story of the reaction to the attack, and that is a secular piece of history,” he said. “It’s also very clear from the repeated blessing of the cross, and the way believers speak about the cross, that it has intense present religious meaning to many people. And both of those narratives about this cross are correct.”

Ira C. Lupu, a professor at the George Washington University Law School and an authority on faith and the law, described the lawsuit as “plausible.” The outcome, he said, could depend on how the beam was displayed when the museum opened.

Context is everything here. The steel was a rallying point and a measure of comfort for those who saw it in the wake of the attacks and it has a religious significance. How those concepts are expressed and how the artifact is displayed will determine the outcome.

Of course, this suit is the last thing that the cash strapped Museum needs right now. It needs funds to ensure that the site opens on schedule and that the museum can operate going forward, both as an educational center and for preserving artifacts in its collection. Considering that the Athiest organization says that they're looking for equal representation, I see room for a negotiated deal before the museum opens to the public.

Meanwhile, news reports indicate that both President Obama and former President Bush will attend ceremonies at Ground Zero to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

Mayor Bloomberg said Friday on his radio show that Obama and Bush would be given pre-selected readings, and that none of the dignitaries would be making speeches.

"This cannot be political," he said.

When Bush was president, he visited the site on anniversaries, but did not participate in the morning ceremony where the names are solemnly read aloud. Obama has also visited at other times, but never for the name-reading ceremony.

Also for the first time, the names of all the people killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville, Pa., will be read aloud. In previous years, just the names of the trade center victims were read.

The ceremony will also include several current and former governors, along with Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

UPDATE:
Westfield has signed a long term deal with the Port Authority to handle the retail site development.

The Port Authority has a tentative deal with mall operator Westfield Properties to bring retail and restaurants to the World Trade Center site, the Journal and Post report. Westfield—an Australia-based company that also operates the concessions at JFK—would pay $612.5 million of the expected $1.55 billion retail construction costs in exchange for a 50 percent stake in the project. (The Port Authority would foot the rest of the bill.)

Yesterday, the Port Authority authorized more contracts for construction in and around Ground Zero, including at the Vehicle Security Center that is located on the site of the former Deutsche Bank building:

• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract to Zwicker Electrical Co. Inc., for electrical, telecommunications, security and fire alarm systems for the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract with Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc., for a fire protection system for the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract with WDF Inc., for a heating and air conditioning system for the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract with Pace Plumbing Corp., for plumbing for the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract with Skyline Steel Corporation for miscellaneous iron for the World Trade Center Vehicle Security Center.
• Authorized the award of a contract to Berardi Stone Setting Inc., for the pre-purchase, storage and handling of granite pavers and curbs for the World Trade Center Streets Program.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract to Delta Sheet Metal Corp. for a ventilation system for the World Trade Center Retail and Parking Pre-Tenant Fit-Out.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract to WDF Inc., for a plumbing system for the World Trade Center Retail and Parking Pre-Tenant Fit Out.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract to WDF Inc., for a heating and air conditioning system for the World Trade Center Retail and Parking Pre-Tenant Fit Out.
• Authorized the award of a construction trade contract to Rael Automatic Sprinkler Company Inc., for a fire protection system for the World Trade Center Retail and Parking Pre-Tenant Fit Out.
• Authorized an increase of $45.2 million to certain existing World Trade Center contracts to perform design and construction work to support adjacent stakeholder work, permanent power relocation requirements and tenant modifications.

UPDATE:
In a bit of bad news for Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority, UBS has decided against relocating from Connecticut to Ground Zero due to its ongoing reduction in workforce and uncertain business situation. This means that Silverstein will have to look for another major tenant to help fill the buildings he's hoping to construct at Ground Zero.

Continuing Fallout From President Obama's Middle East Speech

Despite the fact that the speech was largely directed at areas other than the Arab-Israeli conflict, the headlines are pretty much in concert that President Barack Obama made demands on Israel that exceed anything demanded by the US in the past.

That's simply wrong, but the Administration isn't stepping forward to address the situation.

The fact that President Obama says that the borders of a 2-state solution will be along the 1967 lines with land swaps is essentially the same exact language used by President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush. In many respects, the speech carries on the policy prescriptions of President Bush, who wanted Israel to have secure and defensible borders:

Initially, the Clinton administration supported the idea of defensible borders in its January 17, 1997, letter by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But with the 2001 Clinton Parameters, the idea of defensible borders was dropped and replaced by "security guarantees." Indeed, Clinton proposed "an international presence in Palestine to provide border security along the Jordan Valley."

In contrast, Bush refers to defensible borders in the context of preserving and strengthening "Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself."

Here's the entirety of what Obama said about Israel's borders:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

That's a formulation that essentially covers the same exact ground as laid out by President Bush. This isn't a change, but a reaffirmation of existing US policy.

Indeed, yesterday's speech actually continues a trend started by Obama's immediate predecessor by calling out allies who have acted wrongly by not respecting human rights:

He also followed Bush in attacking some US allies, calling on Bahrain and Yemen to make changes. It was a speech that enraged almost every powerful actor in the Middle East and put America out on a limb. Like Bush, Obama is willing to confront some of America’s closest allies (the Saudis, who back the crackdown in Bahrain). Like Bush, he hailed Iraq as an example of democracy and pluralism that can play a vital role in the transformation of the region. Like Bush, he proposes to work with opposition groups in friendly countries.

His policy on Israel-Palestine is also looking Bushesque. Like Bush, he wants a sovereign but demilitarized Palestinian state. Like Bush, he believes that the 1967 lines with minor and mutually agreed changes should be the basis for the permanent boundaries between the two countries — and like Bush he set Jerusalem and the refugees to one side.

The President is nailing his colors to the mast of the Anglo-American revolutionary tradition. Open societies, open economies, religious freedom, minority rights: these are revolutionary ideas in much of the world. Americans have often been globally isolated as we stand for the rights of ordinary people (like immigrant African chambermaids in New York hotels) against the privilege of elites. A faith in the capacity of the common woman and the common man to make good decisions (and in their right to make those decisions even if they are sometimes wrong) is the basis of America’s political faith; President Obama proclaimed today that this needs to be the basis of our policy in the Middle East.

While everyone is apparently focused on the Israel 1967 line/border statement, everyone is simultaneously ignoring the fact that President Obama made the clearest declaration to date that the Palestinians would never see statehood if they continue to refuse to accept a 2-state solution and press for independence via means other than direct negotiation with Israel. That's about as strong a supportive statement for Israel as one can give.

So why are so many people, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu so bent out of shape over Obama's line on borders? Even Netenyahu knows that the borders aren't going to be exactly along the 1967 line (or 1948 Green Line); and that without the Palestinians accepting a 2-state solution the Israelis wont get to the point of having to worry about the delineation of the border.

For those who simply haven't read the speech or have adopted the media spin about the speech, here's the comments in question and their supporting context:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people - not just a few leaders - must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away. But what America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself - against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

This is an essential restatement of obligations under Oslo Declaration of Principles. It isn't a major divergence from existing policy.

So the media and pundits should stop treating it as such. The fact is that the media and pundits are up in arms over a speech that was anything but controversial - and if anything - made even more explicit the demand that the Palestinians give up the ghost of trying to destroy Israel or seek anything other than a 2-state solution.

UPDATE:
A few media outlets and pundits are managing to actually parse the speech correctly, including Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Ben Smith at Politico and the Christian Science Monitor, which notes the following:

Netanyahu, who sometimes users bluster as a negotiating tool, practically ordered Obama to change course yesterday. In a statement ahead of his US trip that began today Netanyahu said a Palestinian state would not be founded "at Israel's expense" and that he "expects to hear from President Obama a reconfirmation of commitments to Israel from 2004." The Jerusalem Post characterized Netanyahu's response as "quick and bitter."

But what is the commitment from 2004? It's a letter written by President George W. Bush that ... suggests more or less the same thing that Obama said yesterday.

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion," President Bush wrote to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April of 2004. "It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Now, the language of Bush's comment may be flipped a little, in the sense that he emphasizes that the borders will be different from the 1949-67 borders rather than emphasizing that those should be the starting point, but the overall sense is the same. The real contours of the borders will be determined between the Israelis and Palestinians with "mutually agreed changes" (in Bush's formulation) or "mutually agreed land swaps" (in Obama's).

In other words, this speech broke no new ground despite all the manufactured outrage.

Saudi National Studying In Texas College Arrested On Bomb Charges

US authorities have arrested a 20-year old Saudi national who was studying at a college in Texas on charges of plotting to build a bomb and to use it in an attack on former President George W. Bush.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, who was born in Saudi Arabia, came to the United States in 2008 on a student visa to attend South Plains College in Levelland, just outside Lubbock Texas. He is accused of trying to obtain parts and chemicals to build a bomb and to attack former President Bush.

The affidavit alleges that on Feb. 1, 2011, a chemical supplier reported to the FBI a suspicious attempted purchase of concentrated phenol by a man identifying himself as Khalid Aldawsari. According to the affidavit, phenol is a toxic chemical with legitimate uses, but can also be used to make the explosive trinitrophenol, also known as T.N.P., or picric acid. The affidavit alleges that other ingredients typically used with phenol to make picric acid, or T.N.P., are concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids.

Aldawsari allegedly attempted to have the phenol order shipped to a freight company so it could be held for him there, but the freight company returned the order to the supplier and called the police. Later, Aldawsari falsely told the supplier he was associated with a university and wanted the phenol for "off-campus, personal research." Frustrated by questions being asked over his phenol order, Aldawsari cancelled his order and later e-mailed himself instructions for producing phenol. The affidavit alleges that in December 2010, he successfully purchased concentrated nitric and sulfuric acids.

According to the affidavit, legally authorized electronic surveillance revealed that Aldawsari used various e-mail accounts in researching explosives and targets, and often sent emails to himself as part of this process. On Feb. 11, 2011, for instance, he allegedly e-mailed himself a recipe for picric acid, which the e-mail describes as a "military explosive." He also allegedly sent himself an e-mail on Oct. 19, 2010 that contained information on the material required for Nitro Urea, how to prepare it, and the advantages of using it.

The affidavit alleges that Aldawsari also e-mailed himself instructions on how to convert a cellular phone into a remote detonator and how to prepare a booby-trapped vehicle using items available in every home. One e-mail allegedly contained a message stating that "one operation in the land of the infidels is equal to ten operations against occupying forces in the land of the Muslims." During December 2010 and January 2011, Aldawsari allegedly purchased many other items, including a gas mask, a Hazmat suit, a soldering iron kit, glass beakers and flasks, wiring, a stun gun, clocks and a battery tester.

Searches of Aldawsari's Residence

Two legally authorized searches of Aldawsari's apartment conducted by the FBI in February 2011 indicated that the concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids; the beakers and flasks; wiring; Hazmat suit; and clocks were present in Aldawsari's residence.

He also apparently put together a list of targets, and emailed himself details about former President Bush's home in Dallas, Texas.

UPDATE:
It's possible that depending on how the chemicals sought were used - or used in combination with other chemicals, that the result could be a WMD.
The The federal crime for use of a WMD is here , and WMD has a specific definition under the US Code, which includes destructive devices under Sec. 921(4).

4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

Thus, it includes items commonly referred to as WMD (nuclear, chemical, biological), or any bomb, explosive device, incendiary, or rockets, missiles, etc. that fall under the definition. It's pretty wide-ranging and inclusive (on purpose).

Obama Touting Auto Turnaround And Jobs Saved/Created

How exactly did President Obama save the auto industry with the bailout as numerous articles are professing? The billions went into the gaping maw of GM and Chrysler and both were forced into bankruptcy to reorganize. It was the reorganization of both companies - and the shedding of tens of billions in debts and obligations that saddled both companies with contracts that made them incapable of competing in a global marketplace that may have helped bring both companies into the black for a single quarter in 2010.

Ford managed to do so - without a single dollar of federal bailout funds.

GM pulled an operating profit, but it's underlying numbers are still putrid. The company is betting the farm on the Chevy Volt, the economics of which isn't going to make a profit for the company anytime soon. And the name of the game is making profits. If the company can't produce cars at a profit on a consistent basis, then it will again slide into the red in a big way.

Chrysler somehow managed an operating profit as well.

How did those occur? The bankruptcy reorganizations allowed both to shed bad contracts and rejigger their finances, including some parts of awful deals with the unions (including the jobs bank). However, the companies are anything but on solid financial footing because they still can't quite make a profit on the sale of individual cars. Instead, GM recently signaled its intention to acquire a lender so that it can once again begin provide financing to subprime borrowers (sound familiar?).

And the same result could have been had without federal intervention had GM or Chrysler sought bankruptcy reorganization prior to the federal infusion of funds (the Bush bailouts - which were followed by Obama's own bailouts). Bush didn't want the bankruptcy/reorganizations on his watch, so Bush pushed the bailout to dump the mess in Obama's lap. Obama doubled down with his own bailout putting taxpayer dollars on the hook.

No - the bailouts didn't save jobs and the Obama Administration didn't save 55,000 jobs as they're contending.

The reorganizations of both companies that enabled them to shed the bad deals did. And all that bad debt is still around - in Old GMCo, which consolidated all the bad debts and liquidated facilities under one toxic entity.

Reorganization could have been done in 2009 without affecting the Treasury and without the federal interference. Heck, GM and Chrysler could have followed Ford's route in 2007-2009 by making substantive and serious changes to their entire corporate operations. Instead, they limped into government's open arms.

And now President Obama thinks he can take credit for a process of reorganization that should have been done long ago and without a dollar of taxpayer funds to enable the companies to limp along just a little while longer out of political expediency by all involved.

UPDATE:
Obama misstated the strength of the Small 3 automakers:

Following the government-led bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, the companies have shown signs of improvement. Obama said that all three U.S. automakers are "operating at a profit, for the first time in six years."

But the claim that all three Detroit automakers are making money isn't quite true. GM and Ford are making money, but Chrysler has yet to post a net profit since leaving bankruptcy protection in June of last year.

The company had a first-quarter net loss of $197 million, but it made $143 million before interest and taxes. Chrysler's last full-year profit was in 2005, when it made $1.8 billion.

And again - Ford did so without taking a federal bailout. Since Ford managed to do without a bailout, so too should have GM or Chrysler. The bailout instead allowed both companies to avoid making tough decisions and enabled the unions to gain unnecessary control when the unions themselves were a major part of the problem with costs.

Obama Administration To Take Credit For Iraq "Achievements"

Just what kind of credit does President Obama and Vice President Biden want to take for Iraq? They opposed the war, and had done everything imaginable to shut it down while President Bush was in office. So, what exactly is the achievement that Vice President is talking to Larry King about here:

Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success.

It seems that Biden, who's from Delaware when he's in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration's greatest achievements.

No, really.

Here's how Biden put it to Lar:

I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.

Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration's other "great achievements" were so far.

No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election. (Full King transcript here.)

Biden is most likely talking about the achievement of bringing home thousands of combat troops.  Never mind that the US will continue stationing troops in Iraq as a backstop and to maintain a presence in Iraq as a bulwark against Iranian aggression, but this is the fulfillment (or perceived fulfillment) of one of Obama's campaign promises - to bring the troops home.

It is not about victory. It's about political promises and appearances. 

The achievements of the Obama Administration in Iraq are largely to let the Bush Administration policies continue to bear fruit and draw down the troops in Iraq. The Obama Administration had little to nothing to do with beating the insurgency and the establishment of a stable consensual government in Baghdad that doesn't need the US military to constantly provide security; that was done on the Bush Administration's watch.


Mind you also that the Iraq achievement will be felt most during the Obama term, and they'll try to glom on to the credit, but the heavy lifting was done by a Bush Administration that made quite a few mistakes before getting the surge right and settling things down.

NIH Approves New Embryonic Stem Cell Lines For Research

President Obama vastly expanded the embryonic stem cell research in March 2009, and the NIH has approved new embryonic stem cell lines created as a result of that decision.

Two of the newly approved 13 lines were derived by Dr. Brivanlou with private financing. The rest were prepared by Dr. George Daley of Children’s Hospital, Boston.

Dr. Daley said that private financing had been drying up and that he was eager to start research on the now-approved cell lines with the help of his federal grant money.

The director of the health agency, Dr. Francis S. Collins, said he believed most researchers would be satisfied with the outcome, even though they were still barred from deriving the cells themselves. “I’m not sure everyone is interested in deriving their own cell lines as long as they can get lines from others,” Dr. Collins said.

Researchers’ interest in human embryonic stem cells has abated since the discovery in 2007 by the Japanese biologist Dr. Shinya Yamanaka that the mature cells of the body can be reprogrammed to the embryonic state.

These induced embryonic cells are highly similar to the real thing but may not be exactly the same. One reason is that the mature cell may perceive the forced walk-back to embryonic state as unauthorized and switch on its anticancer defenses.

Bear in mind that embryonic stem cell research first received federal funding under the Bush Administration, who limited it to certain lines then in existence because of concerns over the ethics and morality of using such tissue and cells (particularly in how they were procured). It was a compromise, but one that the right wing couldn't stand. This is an expansion of a program started under the Bush Administration and enacted August 9, 2001 and a policy expanding stem cell research from 2007. The Obama Administration repealed those decisions March 9, 2009, replacing it with his own policy that is more expansive. This is the first fruit borne from that decision.

However, in the intervening years between President Bush's initial decision and today, researchers have found that adult stem cells can be programmed to act like embryonic stem cells, eliminating the moral and ethical quandary that set President Bush to limit embryonic stem cell research in the first place.

The Obama Middle East Tour

So, President Obama is on his way to Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden has made another audio tape from the great beyond to commemorate the event. Osama claims that Obama is doing nothing but following in President Bush's footsteps, and I'd take that to be yet another da'wa.

It's a challenge to do what the Islamists want, or else face jihad.

It is also curious that the tape was sent to al Jazeera and not released to the Internet, as has typically been done in the past because al Qaeda routinely accused al Jazeera of editing and distorting the messages. Howie at the Jawa Report has more.

In the meantime, the Administration is going to apologize for the mistakes of the Bush administration to soothe bad feelings by Muslims around the world. This Administration continues its apologia tour, and the end result is an America that looks weaker to its enemies and gets our allies thinking twice about stepping up to assist going forward. It also raises doubts in the minds of those who might seek our assistance or look for alliances going forward because the Administration is doing more to cozy up to bad regimes than they are keeping good relations with existing friends and allies.

What does an apology get the United States here? It isn't going to stop the Islamists. Instead, it will have the opposite effect - encouraging further depravities because they think the US is unwilling to do what is necessary to stop them. The murder, mayhem, and bloodshed will continue at a greater rate because the jihadis sense weakness from the White House.

So, how to reconcile the fact that al Qaeda thinks that President Obama is continuing President Bush's policies, while Obama is changing the rhetoric? Well, that's it, isn't it? Obama is changing the rhetoric, while keeping the Bush era framework for fighting against the jihad. The names and phrases used might change, but the goals are substantively the same for the moment.

This administration's motives are mercurial and the President will say what he must based on the situation and the crowd, each with an expiration date. Pushing for a peace deal between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a fool's errand when those neighbors continue agitating for Israel's destruction and making no effort to hide their intentions.

GM; Chrysler Continue Path To Bankruptcy

General Motors (soon to be Government Motors) continues showing why it is in the position it is. They're looking to unload Saturn and Hummer and failing that, discontinue both brands.

GM has said it will decide this year whether to sell or discontinue both brands as part of the stringent cost-cutting measures aimed at trying to restore the ailing company’s financial stability. The overall effort also has created an uncertain future for two other GM divisions, Saab and Opel.

Even with such efforts, however, many believe the company will be forced to file for bankruptcy protection, perhaps as soon as Monday.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

GM spokesman John M. McDonald said this week the automaker has identified parties interested in purchasing Saturn and Hummer, but he would not provide specifics on who might be interested or when any deals might be reached.

“Obviously our interest is to have these brands find a home outside of GM and to continue as a business that can grow and flourish,” McDonald said. “At the same time, I don’t think there’s any illusion: We need to restructure GM, and as we restructure GM there’s no room for those brands.”

GM ran both brands into the ground, and I can only hope that Saturn finds a home somewhere.

Saturn was at one time considered the future of GM, but corporate culture destroyed Saturn by making it conform to the rest of the company, rather than the other way around. Saturn made some great products, and people bought into the no-hassle sales approach, but Saturn ended up on the rocks because the company didn't innovate and the corrosive attitudes from the rest of GM crept in.

Hummer is a different story. It succeeded at a time when SUVs were ascendant, and nothing beat a Hummer H1 on the road. The thing looked like it was from a different planet - modeled on the military version. The scaled down H2 and H3 were better proportioned to today's roads, but the moment the price of oil spiked, the company's fortunes sank.

Is there still a market for Saturns? I know there still was one for Saturn. Probably not much longer, especially if Saturn remains in the GM fold. If they get bought by another company, there's a chance that it and the GM European brand Opel are done as a package deal (which makes sense since many Saturns are restyled European GM offerings).

I say was, because if General Motors becomes nationalized in the course of the approach taken by the government, people aren't going to buy the resulting products because they'd much rather buy from Ford than either GM or Chrysler.

Is there still a market for Hummer? Probably not. They are the anti-green company, and there's something to be said for counterculture, but they are probably never going to be more than a niche business.

As for Chrysler, they too have been severely mismanaged for years, but the vehicle styling was as vibrant as ever, particularly on the Dodge line. The reliability issue remains a major problem with the company's image, and the merger with Daimler Benz didn't help.

Their position under Cerebus isn't any better.

Of course, all this talk of bankruptcy can't be concluded without noting all the billions the government sank into both companies to keep them afloat, and which will never be seen again. That policy started under President Bush and accelerated under President Obama, and it was an absolute mistake to have done so. It was a waste of taxpayer funds to try and prevent the bankruptcy and orderly reorganization of those businesses, but the political sign of not having those companies go into bankruptcy on their watch helped spur the "bailout" which really was little more than putting a band-aid on a fatal wound.

Swine Flu Update: WHO Raises Global Alert Level

Today, we learn that the US has seen the first fatality from the swine flu. It was apparently a 23-month-old Mexican girl who came to the US with her family on a trip. To keep this in perspective, the garden-variety flu that everyone seems to ignore kills 36,000 annually while sickening anywhere from 5 to 20% of the US population.

Swine flu has yet to approach those figures yet, but it bears watching. Caution is the name of the game. Thus far, nearly 2,500 cases were reported in Mexico, with 159 fatalities.

Confirmed U.S. cases, by state: 45 in New York, 11 in California, six in Texas, two in Kansas and one each in Indiana and Ohio, according to CDC and states.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues emergency guidance allowing certain antiviral drugs to be used in broader range of population if needed. Public health emergency declared and roughly 12 million doses of Tamiflu from federal stockpile to be delivered to states.

Cuba bans flights to and from Mexico; Argentina suspends flights from Mexico; U.S., European Union, other countries discourage nonessential travel there. Arriving travelers questioned at Mexico's U.S. border and world airports. Cruise lines avoid Mexico ports.

Mexico suspends all schools until May 6. In U.S., some schools closed in New York City, Texas, California, South Carolina, Connecticut and Ohio.

Egypt ordering the slaughtering of entire herds of pigs isn't likely to stop the spread of the disease, especially given that the disease is now being transmitted between people. It was only the initial incidences that included transmission between pigs and people.

France is hoping to get the EU to cancel all flights to Mexico. I think the time for such measures has passed as we're seeing cases pop up all over the world, including in Germany.

Meanwhile, President Obama is basically reinforcing what has already happened in the NYC metro area. He's said that schools where outbreaks have been reported should be shuttered. That's already happened with St. Francis Prep, and it may happen with a nearby school that has seen several cases.

The CDC and health departments across the country have protocols for dealing with communicable disease outbreaks like flu, and they should be followed. There's no reason to panic unnecessarily. While the Obama Administration will take the credit for the response to the outbreak (which still suffered problems from delays in obtaining information from Mexico over the growing epidemic there), once the CDC and other health organizations received that information, they were able to plan and prepare because of the groundwork laid by the Bush Administration, who spent billions preparing for this eventuality.

However, timely and accurate information should be passed on to the public.

What is thus far a most curious situation is that virtually all of the fatalities are in Mexico. That's a question epidemiologists will have to sort out. Is it a comparatively less comprehensive health care system? Access to health care? Or is the particular strain in Mexico more deadly than the version seen elsewhere? It could be a combination of factors.

UPDATE:
Two more schools have closed in Brooklyn:

Two more New York City schools will be shuttered after students came down with confirmed cases of swine flu, an official said Wednesday.

St. Brigid's School and Good Shepherd School, both in Brooklyn, each had at least one child sickened by the virus and will be closed for the rest of the week, a diocese official told the Daily News.

That brings the number of schools in the city closed as a swine flu precaution to four, putting already anxious parents further on edge.

I expect more closures in the NYC metro area as clusters break out in different parts of the city. It would be interesting to see the connections between the various schools and whether there's some common thread. That's likely to come much later. For now, health experts are trying to limit the spread, and the closures reduce the chances that the cases will spread beyond the immediate families of those already sickened.

UPDATE:
A WHO official says that only seven deaths can be attributed to swine flu, not the widely circulated 152. All the fatalities are in Mexico. They also say that there's been only 79 confirmed cases worldwide. Well, don't that beat all when you've got various agencies not talking to each other and getting information from different sources and using different measures to describe the situation.

Compare that with the US CDC, which notes that there are 94 confirmed cases in the United States.

UPDATE:
The WHO has raised the global alert level to 5 out of a possible 6.

WHO Director-General Margaret Chan declared the phase 5 alert after consulting with flu experts from around the world. The decision could lead the global body to recommend additional measures to combat the outbreak, including for vaccine manufacturers to switch production from seasonal flu vaccines to a pandemic vaccine.

"All countries should immediately now activate their pandemic preparedness plans," Chan told reporters in Geneva. "It really is all of humanity that is under threat in a pandemic."

A phase 5 alert means there is sustained transmission among people in at least two countries. Once the virus shows effective transmission in two different regions of the world a full pandemic outbreak would be declared.

WHO has confirmed human cases of swine flu in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Britain, Israel, New Zealand and Spain. Mexico and the U.S. have reported deaths.

Obama Administration Refuses Bank TARP Repayments

Isn't this how the TARP system was supposed to work? We were told that as banks become more capable of lending on their own, the banks could repay TARP and end their involvement in the program.

However, the Administration is proving itself more adept at changing the rules to maintain control over the financial institutions than it is at filling slots at the Treasury Department. They are now telling banks that they can't escape the TARP program, even if they want to.

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

It is all about control, and now that the door was opened by the Bush Administration as a temporary measure, President Obama pushing ahead with a series of corrosive and destructive policies that will undermine the US fiscal and monetary system all in the name of expanded government control.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Geithner continues threatening to fire bank CEOs. Henry Blodget thinks that this is a natural outgrowth of the double standard between the way that the administration was treating Detroit and the automakers and Wall Street. There is no double standard; the auto industry, for all of its heft and size, is an emotional attachment to a bygone era. Wall Street is the lever on which all capital and investment passes. In the course of the toxic paper crisis, Wall Street's facility to provide new credit lines evaporated. That was the crux of the reason why the Bush Administration felt the need to act so precipitously and intrude into the marketplace with the TARP program. The automakers situation is not analogous.

Yet, President Obama essentially fired GM Chairman Jeff Wagoner because he couldn't turn the failed company around quickly enough. That act goes beyond the bounds of what a President can or should do in interfering in the private markets. So, instead of using that as a cautionary tale of how government interference in the marketplace has gone too far, Blodget is going in the exact opposite in calling for more government intrusion into the marketplace, despite repeated examples of government miscalculation of the value of companies and pressure to make deals.

The government opted to bailout AIG instead of letting it go the route of bankruptcy, and sent hundreds of billions of dollars into that morass. The government tried to arrange shotgun weddings for multiple banks, and each time seriously and egregiously miscalculated the value of the parties involved.

Call the Bluff

General Motors new CEO Fritz Henderson (the replacement for the now dispatched-at-the-behest-of-President-Obama Jeff Wagoner) now says that the company may face bankruptcy despite the multibillion dollar bailout.

General Motors’s new chief executive told CNBC that filing for Bankruptcy may be the best option for the struggling automaker.

In a taped interview to be aired tonight on NBC Nightly News, Fritz Henderson said that because of greater demands from the Obama administration to restructure, GM is considering the bankruptcy option. The auto giant previously had ruled out such a move, saying it would discourage people from buying GM cars.

Henderson’s comments came after President Obama bluntly rejected turnaround plans by GM and Chrysler and demanded that both companies make fresh concessions in order to get more federal aid.

Henderson, who was GM’s president and chief operating officer, was named the new CEO after the government forced the resignation of CEO Rick Wagoner on Sunday. GM’s board is also being restructured.

Henderson told reporters that the company would still prefer to restructure outside of court, but the level of support Washington is offering would help the company quickly restructure through bankruptcy.

The company has had months to deal with the unions and restructure contracts under the bailout and has failed to accomplish anything. During Wagoner's term, the company shed tens of thousands of jobs and still faces a massive pension and benefits cost that tacks on unsustainable costs of every vehicle.

Henderson says bankruptcy is coming? Is this a threat or a promise, because either way, it is coming. The government wasted billions delaying the inevitable, and we may see billions more wasted to save a company that could not make the tough decisions.

Let them carry through on the threat.

Bankruptcy is the one thing that will save these companies from the structural failures to date, not the wasted tens of billions that the government has thrown at them. President Bush was wrong to start with a bailout, and President Obama was wrong to continue them.

Bankruptcy forces hard choices to be made and allows the companies to get a clean start. The bailouts only delayed the inevitable.

Greening the White House? Been There. Done That.

On the heels of the second Earth Hour (when the first was such a farce to begin with), the Obama Administration is calling for new green efforts at the White House proper. Been there. Done that. President Bush did far more than any of his predecessors attempted, even when the AP derisively claims that the efforts slowed down during his tenure, even thought they had to admit that the Bush Administration made massive improvements to reducing the White House energy consumption and reduced waste output.

But now, President Obama is calling on White House staff to buy into the idea of switching to greener cleaning options, further energy consumption reductions, and expanding on programs begun by President Bush.

Yet, similar efforts by Congress have fallen by the wayside, even when attempts to use carbon credits to offset usage were purchased (your tax dollars at work!).

In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter installed a $30,000 solar water-heating system designed to save $1,000 a year in heating costs. It didn't really work.

"Talk to anyone who worked in the West Wing then, and they would say they washed their hands with cool water," said former chief usher Gary Walters, who spent 37 years at the White House before retiring two years ago.

Those who've been involved in past efforts to make the White House more eco-friendly say that for all that's already been done, there is plenty left to do, given how quickly technology changes.

"It's definitely time to revisit it," said Bill Browning, who helped launch the Clinton-era greening effort in 1993. "The green building movement has evolved quite a bit since then."

Browning, founder of the Terrapin Bright Green consulting firm, said the staff members who manage the White House and its grounds — employees who carry over from one administration to the next — have been "the real champions of greening the White House. They made it their project during the Clinton years and kept it going during the last administration."

For all the enthusiasm about going green, though, there are practical limits. Last year House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced a "Green the Capitol" program to zero out the Capitol's carbon impact by December 2008. But this month, the House quietly shelved the project because it couldn't guarantee that Capitol operations were carbon neutral even after purchasing "offsets" that finance projects to reduce greenhouse gases.

Many of the interior systems were completely replaced during the Truman Administration when structural issues forced a massive interior renovation and restoration. Since then, more efficient systems have been routinely installed and new technologies applied.

During George W. Bush's two terms, workers installed three solar systems, including a thermal setup on the pool cabana that heats water for the pool and showers, and photovoltaic panels atop a maintenance shed that supplement the mansion's electrical supply. Bush also made a big push to recycle office paper, although the overall go-green effort lost momentum during his tenure, according to many outside observers.

Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch also incorporates numerous green features, without the ostentatious and fawning by the eco-left, primarily because it's George Bush we're talking about and not Al Gore (whose oversized mansion is an energy hog of the first order).

And while Gore and the other eco-leftists talk quite a bit about how we must go green and reduce our carbon footprint (even while flying around the planet to preach his pseudoscience pablum, I'm already walking the walk. Since that posting was written, I have added a layer of R30 insulation to the attic and installed the new energy efficient garage door I previously wrote about and am now in the process of picking out new entry doors to further tighten up the house. Since I'm buying the entry doors in 2009, I will likely take advantage of the Energy Star credit (30% on cost of doors or windows, up to $1,500 per year).

Obama Plans On Lifting Stem Cell Research Funding Limitations?

Via Hot Air, it's being reported that President Obama is looking to lift a restriction on federal stem cell research funding. The headline, like most coverage of President Bush's actions in this area omits key information by claiming that Bush banned stem cell research.

President Bush didn't ban stem cell research. In fact, President Bush was the first to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. He just set limits as to how much federal funding could go and limited the amount of lines that could be funded by the federal government to only those that were then in existence.

There were, and there continue to be, no such limitations on private research into embryonic stem cell research or any other stem cell research technique, including on adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells.

President Bush considered the ethical and moral issues relating to how the embryonic stem cells were gathered and put together a compromise, wherein only a set number of lines would be funded.

Obama looks to eliminate any such limitations and allow federal funds go to embryonic stem cell research despite the fact that other areas of stem cell research have proven to be much more successful and less susceptible to problems.

The Runaway Pork Train Continues

The Democrats continue demanding that this massive load of pork, redistribution of wealth and a not so stealthy overhaul of medical care be passed immediately. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is looking to get this massive pork offal passed as quickly as possible so that she can jet off to Rome, Italy. What's more important? Pelosi's travel plans or close study of the largest spending plan in the history of the nation? Pelosi's travel plans of course.

This is a 1,000+ page monstrosity and I doubt any member of Congress has actually read all of it. Many members in the House may never get the chance to read this mess before they are asked to vote on it because Pelosi has gone back on her pledge to get them a clean copy of the bill on which they are to vote.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) notes that many wont get a chance to read the bill. Even if they're provided copies, I doubt many have read all of the summations of this bill given that they are so substantial in and of themselves let alone the budget projections that show what a mess this bill makes of the economy going forward and the true cost to the nation. It isn't merely the $789 billion right now, but the $2.3 trillion or more that future generations of Americans will be paying off (if at all).

It's hysterical to hear about how the Obama Administration blames President Bush for leaving him with a trillion dollar deficit, and yet Obama is about to triple it in one fell swoop with this stimulus package, even as the Democrats ponder a follow on stimulus package that would be nearly as costly. The CBO doesn't take kindly to any of this either, and has a handy dandy graphic to highlight what this does to 2009 alone. How is any of this fiscally responsible.

It isn't.

That's why so many people are starting to balk at the package. Sen. Harry Reid doesn't know if he's got the 60 votes needed to close debate and bring the measure to a floor vote. Now that Sen. Judd Gregg is back in consideration after bailing on the Commerce Secretary nomination over the porkfest and census data grab by the White House, the numbers are even tighter.

UPDATE:
Will the stimulus stimulate the economy? Nope.

The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

It's also curious to watch Democrats cheer the tax cuts that might provide $500-600 to many Americans when they pooh-poohed the same when President Bush offered additional rebates in that amount last year. In fact, Michelle Obama lambasted the Bush tax break, claiming that the $600 would buy only a pair of earrings. The Anchoress has more, but what is also important is that the federal government is going to provide tax breaks at a time when the states are looking to raise taxes to cover their costs.

Consider that New York City has already stated that they're not going to give the expected property tax rebates. That's roughly $400 per homeowner. In New Jersey, Gov. Corzine has contemplated something similar, and the property tax relief in New Jersey would have exceeded the amount provided by the Obama tax cut. In other words, taxpayers in many parts of the country will never see the benefit of the tax cuts because localities are busy raising taxes or cutting rebates that siphon off still more taxpayer dollars. It's a shell game, and no one can keep track of where all the money is going.

UPDATE:
The House has voted to pass this porkfest 246-183. All GOPers and seven Democrats voted against (one Democrat voted "Present"). It was bipartisan opposition to this mess.

Iranian Backchannel Diplomacy

Former Clinton Defense Secretary William Perry apparently held a series of secret talks with Iranian officials last year.

Former U.S. officials have had numerous conversations with Iranians over the years, but few, if any, with officials as influential as Mr. Samareh.

It was not clear whether Mr. Perry, a veteran statesman who also served as a Clinton administration troubleshooter on the North Korean nuclear program, was acting at the behest of the Bush administration or others. The Bush White House rejected several overtures for back-channel talks with Iranian officials in 2005 and 2006.

Mr. Perry was traveling and not available to comment, his office said.

The United States has accused Iran of developing a program that could give it nuclear weapons and supporting Arab militant groups. Iran denies that it is seeking weapons and says groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters, not terrorists.

The talks were revealed as U.S. and European diplomats predicted that the Obama administration would not rush into high-level official meetings with Iran before the nation holds presidential elections in June. An aide to Mr. Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the president will seek re-election.

The diplomats said the U.S. does not want to take actions that could boost Mr. Ahmadinejad's chances.

An Iranian Web site, Yari News, first reported Thursday that talks between Mr. Perry and Mr. Samareh were "about to be held" in Europe. Mr. Samareh, speaking to the Fars News Agency in Iran, denied this.

The subject of those talks, and who authorized the talks is not revealed, but it is hard to believe that the Bush Administration didn't know about them. If they didn't know, then who did.

Meanwhile, reports that the Obama Administration was trying to pen a letter to the Iranians have come up short. The US State Department denies any such action.

The White House and the State Department denied on Thursday a report in the British newspaper the Guardian that Obama administration was working on a letter to Iranian leadership aimed at easing relations between the two countries. The newspaper said the letter was in response to one sent to Obama by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shortly after Obama was elected.

White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs told reporters, "Neither the president nor the secretary of state has seen such a letter.” He added that there are a number of issues that the administration would like to see the Iranian leadership address, including its “illicit” nuclear program, support for terrorism and threats against Israel.

Backchannel diplomacy is a necessary part of foreign policy and allows plausible deniability when such efforts become public.

Backchannel diplomacy enabled Oslo to come to fruition, allowing Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to work on that deal, however flawed it turned out to be.

It has its place, but the circumstances of Perry's meetings makes one wonder who suggested and directed that the meetings take place; whether this was an effort by the incoming Obama Administration to get something started and/or the Bush Administration facilitating a smoother transfer of power to the incoming Obama Administration.

US Gets Russian and Central Asian Support For Afghan Operations

The outgoing Bush Administration has given the incoming Obama Administration a parting gift in the form of an agreement with Russia and several Central Asian countries to allow logistical support to aid the Afghan campaign bypassing the hotbed of Pakistan.

Russia and neighboring Central Asian nations have agreed to let supplies pass through their territory to American soldiers in Afghanistan, lessening Washington's dependence on dangerous routes through Pakistan, a top U.S. commander said Tuesday.

Securing alternative routes to landlocked Afghanistan has taken on added urgency this year as the United States prepares to double troop numbers there to 60,000 to battle a resurgent Taliban eight years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani army said it had killed 60 militants in a stepped up offensive close to the Afghan border, a lawless region considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. Washington has long urged Islamabad to take the fight to the insurgents sheltering there.

U.S. and NATO forces get up to 75 percent of their "non-lethal" supplies such as food, fuel and building materials from shipments that traverse Pakistan, a volatile, nuclear-armed country.

The main road through the Khyber Pass in the northwest of the country has occasionally been closed in recent months due to rising attacks by bandits and Islamist militants.

U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said America had struck deals with Russia and several Central Asian states close to or bordering Afghanistan during a tour of the region in the past week.

"We have sought additional logistical routes into Afghanistan from the north. There have been agreements reached," Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters during a visit to Pakistan.

President Obama has previously stated he intended to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan by 30,000, and that would have been extremely difficult given the problems Pakistan was having in controlling the supply lines from Pakistani port cities to the frontier provinces where the Taliban exert near full control. The Khyber Pass has been essentially closed indefinitely because of Taliban operations in the region. According to the Washington Post, 3/4 of nonlethal supplies for the US/NATO effort in Afghanistan currently passes through Pakistan from the port city of Karachi.

Pakistan has also been pressing Gen. Petraeus to halt the UAV airstrikes against Taliban and al Qaeda targets in the frontier provinces, but that didn't go over particularly well.

The problem, however, remains that the US, Afghan, NATO, and Pakistani forces have to deal with the border provinces where al Qaeda and Taliban operate freely. Pakistan has been extremely reluctant to engage in military operations in those border provinces, and their military has taken a pounding from Baitullah Mehsud's forces over the past several years.

The Taliban continue their assault on freedom and attacked five more schools yesterday. They, like their Islamist counterparts in Thailand, have made schools, teachers, and students, favorite targets, especially when they teach girls.

Last Minute Reprieves

President Bush has been extremely reluctant to issue pardons or commutations of sentences during his eight years in office. He has issued far fewer than his two predecessors who served two terms, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

Two men have received commutations of sentence today. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

Bush's act of clemency on Monday for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean was a victory for Democratic and Republican members of Congress and others who pleaded with the president to pardon the men or at least commute their sentences.

Ramos and Compean are each serving sentences of more than 10 years for shooting an unarmed illegal immigrant as he was fleeing an abandoned marijuana load in 2005, then trying to cover it up.

However, expect that several more will be announced in coming hours as he leaves office.

This list isn't particularly useful since I doubt any of those on the list would be pardoned. There is little reason to commute or pardon criminals such as Randy Cunningham, Ted Stevens or other Republicans. Bush has little to gain by issuing pardons to those men whose criminal conduct helped sweep Democrats to power with claims that the GOP was part and parcel of a culture of corruption. Never mind that there's plenty of Democrats who fit the bill, but the smear stuck.

Don't count on former Illinois Governor George Ryan getting pardoned either, despite Democrats lobbying on his behalf.

The same goes for the traitor Jonathan Pollard.

Wonkette has a satirical laundry list of possibilities, which happen to largely match the more legitimate lists above.

UPDATE 1/20/2009:
No more pardons or commutations of sentences. There will be no reprieves for Scooter Libby, Ryan, Pollard, or anyone else associated with the Bush Administration. This is fully in keeping with Bush's view on the pardon power. He certainly wasn't going to use it on individuals who hadn't even been indicted for a crime, which means all the chatter about how Bush would pardon anyone involved in interrogations of terrorists or other unpopular policy decisions was just so much useless blather.

Compean and Ramos are the last two men to have their sentences commuted.

President Bush Rescinds Pardon

Yesterday, President Bush issued 19 pardons, including one to Isaac R. Toussie. President Bush rescinded the pardon to Toussie, claiming that since yesterday additional information came to light that forced a change of plans:

With respect to the case of Mr. Isaac R. Toussie, the Counsel to the President reviewed the application and believed, based on the information known to him at the time, that it was a meritorious application. He so advised the President, who accepted the recommendation.

Based on information that has subsequently come to light, the President has directed the Pardon Attorney not to execute and deliver a Grant of Clemency to Mr. Toussie. The Pardon Attorney has not provided a recommendation on Mr. Toussie's case because it was filed less than five years from completion of his sentence. The President believes that the Pardon Attorney should have an opportunity to review this case before a decision on clemency is made.

So, what exactly did Toussie do that earned him a prison sentence? He was a real estate scammer in New York City who entered a guilty plea in 2001 to making false statements to get mortgages insured by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

He sold poorly constructed new homes at inflated prices.

Why did President Bush take the extraordinary step of rescinding the pardon (which to my knowledge has never been done before)? Well, seems that Toussie's father had donated $28,500 to the GOP, and Bush didn't want to have the appearance of impropriety.

I think the Office of Pardon Attorney did the President a grave disservice by failing to conduct due diligence to not turn up Toussie's less than stellar record, including additional criminal activities beyond those for which the pardon was sought. This was not a man who should have been considered for a pardon in the first place.

UPDATE:
PardonPower suggests that the issue involved isn't necessarily the GOP donation, but rather the speed at which the pardon was approved. It took four months, which is unusually quick for an application to wind its way through the process.