Thursday, January 31, 2013

Friday, January 25, 2013

Monday, January 14, 2013

Stephens: Colin Powell's Double Standard - WSJ.com

Stephens: Colin Powell's Double Standard - WSJ.com:


Colin Powell thinks Chuck Hagel's use of the term "Jewish lobby" was an innocent mistake, for which he should atone by writing "Israel lobby" 100 times on a blackboard.

"That term slips out from time to time," the former secretary of state told David Gregory on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Mr. Powell also thinks that when Mr. Hagel's critics "go over the edge and say because Chuck said 'Jewish lobby,' he is anti-Semitic, that's disgraceful. We shouldn't have that kind of language in our dialogue."
OK, I get it. An errant slip of the tongue isn't proof of prejudice. We have all said things the offensiveness of which we perhaps didn't fully appreciate when we opened our mouth.
Like the time when, according to Bob Woodward, Mr. Powell accused Douglas Feith, one of the highest-ranking Jewish officials in the Bush administration and the son of a Holocaust survivor, of running a "Gestapo office" out of the Pentagon. Mr. Powell later apologized personally to Mr. Feith for what he acknowledged was a "despicable characterization."
Or the time when, according to George Packer in his book "The Assassins' Gate," Mr. Powell leveled another ugly charge at Mr. Feith, this time in his final Oval Office meeting with George W. Bush. "The Defense Department had too much power in shaping foreign policy, [Powell] argued, and when Bush asked for an example, Powell offered not Rumsfeld, the secretary who had mastered him bureaucratically, not Wolfowitz, the point man on Iraq, but the department's number three official, Douglas Feith, whom Powell called a card-carrying member of the Likud Party."
Anyway, on this business of hypersensitivity to prejudicial remarks, real or perceived, here is Mr. Powell in the same interview talking about what ails the Republican Party:

"There's also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor [Alaska's Sarah Palin] say that the president is shuckin' and jivin,' that's a racial-era slave term. When I see another former governor [New Hampshire's John Sununu] say after the president's first debate when he didn't do well, he said he was lazy. Now it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there's a third word that goes along with it."
William B. Plowman/NBC
The former secretary of state defends Chuck Hagel, Jan. 13.
So let's get this straight. Mr. Powell holds it "disgraceful" to allege anti-Semitism of politicians who invidiously use the phrase "the Jewish lobby." But he has no qualms about accusing Mr. Sununu—along whose side he worked during the George H.W. Bush administration—of all-but whispering the infamous N-word when he called Mr. Obama's first debate performance "lazy."
It's hard to decide whether Mr. Powell is using a double standard hypocritically or inadvertently. I'll assume the latter, since he seems to have missed the reason why Mr. Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense has run into so much opposition.
Consider the following hypothetical sentence: "The African-American lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Would this pass Mr. Powell's smell test?
Or this: "I'm a United States senator, not a Kenyan senator." Such a statement would be considered as so weird and unwonted that no amount of spinning (let's say it was uttered in the context of a discussion of U.S. policy toward Africa) would have saved the person making it from immediate disqualification.
Now maybe someone can explain how that's materially different from Mr. Hagel's suggestion that "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here" and "I'm a United States senator, not an Israeli senator."
One of the arguments I've come across recently is that there's nothing unwarranted about using the word "intimidate" and that it's something all lobbies do. Remarkably, however, a Google GOOG -2.26% search yields zero results for the phrases "the farm lobby intimidates," "the African-American lobby intimidates," or "the Hispanic lobby intimidates." Only the Jewish lobby does that, apparently.
There is also the argument that supporters of Israel really do intimidate politicians on Capitol Hill. The word itself means "to make timid or fearful," to "frighten," and "to compel or deter as if by threats." It would be interesting to see valid evidence that any group commonly associated with the Israel lobby ever employed such Mafia-like tactics. What I've seen instead are crackpot allegations, such as the letter I recently received charging that the Jewish lobby was responsible for William Fulbright's 1974 senatorial defeat in Arkansas. Who knew?

In the meantime, maybe Mr. Powell could show that he's as sensitive to the whiff of anti-Semitism as he is to the whiff of racism. If George Packer's description of Mr. Powell's last meeting with President Bush is inaccurate, he should publicly disavow it. If it's accurate, he should publicly apologize for it. Nobody questions where Mr. Powell's loyalties lie. If he has called the loyalties of other patriotic American public servants into question, that would be, to use his word, disgraceful.

'via Blog this'

Friday, January 4, 2013

Yakima: Doc Hastings: Debt limit debate not over | Latest News | Tri-CityHerald.com

Yakima: Doc Hastings: Debt limit debate not over | Latest News | Tri-CityHerald.com:

Doc Hastings: Debt limit debate not over

Published: January 3, 2013 
 — The next big test for a divided Congress will be legislation on the national debt limit and spending cuts, two issues left out of the fiscal cliff deal adopted late Tuesday, said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, who voted in favor of the compromise.
Hastings said Wednesday he expects the House of Representatives to begin work soon on both of those issues, suggesting the effort would focus on raising the debt limit along with at least the same amount of spending cuts.
According to the Treasury Department, Congress must act by late February to raise the federal debt limit. Shortly thereafter, automatic spending cuts, delayed by two months in the fiscal cliff deal, will take effect.
Hastings, the 10-term Republican congressman from Pasco, said the House majority favors addressing the debt issue soon to avoid a repeat of the 11th hour action on the tax issue.
"What we have is a spending problem and not a revenue problem. The national debt is up by 50 percent in four years," Hastings said in a telephone interview. "You simply can’t keep kicking that ahead to future generations. If we are going to raise the debt limit, we need a commitment of at least that much if not more in spending cuts."
Hastings blasted President Barack Obama for saying late Tuesday he would oppose linking the debt issue and spending cuts.
"For the president to suggest as he did that he would not engage in that discussion is absolutely irresponsible," Hastings said.
Hastings was one of 85 Republicans to vote for the measure to avert an income tax increase for all Americans due to the Jan. 1 expiration of the Bush era tax cuts. The measure made permanent existing tax rates for those earning less than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. There will, however, be a tax increase for most Americans because the Social Security payroll tax cut was not extended into 2013. The payroll tax on workers will rise from 4.2 percent back to the original 6.2 percent, costing the typical middle-class family about $1,000 per year, according to estimates.
The House vote was 257 in favor and 167 opposed. The House vote followed approval by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 89-8.
Both Washington Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell voted with the Senate majority. Murray issued a statement following that vote expressing disappointment that Congress could not reach a comprehensive agreement, leaving the budget debate far from settled. She added, however, that the deal protects families and small businesses from major tax hikes.
Cantwell’s statement called the fiscal cliff deal a step in the right direction.
"Moving forward, both parties need to work together to avoid the arbitrary cuts of sequestration and to provide greater certainty for our economy," her statement said.
Hastings said he decided how he would vote before he learned the position of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is as good as we will get and we won’t have to debate it on a yearly basis because these (rates) are now permanent," Hastings said.
Other elements of the agreement, worked out by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Vice President Joe Biden, included a two-year extension through 2013 of the sales tax deduction for Washington residents who itemize their taxes. The deduction expired at the end of 2011.
Hastings also pointed to increasing the estate tax threshold and indexing the alternative minimum tax to inflation, as well as a five-year extension of the child tax credit, the earned income credit, and certain educational tax credits as reasons for his vote.
Hastings joined the three other House Republicans from the state in voting for the measure.
Three Democrats also voted in favor. Reps. Jim McDermott, D-Seventh District, and Adam Smith, D-Ninth District, voted against the bill.
The measure also extended by nine months the 2008 farm bill, prompting consternation from national and regional farm groups that had favored passage of a new five-year farm bill. A version of the farm bill passed the Senate during the early summer but was never taken up by the House because of concern that cuts in the measure didn’t go far enough.
While the extension maintains programs, such as the $200 million market access program that helps commodity groups promote their products overseas, it did not provide baseline funding for research in specialty crops like apples, pears and cherries, three major Valley fruit crops.
Funding for those efforts, which have focused in part on increasing automation to reduce the demand on a declining labor supply, will have to be sought this year, said Chris Schlect, president of the Northwest Horticultural Council of Yakima.
The council represents the region’s tree-fruit industry on trade and regulatory issues.
He said farm groups will have to try to secure research funding this year, which will be difficult because of the pressure to reduce spending.
"There are some things that overall are good in this deal," Schlect said. "In terms of the farm bill, it is a bit iffy on some programs that are important to us."

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/01/03/2224260/doc-hastings-debt-limit-debate.html?mi_email=Tri-City%20Herald_PM+%26+Breaking+News#emlnl=Afternoon_Update#storylink=cpy

'via Blog this'

Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg

Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence? - Bloomberg:

Why Does the NRA Fear the Truth About Gun Violence?

A week after the gun massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, the National Rifle Association isspeaking out. As well it should. If only the NRA believed in the right to free speech as fervently as it believes in the right to bear arms.
Faced with government-funded research that contradicts NRA claims on gun safety, the gun lobby moved to defund the research and silence the researchers. When news reporters tried to learn which gun shops repeatedly supply violent criminals with firearms, the NRA lobbied to have gun-trace data exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. When advocates of transparency in campaign finance proposed the Disclose Act in Congress to require disclosure of top donors to political advertising campaigns, the NRA once again marched to the beat of its own 100-round drum: The organization obtained an exemption to keep its information secret.
The list goes on. The NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendment requires the Justice Department to destroy records after gun-purchase background checks, making it harder to identify and catch straw buyers who work for criminals. As part of its war on information, the gun lobby has blocked efforts to put sales records into an integrated database, making the data more difficult for law enforcement officers to retrieve and organize, and complicating efforts to analyze gun trafficking patterns. After visiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ National Tracing Center in West Virginia, which is the nation’s sole facility tracing guns used in crimes, Washington Post reporter James Grimaldi described the place as “something like out of the movie ‘Brazil,’ where you could literally see boxes and boxes of documents that pile up.”
You might think, as we do, that the gun lobby’s aversion to information, and its success in securing congressional support for secrecy, poses a threat to public health and law enforcement (not to mention democracy). There is surely a case to be made to that effect. Yet it’s harder to document that argument thanks to the successful suppression of information.
That, of course, is the point. In a study published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that the presence of a gun in a home significantly increased the risks of homicide and suicide. (A finding seemingly borne out in the case of Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Newtown killer, who was murdered with her own gun.) The study was compelling, thought-provoking and attention-grabbing. Was it conclusive? Hardly. But rather than trust in scientific principle and a free marketplace of ideas to sort through the data, the gun lobby mobilized to snuff out such research altogether.
The effort was remarkably successful. In 1996, Republican Representative Jay Dickey ofArkansas pushed an amendment cutting $2.6 million from the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The import of the amendment was lost on no one. The CDC had spent $2.6 million on gun research the year before. Thereafter, the CDC was expressly prohibited from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” A subsequent effort, by Republican Representative Denny Rehberg of Montana, applied similar restrictions to theNational Institutes of Health.
These are the results of the gun lobby’s storied political muscle. They are not, however, the actions of a political movement confident that history, data or reason itself can support its agenda. Truth doesn’t fear information.
The Newtown massacre may mark a turning point in America’s tragic gun politics. Yet even under the most optimistic scenario, the quest for reasonable gun laws will be a lengthy, difficult battle. It’s best if all sides are well-armed with facts.
To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Remarks by the President at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium | The White House

Remarks by the President at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium | The White House:

Remarks by the President at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Symposium

The National War College
Washington, D.C.
4:21 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Please have a seat.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please have a seat.  (Applause.)  Thank you.
Well, good afternoon everybody.  It is wonderful to be back.  Secretary Panetta, thank you for the introduction.  Last week at the White House we had our first Cabinet meeting since the election, and it was a chance for me to thank my entire team for their service; for keeping our country safe and strong these past four years.  And, Leon, few have done more than you in that regard.  And that includes taking care of our remarkable men and women in uniform and their families and keeping our military the absolute best in the world -- bar none.  So thank you, Leon, for being such an outstanding Secretary of Defense.  We’re very grateful.  (Applause.)
Now, I am not here to give a big speech.  I wanted to just come by and join you in marking the 20th anniversary of one of the country’s smartest and most successful national security programs:  Nunn-Lugar.  And I want to express my gratitude to all of you -- from government, academia, NGOs and our partners from around the world.  People in this room conceived it.  You built it.  You’ve sustained it.  And of course, I especially want to acknowledge a leader who helped create it and who now helps guide it as our outstanding Deputy Secretary of Defense -- Ash Carter.  So thank you, Ash, for your great work.  (Applause.)
Of course, no one has done more than the two visionaries on this stage.  Now, you have to think about what real visionaries do.  They look at the world and they see what’s missing.  So they set out to fill the gap; to build something new.  And that’s what Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar did many years ago.  They challenged us to think anew; to imagine, after decades of confrontation, how our nations might engage in cooperation.  Early in the Cold War, Einstein warned of the danger of our wisdom not keeping pace with our technology.  And with Nunn-Lugar, our wisdom began to catch up.
I also wanted to be here because of my own personal debt to these two leaders.  When I was in -- when I was elected to the Senate, Sam Nunn was one of the first leaders I called.  Obviously, he had an extraordinary reputation for his work on a whole range of issues in the Senate.  And, Sam, by the way, I should -- I always meant to say thanks for taking my call.  (Laughter.)  So we do small talk, he congratulates me on being elected.  And then he says, I’ve got two pieces of advice for you.  First piece of advice:  Get a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee.  I did that.  Second piece of advice:  Learn from Dick Lugar.  (Laughter.)  I did that, too.  So I took Sam’s advice then.  And as President, I continue to value his advice and his counsel. 
Sam, as one of the so-called “Four Horsemen” -- which I’d say is a pretty ominous nickname -- (laughter) -- has spoken out for a world without nuclear weapons.  And with your Nuclear Threat Initiative, you helped us ratify the New START treaty, rally the world to secure nuclear materials, strengthen the global nonproliferation regime, and create an international fuel bank for peaceful nuclear power.  Sam, that’s an extraordinary legacy and an extraordinary record.  Thank you for your partnership and your leadership.  (Applause.)
And because I took Sam’s advice, I came to know and admire Dick Lugar.  I was a new, junior senator.  But nevertheless, he was willing to take me in and served in many cases, particularly on the issues that we’re celebrating here today, took me in as a pupil for him.  I watched, and I learned.  And when we worked together to pass a law to speed up the lockdown of nuclear materials, obviously it was called Lugar-Obama -- in that order.  (Laughter.)
And, Dick, I want to take this opportunity to say something else.  At times, we’ve disagreed on matters of policy.  But one thing we’ve always shared is a notion of what public service should be.  That it ought to be more than just doing what’s popular in the moment.  That it ought to be about what’s right for our nation, over the long term.  It ought to be about problem-solving and governance, not just how we can score political points on each other or engage in obstructionism.  And where compromise is not a vice and where bipartisanship is a actually considered a virtue -- to be rewarded, not punished.
That’s the essence of these two gentlemen, and that’s the essence of Nunn-Lugar.  That’s the spirit that’s defined Dick’s public service for nearly 50 years.  And that’s the bipartisan tradition that we need more of here in Washington, especially on foreign policy.  So, Dick, as you prepare to leave the Senate that you love, I think I speak on behalf of everybody here and millions of people across the country to say that your legacy will endure in a safer and more secure world, and a safer and more secure America.  And we pray that this nation produces more leaders with your sense of decency and civility and integrity.  We are grateful to you.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
Now, I will point out, it was Dick who took me on my first foreign trip as a Senator -- to Russia and Ukraine and Azerbaijan.  We were there to see the Cooperative Threat Reduction program in action.  And the first thing I learned is that when Dick Lugar travels overseas, it's not a junket.  We didn't stop and look at a lot of beautiful sights -- (laughter) -- and sort of lounge around on some shopping excursions.  He wore out every 25-year-old staffer that was part of this delegation. 
What you also learn is that Dick Lugar -- the more remote the place is and the more obscure the facility is, the bigger a rock star Dick Lugar is.  (Laughter.)  I mean, they love him in these places.   
I remember walking through one facility.  I started leaning in for a closer look and one of the workers said, don’t touch that orange stuff.  It turned out to be TNT.  (Laughter.)  At another point, the workers were taking apart munitions -- gloves on their hands, masks over their faces -- and I’m thinking, wait a second, why don’t we have masks on?  (Laughter.)  This is the kind of trip you take with Dick Lugar.  (Laughter.) 
We're traipsing through nuclear weapons storage sites and junkyards full of old land mines and technicians showing off test tubes where you said, well, what's that?  Well, that's anthrax, that's plague.  (Laughter.)  Shouldn't you keep it in something a little more sturdy than this?  (Laughter.)  Dick Lugar is standing in the back of the room.  (Laughter.)  I remember I asked him, I think, have you seen it?  He says, yes, yes, I've seen it.  I don't get too close now.  (Laughter.)  That's what it's like traveling with Dick Lugar.   
And I had been a strong advocate for CTR before.  But visiting those facilities, seeing the work that so many of you do, seeing these old weapons once aimed at us now being turned into scrap truly brought home how important this work was.  This is one of our most important national security programs.  And it's a perfect example of the kind of partnerships that we need, working together to meet challenges that no nation can address on its own. 
And so, Nunn-Lugar is the foundation for the vision that I laid out, once I was elected President, in travel to Prague -- where nations come together to secure nuclear materials, as we’re doing with our Nuclear Security Summits, where we build on New START and continue to work to reduce our arsenals; where we strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and prevent the spread of the world’s most deadly weapons; where, over time, we come closer to our ultimate vision -- a world without nuclear weapons.  
That’s why we haven’t just sustained programs like Nunn-Lugar over the past four years.  We’ve worked with all of you to strengthen it, expanding it to some 80 nations, far beyond the old Soviet Union -- moving ahead with the destruction of chemical weapons -- partnering with others, countries from Africa to Asia and global health organizations to prevent the spread of deadly diseases and bioterrorism.  And I have to give a shout-out to somebody who was on the original team with Ash that conceived of CTR; she’s been working it ever since and now leads our efforts at the White House -- Laura Holgate is here.  And so we're very proud of her for the outstanding work that she's done.  (Applause.)
And we’ve worked to keep weapons from spreading, whether it was nuclear material in Libya or, now, chemical weapons in Syria.  And on Syria, let me just say this.  We will continue to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people -— engaging with the opposition, providing with -- providing them with the humanitarian aid, and working for a transition to a Syria that’s free of the Assad regime. 
And today, I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command:  The world is watching.  The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable.  And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there where be consequences, and you will be held accountable.  (Applause.)
We simply cannot allow the 21st century to be darkened by the worst weapons of the 20th century.  And that’s why, over the past four years, we’ve continued to make critical investments in our threat reduction programs -— not just at DOD, but at Energy and at State.  In fact, we’ve been increasing funding, and sustaining it.  And even as we make some very tough fiscal choices, we’re going to keep investing in these programs —- because our national security depends on it.
After all, even with all your success -— the thousands of missiles destroyed, bombers and submarines eliminated, the warheads that have been deactivated -— we’re nowhere near done.  Not by a long shot.  And you all know this.  There’s still much too much material -— nuclear, chemical, biological -— being stored without enough protection.  There are still terrorists and criminal gangs doing everything they can to get their hands on it.
And make no mistake, if they get it, they will use it; potentially killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people,  perhaps triggering a global crisis.  That’s why I continue to believe that nuclear terrorism remains one of the greatest threats to global security.  That’s why working to prevent nuclear terrorism is going to remain one of my top national security priorities as long as I have the privilege of being President of the United States. 
So, I came here in part to say we cannot let our guard down.  This needs to be a sustained effort across all your organizations, across our government.  We have to keep investing in our people and in new technologies.  We have to sustain the partnerships we have, and that includes Russia. 
We’re joined by some of our Russian friends today.  Russia has said that our current agreement hasn’t kept pace with the changing relationship between our countries.  To which we say, let’s update it.  Let’s work with Russia as an equal partner.  Let’s continue the work that’s so important to the security of both our countries.  And I’m optimistic that we can.
And we have to keep creating new partnerships.  We have to make sure -— to paraphrase Einstein -— that our wisdom stays ahead of our technology.  And I know you’re committed to this.  And I want you to know that I am, too.
So let me leave you with a story of that first trip Dick and I took together.  You may remember this, Dick.  I was Ukraine.  We went to a facility, an old factory.  We walked down these long, dark corridors.  We’re ducking our heads, stepping over puddles of -- something -- we’re not sure what it was.  (Laughter.)  Finally, we came across some women, sitting at a worktable.  On it were piles of old artillery shells.  And the women were sitting there, taking them apart.  By hand.  Slowly.  (Laughter.)  Carefully.  (Laughter.)  One by one. 
It took decades -— and extraordinary sums of money -— to build those arsenals.  It’s going to take decades -— and continued investments -— to dismantle them.  The two of you know know this better than anybody.  It’s painstaking work.   It rarely makes the headlines.  But I want each of you to know, and everybody who’s participating in this important effort to know, that the work you do is absolutely vital to our national security and to our global security. 
Missile by missile, warhead by warhead, shell by shell, we’re putting a bygone era behind us.  Inspired by Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar, we’re moving closer to the future we seek.  A future where these weapons never threaten our children again.  A future where we know the security and peace of a world without nuclear weapons.  I could not be prouder of these gentlemen.  I’m proud to call them friends.  And I’m looking forward to continuing to work with them and all of you in the years to come.
Thank you very much.
END
4:38 P.M. EST

'via Blog this'