We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
President Barack Obama meets with Tech Leaders including Steve Joba, Mark Zuckerberg and Jonathen Doers Feb. 17, 2011
8:30AM THE PRESIDENT departs San Francisco, California en route Portland, Oregon San Francisco International Airport
10:05AM THE PRESIDENT arrives in Portland, Oregon Portland International Airport
10:45AM THE PRESIDENT tours semiconductor manufacturing facility Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Oregon
11:25AM THE PRESIDENT views student demonstrations by Intel Science Talent Search finalists Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Oregon
11:35AM THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks on the importance of out-educating our competitors in order to win the future Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, Oregon
1:00PM THE PRESIDENT departs Portland, Oregon Portland International Airport
8:30PM THE PRESIDENT arrives at Andrews Air Force Base Out-of-Town Travel Pool Coverage
8:45PM THE PRESIDENT arrives at the White House South Lawn
Black History Month: Obama says work isn't over
“America’s greatness is a testament to generations of courageous individuals who, in the face of uncomfortable truths, accepted that the work of perfecting our nation is unending and strived to expand the reach of freedom to all. For too long, our most basic liberties had been denied to African Americans, and today, we pay tribute to countless good-hearted citizens — along the Underground Railroad, aboard a bus in Alabama, and all across our country — who stood up and sat in to help right the wrongs of our past and extend the promise of America to all our people.
“During National African American History Month, we recognize these champions of justice and the sacrifices they made to bring us to this point, we honor the contributions of African Americans since our country’s beginning, and we recommit to reaching for a day when no person is judged by anything but the content of their character.
“From the Revolutionary War through the abolitionist movement, to marches from Selma to Montgomery and across America today, African Americans have remained devoted to the proposition that all of us are created equal, even when their own rights were denied. As we rejoice in the victories won by men and women who believed in the idea of a just and fair America, we remember that, throughout history, our success has been driven by bold individuals who were willing to speak out and change the status quo.
“Refusing to accept our nation’s original sin, African Americans bound by the chains of slavery broke free and headed north, and many others who knew slavery was antithetical to our country’s conception of human rights and dignity fought to bring their moral imagination to life. When Jim Crow mocked the advances made by the 13th Amendment, a new generation of men and women galvanized and organized with the same force of faith as their enslaved ancestors. Our Nation’s young people still echo the call for equality, bringing attention to disparities that continue to plague our society in ways that mirror the non-violent tactics of the civil rights movement while adapting to modern times. Let us also not forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could make our voices heard by exercising our right to vote. Even in the face of legal challenges, every eligible voter should not take for granted what is our right to shape our democracy.
'Invisibles' delves into lives of White House slaves
“We have made great progress on the journey toward ensuring our ideals ring true for all people. Today, African-American high school graduation and college enrollment rates are at an all-time high. The African-American unemployment rate has been halved since its Great Recession peak. More than 2 million African Americans gained health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The incarceration rates for African-American men and women fell during each year of this administration and are at their lowest points in over two decades. Yet challenges persist and obstacles still stand in the way of becoming the country envisioned at our founding, and we would do a disservice to all who came before us if we remained blind to the way past injustices shape the present. The United States is home to 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners — a disproportionate number of whom are African American, so we must find ways to reform our criminal justice system and ensure that it is fairer and more effective. While we’ve seen unemployment rates decrease, many communities, particularly those of color, continue to experience significant gaps in educational and employment opportunities, causing too many young men and women to feel like no matter how hard they try, they may never achieve their dreams.
“Our responsibility as citizens is to address the inequalities and injustices that linger, and we must secure our birthright freedoms for all people. As we mark the 40th year of National African American History Month, let us reflect on the sacrifices and contributions made by generations of African Americans, and let us resolve to continue our march toward a day when every person knows the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
[Full Transcript: Barack Obama on 5 Days That Shaped His Presidency]
Before Barack Obama even gets started, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates that the country has lost 2 million jobs in the past four months alone.
The president-elect says that his mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, will live in the White House.
With plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the stimulus bill, in full swing, Obama releases a report declaring the goal is to “save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.”
Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger successfully ditches an Airbus A320 in the Hudson River. He may be the last bipartisan national hero you’ll see here.
The federal government finalizes a deal to stabilize Citi. By Inauguration Day, the country’s top-four banks have lost half their value.
President Obama is inaugurated. Over a million people come to Washington to watch America swear in its first African-American president — and talk about Aretha Franklin’s hat.
The new president signs an executive order to close the Guantánamo detention camp within a year. To this day, Gitmo is still open, if less populated of the roughly 775 prisoners originally held there, 61 remain.
John Boehner urges his caucus to reject Obama’s stimulus bill unanimously. One week in, it’s clear that Republicans will try to pretend the president does not exist.
A Republican Strategy As Ingenious As It Is Perverse
The president, interviewed by Jonathan Chait. Read ▼
“When I came into office, my working assumption was that because we were in crisis, and the crisis had begun on the Republicans’ watch, that there would be a window in which they would feel obliged to cooperate on a common effort to dig us out of this massive hole. The moment in which I realized that Republican leadership intended to take a different tack was actually as we were shaping the stimulus bill, and I vividly remember having prepared a basic proposal that had a variety of components: tax cuts, funding for the states so that teachers and firefighters wouldn’t be laid off, an infrastructure component, and so forth. We felt that as an opening proposal it was ambitious but needed, and that we would begin negotiations with the Republicans and they would show us things that they thought also needed to happen.
On the drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican Caucus, John Boehner released a press statement saying that they were opposed to the stimulus. At that point we didn’t even actually have a stimulus bill drawn up, and we hadn’t meant to talk about it. It was a calculation based on what turned out to be pretty smart politics but really bad for the country: If they cooperated with me, then that would validate our efforts. If they were able to maintain uniform opposition to whatever I proposed, that would send a signal to the public of gridlock and dysfunction, and that would help them win seats in the midterm. They pursued that strategy with great discipline.
Typically, what would happen, certainly at the outset, would be that I would say, ‘We got a big problem, we’re losing 800,000 jobs a month. Every economist I’ve talked to—including Republican economists — thinks that we need to do a big stimulus, and I’m willing to work with you to figure out how this package looks.’ And typically, what you’d get would be, ‘Well, Mr. President, I’m not sure that this big-spending approach is the right one, and families are tightening their belts right now, and I don’t hear a lot of my constituents saying that they want a bunch of big bureaucracies taking their hard-earned tax money and wasting it on a bunch of make-work projects around the country. So we think that government’s got to do that same thing that families do.’ So, you kind of hit that ideological wall. I’m sure that after about four or five of those sessions, at some point, I might have said, ‘Look, guys, we have a history here dating back to the Great Depression,’ and I might at that point have tried to introduce some strong policy arguments. What I can say unequivocally is that there has never been a time in which I did not say, ‘Look, you tell me how you want to do this. Give me a sense of how you want to approach it.’
I think if you talk to somebody like a John Boehner, he’ll acknowledge that I’m pretty good at maintaining both my calm and my good humor in these meetings. I get along well with John, and Mitch [McConnell] is a little bit more close to the vest. It’s convenient for them to present those personal interactions as the basis for why things don’t happen, but the problem hasn’t been personal interactions. The conversations I have privately with Republicans are always very different than the public presentations that are made of them.
Even when their leadership wanted to cooperate, the tenor of the Republican base had shifted in a way that made it very difficult for them to cooperate without paying a price internally. Probably the best signifier of that was when Chicago had the bid for the 2016 Olympics and a committee had flown to Copenhagen to make their presentation. On the flight back, we already know that we haven’t gotten it, and when I land it turns out that there was big cheering by Rush Limbaugh and various Republican factions that America had lost.
It was really strange. But at that point, Limbaugh had been much clearer about wanting to see me fail, and he had, I think, communicated that very clearly to his listeners. Fox News coverage had already started to drift in that direction. By then, you realized that the attitudes that Sarah Palin had captured during the election were increasingly representative of the Republican-activist base. They may not have been representative of Republicans across the country, but John Boehner and Mitch McConnell had to worry about that mood. It’s pretty hard for them to publicly say, ‘Obama’s a perfectly reasonable guy, but we just can’t work with him because our base thinks he’s the Antichrist.’ It’s a lot easier for them to say, ‘Oh, the guy’s not listening to us,’ or ‘He’s uncompromising.’
As a consequence, there were times that I would meet with Mitch McConnell and he would say to me very bluntly, ‘Look, I’m doing you a favor if I do any deal with you, so it should be entirely on my terms because it hurts me just being seen photographed with you.’ Other times I’d tease them about it and say, ‘Look, if you need some help — me attacking you, or, you know …’ During the health-care debate, there was a point in time where, after having had multiple negotiations with [Iowa senator Chuck] Grassley, who was the ranking member alongside my current Chinese ambassador, [Max] Baucus, in exasperation I finally just said to Grassley, ‘Is there any form of health-care reform that you can support?’ And he shrugged and looked a little sheepish and said, ‘Probably not.’
I see a straight line from the announcement of Sarah Palin as the 2008 vice-presidential nominee to what we see today in Donald Trump. There have been times when I’ve said confidently that the fever is going to have to break, but it just seems to get worse. And so, for Democrats, it’s important to understand that whether we are able to achieve certain policy objectives is going to be primarily dependent on how many votes we’ve got in each chamber and our ability to move public opinion. It is not going to be as dependent on classic deal-making between Democrats and Republicans, or on my or subsequent presidents’ playing enough golf or drinking enough Scotch with members.
I have very cordial relations with a lot of the Republican members. We can have really great conversations and arrive at a meeting of the minds on a range of policy issues. But if they think they’re going to lose seats — or their own seat — because the social media has declared that they sold out the Republican Party, then they won’t do it. For the individual member of Congress in a 60 percent Republican district in Oklahoma or Arkansas, what matters is that all his or her constituencies are watching Fox News and listening to Rush, and they’re going to pay a price if they’re seen as being too cozy with a Democratic president.”
"[Arms Control Today] has become indispensable! I think it is the combination of the critical period we are in and the quality of the product. I found myself reading the May issue from cover to cover."
Months of quiet negotiations between the White House and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) broke down in November after Kyl announced he did not think there would be time to vote on the treaty in the current postelection session of Congress.
President Barack Obama responded by upping the ante and calling for a Senate vote on New START, with or without Kyl’s support. “It is a national security imperative that the
ratify the New START treaty this year,” Obama told White House reporters Nov. 18. “I’m confident that we should be able to get the votes,” he said. Administration talks with the Republican leadership are continuing.
Alluding to the postelection political environment in Washington , Obama told reporters Nov. 20 in Lisbon that “there’s no other reason not to [ratify New START] than the fact that
has become a very partisan place.” He added, “My expectation is that my Republican friends in the Senate will ultimately conclude that it makes sense for us to do this.”
The apparent failure in talks with Kyl, who represents the Senate Republican leadership, means that the White House cannot count on him to deliver Republican votes for New START. Instead the Obama administration may need to find Republican senators who would be willing to split from their party and vote for the treaty. Signed by the United States and Russia in April, the pact currently needs nine Republican votes to pass the full Senate, but will need 14 next year after new senators take office in January. Under the Constitution, the Senate must approve treaties with a two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, before they can be ratified by the president.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the only Republican to openly support a New START vote this year, told reporters Nov. 17 that the treaty should be brought up for a floor vote even if there is no deal with Kyl. “I think when it finally comes down to it, we have [a] sufficient number of senators who do have a sense of our national security. This is the time, this is the priority. Do it,” he said.
The Obama administration had been maneuvering to avoid a partisan showdown over New START by working out a deal with Senate Republican leaders in advance. According to a Nov. 17 White House timeline, administration officials have met or talked with Kyl or his staff about the treaty at least 30 times since August 2009, including direct contact by Vice President Joe Biden. These discussions dealt mainly with Kyl’s concern that the nuclear weapons budget for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was not funded adequately, administration officials said.
In February, the administration requested an increase of 10 percent over fiscal year 2010 in the fiscal year 2011 budget. The administration successfully pressed Congress to include the increase in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 that Congress passed in late September. Continuing resolutions, which provide funding to the government when Congress has not passed appropriations bills, generally keep spending at the previous year’s level for most agencies. In May, the White House announced it would spend $80 billion on the NNSA over the next decade, an increase of $10 billion, or 14 percent, over the baseline budget, along with $100 billion for the Pentagon to fund upgrades to strategic delivery systems.
Kyl, however, continued to argue that the $80 billion over 10 years for the NNSA was not enough and that he wanted to see the increases reflected in the fiscal year 2012 budget. Administration budgets normally are not released until February of the preceding fiscal year, so the fiscal year 2012 budget would not be released until next February. Kyl told Reuters Aug. 4 that because it would be difficult to finalize these numbers before the November election, the Senate might need to wait until a postelection session to vote on New START this year.
On Nov. 12, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, U.S. Strategic Command head Gen. Kevin Chilton, and NNSA Principal Deputy Administrator Neile Miller flew to Arizona to meet in person with Kyl and his staff to brief Kyl on the administration’s new estimates for the NNSA weapons activities budget. According to administration officials, during the three-hour meeting they told Kyl that the fiscal year 2012 budget request had been increased by $600 million to $7.6 billion, that funding would increase by $4.1 billion over the next five years, and that the 10-year total was now $85 billion, or $15 billion (21 percent) above the baseline. It is highly unusual to have finalized 2012 budget numbers this early in the process, White House officials said.
White House officials apparently thought they had a deal. Gary Samore, the National Security Council coordinator for arms control and nonproliferation, said Nov. 18 at a roundtable discussion with journalists that after the Nov. 12 meeting, the two sides had “reached basic agreement on what that funding level should be,” according to Global Security Newswire. Kyl said, “We’ve probably got all we’re going to get out of them in terms of dollar commitments,” The New York Times reported Nov. 25.
Those comments came after Kyl’s surprise announcement Nov. 16 that he “did not think” the treaty could be completed in the postelection session given the “complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization.” In a statement issued by his office, Kyl said he appreciated “the recent effort by the Administration to address some of the issues that we have raised” and that he looked forward to continuing to work with administration officials.
White House officials and their Senate allies expressed frustration. At a Nov. 17 press conference, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which approved the treaty Sept. 16 with a bipartisan 14-4 vote, said that, after months of talks, Kyl had no right now to say there was not enough time to vote. Kerry said he had delayed a committee vote over the summer, at Republicans’ request, to give them more time. (See ACT, October 2010.) “As of now, there is no substantive disagreement on this treaty,” said Kerry.
“It was Senator Kyl himself who suggested that the lame duck [postelection session] would be an appropriate time to look at the [New] START treaty,” a senior administration official told The Cable Nov. 19. “It’s ready for a vote and we had some expectation, although not a guarantee, that the lame duck was a possibility.” Kyl’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Lugar explained his Republican colleagues’ behavior to The Cable by saying, “Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote.”
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who controls the Senate schedule, said in a Nov. 17 statement, “I assure Senator Kyl and others concerned about the fate of this treaty that the Senate will be in session after Thanksgiving and will have time to consider and ratify it.” The Senate returned Nov. 29.
Obama’s Full-Court Press
After Kyl’s Nov. 16 statement, the White House quickly stepped up its efforts to court moderate Republicans to vote for New START. On Nov. 18, Obama hosted a White House meeting of a bipartisan group of former national security officials, including three former secretaries of state, James A. Baker, Henry Kissinger, and Madeleine Albright former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Marine Gen. James Cartwright also attended the meeting.
Obama stressed that a treaty vote could not be postponed until 2011 and that the consequences of failure to ratify would be significant. “This is not a matter that can be delayed,” Obama told reporters after the session. “Every month that goes by without a treaty means that we are not able to verify what’s going on on the ground in Russia . And if we delay indefinitely, American leadership on nonproliferation and America ’s national security will be weakened,” he said. U.S. on-site monitoring of Russian strategic weapons ended Dec. 5, 2009, when the original START expired.
In his Nov. 20 radio address, Obama said that “ Russia has been indispensable to our efforts to enforce strong sanctions on Iran , to secure loose nuclear material from terrorists, and to equip our troops in Afghanistan . All of this will be put to risk if the Senate does not pass the New START treaty.”
At Washington ’s request, Russia also canceled its planned sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Tehran .
Obama took his message to the Nov. 19-20 NATO summit in Lisbon , where U.S. allies overwhelmingly spoke in support of New START. “[T]the message that I’ve received since I’ve arrived from my fellow leaders here at NATO could not be clearer—New START will strengthen our alliance, and it will strengthen European security,” Obama told reporters Nov. 19.
“We see this treaty as a prologue, as an entrance to start talks about substrategic weaponry,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis said Nov. 20, appearing with the foreign ministers of Bulgaria , Denmark , Hungary , Latvia , and Norway , who all called for New START ratification. “We who are living in eastern Europe especially, know this,” he said. New START, which would reduce U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by about 30 percent from current treaty levels, does not cover short-range weapons deployed by the United States and Russia in Europe. Obama has said that once New START is in force, he intends to initiate a new round of talks with Russia on tactical, or substrategic, nuclear weapons.
Administration officials also point out that, without ratification, congressional support for increases to the NNSA budget to modernize the nuclear weapons production complex may falter. “Support for the treaty also brings support for modernization of the U.S. nuclear enterprise,” Gates said Nov. 20 in Santiago , Chile . “I think the failure to ratify the treaty puts that at high risk.”
At a Nov. 17 press conference with Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Lugar was blunt: “[W]e are at a point where we’re unlikely to have either the treaty or modernization unless we get real.”
Kyl told NBC’s Meet the Press Nov. 28 that he saw little chance that New START could be completed this year, unless Reid allowed “a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment.” Kyl and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) sent a Nov. 24 memo to Republican colleagues saying that the administration’s revised NNSA budget plan addressed some but not all of their concerns. In particular, Kyl and Corker wrote, the administration should seek “responsible advance funding mechanisms” for the NNSA, such as “three-year rolling funding” or a commitment to seek advance funding in fiscal year 2013.
Appearing on the same show with Kyl, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, responded that there was time to debate the issues and hold a vote “in a responsible way before we break for Christmas.”
Some formerly skeptical Republican senators appear to be leaning Durbin’s way. For example, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Republican voice on defense issues who has been highly critical of the treaty, told ABC’s Good Morning America Nov. 30, “I believe we can move forward” with the treaty by the end of the year. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) has suggested in comments to the media that he also is leaning toward its ratification this year.
When asked Nov. 30 if New START would be voted on this year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated he was not opposed and said, “[I]t will be up to the majority leader, Senator Reid, to decide.”
‘Gaming’ Obama on Afghan War
As President Obama grappled with the Afghan War in 2009-10, he faced insubordination from Gen. Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates, a reality that Gates leaves out of his new memoir, as Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service.
In Robert Gates&rsquos new memoir, Duty, the ex-Secretary of Defense questions President Barack Obama&rsquos lack of commitment to his administration&rsquos Afghan War strategy, a claim that&rsquos generating a Washington debate about whether Obama was sufficiently supportive of the war.
But the Gates account omits two crucial historical facts necessary to understanding the issue. The first is that Obama agreed to the escalation only under strong pressure from his top national security officials and with very explicit reservations. The second is that Gen. David Petraeus reneged on his previous commitment to support Obama&rsquos 2009 decision that troop withdrawal would begin by mid-2011.
Gen. David Petraeus, as commander of allied forces in Afghanistan in 2010.
Gates makes only the most glancing reference in the newly published Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War to the issue of the beginning of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.
The former Defense Secretary refers to &ldquosuspicion and distrust of senior military officers&rdquo by both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. And he describes a March 3, 2011 National Security Council meeting in the White House Situation Room which Obama opened by criticizing the military for &ldquopopping off in the press&rdquo and vowing to push back against any military delay in beginning the withdrawal.
Gates quotes Obama as saying, &ldquoâ€ŠIf I believe I am being gamed . . .&rdquo and says he left the sentence &ldquohanging there with the clear implication the consequences would be dire.&rdquo Gates writes that he was &ldquopretty upset,&rdquo because he thought &ldquoimplicitly accusing Petraeus&rdquo of &ldquogaming&rdquo him at a big meeting in the Situation Room was &ldquoinappropriate, not to mention highly disrespectful of Petraeus.&rdquo
&ldquoAs I sat there,&rdquo Gates recalls, &ldquoI thought: the president doesn&rsquot trust his commander, can&rsquot stand [Afghanistan President Hamid] Karzai, doesn&rsquot believe in his own strategy, and doesn&rsquot consider the war to be his. For him, it&rsquos all about getting out.&rdquo
But Obama&rsquos distrust of Petraeus was clearly related to the sequence of events related to Obama&rsquos policy decision on Afghanistan and Petraeus&rsquos signaling his desire to undermine it all of which Gates omits from his account.
Obama was extremely wary of the military&rsquos request for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan on basic geopolitical grounds from the start, as documented by notes of National Security Council meetings used for Bob Woodward&rsquos accounts of those meetings in Obama&rsquos Wars and in an earlier account by Newsweek&rsquos Jonathan Alter.
Both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden argued in the meetings in September and October 2009 that the primary U.S. concern should be Pakistan, not Afghanistan, whereas Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen were insistent that Afghanistan be the priority, according to Woodward&rsquos account.
The military leaders argued that the Taliban would welcome Al-Qaeda back to Afghanistan unless it was defeated. But Biden, acting with Obama&rsquos encouragement, repeatedly attacked the argument and got CIA official Peter Lavoy to admit that there was no evidence to support it. Obama challenged another key argument by the military, asking why a long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would not harm Pakistan&rsquos stability.
It was clear to the officials supporting ISAF Commander Stanley A. McChrystal&rsquos request for 40,000 more troops that the White House was not going to agree unless something was done to tip the scales in the other direction.
In a White House meeting on Oct. 5, Petraeus argued again that the Taliban movement would invite Al-Qaeda back if it took over, and Mullen, Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all spoke up in support of that general theme, according to Woodward.
Six days later, McClatchy newspapers reported the White House had been &ldquominimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al Qaida.&rdquo The story cited interviews with 15 &ldquomid-level or senior military, intelligence and diplomatic officials&rdquo who said they agreed with what were described as &ldquonew intelligence assessments&rdquo that if the Taliban were to return to power, it would allow Al-Qaeda back into the country.
In fact, the intelligence community had not prepared any National Intelligence Estimate on that issue. Obama&rsquos principal national security officials were putting their own twist on intelligence reporting.
The leaking to the news media of a politically damaging version of internal debate between the White House and the coalition pushing for a major escalation was nothing less than shot across the bow from Obama&rsquos principal national security officials, including Petraeus, Mullen, Gates and Clinton. They were signaling to the President that he would incur a significant political cost if he rejected the McChrystal request.
In November 2009, Obama compromised with his national security team. He agreed to 30,000 troops instead of the 40,000 that McChrystal had requested, but not for a national counter-insurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban as Petraeus had wanted. The military effort would be only to &ldquodegrade&rdquo the Taliban.
And crucially, an evaluation in July 2011 would determine not whether a withdrawal and transfer of responsibility could begin but what it&rsquos &ldquoslope&rdquo would be, according to the meeting notes cited by Woodward. Obama even insisted that the military not occupy any area that could not be turned over to the Afghan government.
On Nov. 29, Obama met with Gates, Mullen and Petraeus to get their formal agreement to the compromise plan. Mullen pledged that he would &ldquofully support&rdquo the decision. Petraeus said he would do &ldquoeverything possible&rdquo to get the troops on the ground &ldquoto enable the transfer [to Afghans] to begin in July 2011.&rdquo
But danger signs appeared almost immediately that the pro-escalation coalition would seek to alter the policy in their favor. The day after Obama publicly announced in a speech at West Point on Dec. 1, 2009, that U.S. troops would begin to withdraw in July 2011, Gates and Clinton suggested in Senate Armed Services Committee testimony that the President was not locked into beginning a withdrawal in mid-2011.
Obama responded by insisting that his press secretary tell CBS News that the July 2011 withdrawal was &ldquoetched in stone.&rdquo After hearing about that Obama comment, Petraeus told Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, that was &ldquoa problem&rdquo and said, &ldquoYou need to fix that,&rdquo according to Woodward. Petraeus added that he would let Gates and Clinton &ldquodeal with this one&rdquo.
After taking command of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in mid-2010, Petraeus was asked on &ldquoMeet the Press&rdquo on Aug. 15 whether he might tell Obama that the drawdown should be delayed beyond mid-2011. &ldquoCertainly, yes,&rdquo Petraeus responded, openly threatening to renege on his agreement with Obama.
In September 2010, John Nagl, a retired colonel who had been on Petraeus&rsquos staff and now headed the Center for New American Security, told IPS that Obama would be forced by Republican pressure to &ldquoput more time on the clock&rdquo. And in December, Petraeus revealed to Obama&rsquos main White House adviser on the war, Gen. Douglas Lute, &ldquoAll we have to do is begin to show progress, and that&rsquoll be sufficient to add time to the clock and we&rsquoll get what we need,&rdquo according to Woodward.
Whatever Petraeus did in the early weeks of 2011 to raise the ire of Obama in regard to the withdrawal issue, it was against the backdrop of repeated indications that Petraeus was hoping to use both his alliances with Gates and Clinton and pressures from the Republicans in Congress to push back the previously agreed date for beginning withdrawal and handoff of responsibility to the Afghan government.
Gates knew, therefore, that Obama was reacting to a history of having already been &ldquogamed&rdquo not only by Petraeus himself but also by his bureaucratic allies maneuvering to remove the restrictions on the Afghan War that Obama had imposed. The self-serving Gates account conceals the dishonest tactics employed to get Obama&rsquos agreement to the Afghan War escalation.
From Today Forward, the Money You Earn Working is Actually Yours!
Posted by Chris Prandoni on Thursday, August 13th, 2009, 3:23 PM PERMALINK Follow @ChrisPrandoni
The following is cross-posted at www.workerfreedom.org
Happy Cost of Government Day. well, yesterday. From today forward, all the money you make is actually yours!
Yesterday, the average American worker earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state and local levels. There are numerous ways that government can reduce waste, obviously, but one of the most needless money pits is made possible by the Davis-Bacon Act.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors on all federal construction projects to pay their workers the prevailing wage in the same locality. To its proponents, Davis-Bacon is necessary to prevent the distortion of labor markets from the government&rsquos deep pockets and political power, fair enough. This argument is predicated on the Department of Labor ability to accurately calculate &ldquoprevailing wages.&rdquo
Current survey techniques are egregiously error-filled. A recent audit found that 100% of Davis-Bacon wage estimates contained errors and that some &ldquoprevailing wages&rdquo have not been recalculated in 25 years. Two examples of incorrect Davis-Bacon wage calculations to illustrate how the bill, in fact, facilitates market distortion. In Sumter, South Carolina, the government paid plumbers $5.15 an hour compared to the market rate of $16.96 per hour. In San Diego, California, the government paid plumbers as much as $38.36 an hour compared to the market value of $21.61.
Much to the dismay of Davis-Bacon supporters, the bill consistently misprices wages and by doing so distorts the market. Most commonly overpaying for labor, the government will waste an estimated $9 billion paying above market prices for work this year.
Someone has to receive inflated government contracts, and in most cases it is unions. Due to flaws in the survey system, union wages more often than not end up determining the &ldquoprevailing wage.&rdquo Union wages are so high that they effectively price out all competitors as no other company can afford to pay its workers as much. As mandated by Davis-Bacon, the government is forced to pay the &ldquoprevailing wage&rdquo which usually means hiring unions.
There is no point in continuing Davis-Bacon, a bill which in practice has the exact opposite effect of its intended purpose. So why is Davis-Bacon still a law? Because labor cannot fairly compete with other companies for government contracts so they continue to line the pockets of Democratic Representatives. Until it is repealed, or survey techniques overhauled, Davis-Bacon remains one of the most needless wastes of taxpayer money.
Obama Wins Right To Indefinitely Detain Americans Under NDAA
An appeals court has granted the Obama administration’s appeal to overturn a ban on the indefinite detention of American Citizens under the NDAA.
Last week a federal judge issued a permanent ban on the detention of American citizens without trial or charge as authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act after it was ruled unconstitutional
In demanding the power to indefinitely detain Americans under the unconstitutional military detention Obama appealed the decision in near record time.
Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier has decided to step in on behalf of the Obama Administration and reversed the ban pending a ruling from a three-judge appeals court panel which is expected to hear the case beginning September 28th.
Obama Appeals Permanent Ban On #NDAA Detention Of US Citizens
President Obama has appealed, in near record time, a Federal court ruling permanently banning of the detention of U.S. citizens without trial.
Yesterday U.S Federal Judge Katherine Forrest denied Obama’s appeal against the preliminary injunction issued last month banning the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge.
In denying Obama’s appeal Judge Forrest issued a permanent injunction ban on the unconstitutional practice.
US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA Military Detention Provision
A federal judge has ruled against President Obama’s NDAA appeal issuing permanent injunction against the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.
After a long fought legal battle journalists and activists have won a major battle against one of the most totalitarian pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.
The legislation formally known as the National Defense Authorization Action has several constitutional trampling provisions.
The most outrageous of those provisions allowed the United States government to place U.S. citizens in jail indefinitely without ever filing charges, providing access to a lawyer or even allowing those thrown in CIA torture prisons the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations they are being detained.
That section of the NDAA has now been permanently blocked after a federal judge issued a final injunction banning the used of the indefinite detention provision in the so-called “homeland battlefield” bill.
The authority to do so was given because the bill gives the President the authority to conduct military operations in any country in the world, including inside the United States, to fight the so-called war on terror with the need for congressional approval to do so which is effectively a suspension of Posse Comitatus.
Back in January Journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration to fight the totalitarian powers given in the declaration of World War 3 known as the NDAA.
Given the fact the bill presented a clear and present danger to the US Constitution Hedges was joined by a coalition of activists and journalist.
Those journalist filed shocking briefs in the lawsuit detailing how the NDAA was being using to silence political dissent and journalism critical of the US government.
Per standard procedure the corporate media remained silent after not being given a press release from the government to parrot as the case went to trial.
Now in near record time, as if the Obama administration had some kind of foreknowledge of the Judge’s ruling would be, his lawyers at the Department of Injustice have appealed the permanent injunction in nearly record time.
A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.
Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.
The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.
On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.
With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest’s earlier decision that the NDAA fails to “pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights”
Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.
“First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” Judge Forrest wrote last week. “This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”
President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office
A look at key events during the first 100 days of Barack Obama’s presidency:
Jan. 22: Obama orders the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison within a year and declares that the United States will not engage in torture.
Jan 23: Obama lifts ban on federal funding for international organizations that perform or provide information on abortions.
Jan. 27: Obama gives first formal television interview as president to Arab television station, telling Muslims, “Americans are not your enemy.”
Jan. 29: Obama signs first bill into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination.
Feb. 3: Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., withdraws as Obama’s nominee for secretary of health and human services.
Feb. 9: Obama holds first prime-time news conference, urging Congress to enact his economic stimulus plan.
Feb. 12: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., withdraws as Obama’s nominee for secretary of commerce.
Feb. 13: Congress completes action on a $787 billion economic stimulus package of tax cuts and new spending, intended to jolt the country out of the worst recession in 50 years.
Feb. 17: Obama signs the stimulus measure into law.
Feb. 19: Obama makes his first visit to a foreign country as president, meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a seven-hour visit to Ottawa.
Feb. 22: Obama hosts governors in his first formal dinner at the White House.
Feb. 23: Obama holds a fiscal responsibility summit at the White House, signaling his intention to tackle health care, the budget and Social Security.
Feb. 24: Obama addresses a joint session of Congress for the first time, focusing on economic issues.
Feb. 26: Obama unveils a $3.6 trillion federal budget for 2010 and estimates the federal deficit for 2009 will balloon to $1.75 trillion.
Feb. 27: Obama announces withdrawal of all American combat forces from Iraq by August 2010, but says the U.S. will leave tens of thousands of support troops behind.
March 5: Obama hosts daylong White House summit on health care.
March 9: Obama reverses former President George W. Bush’s ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research and declares that all federal scientific research will be walled off from political influences.
March 11: Obama signs a $410 billion spending bill to keep the government running for the rest of the 2009 budget year. He calls the measure “imperfect” because it includes money for special projects set aside by members of Congress, a practice he pledged to end during the 2008 campaign.
March 16: Obama declares he will stop insurer American International Group Inc. from paying millions in executive bonuses after receiving billions in federal bailout funds.
March 19: Obama becomes the first sitting president to appear on the “Tonight” show.
March 20: Obama releases video message to people of Iran in celebration of Nowruz, the Persian new year and the first day of spring.
March 26: Obama holds “Open for Questions,” the first virtual town hall meeting at the White House.
March 27: Obama announces comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the deployment of 4,000 more military trainers to Afghanistan.
March 30: Obama asserts unprecedented government control over the auto industry, rejecting turnaround plans by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, and engineering the ouster of GM’s chief executive, Rick Wagoner.
March 31: Obama travels to London, the first stop on an eight-day, six-country tour of Europe and the Middle East.
April 1: Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and announces start of negotiations on new strategic arms-control treaty.
April 1: Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have a private audience with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.
April 2: Obama attends the Group of 20 economic summit in London, where leaders agree to bail out developing countries, stimulate world trade and regulate financial firms more stringently.
April 3: Obama speaks and takes questions from crowd of mostly French and German citizens at a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France.
April 4: Obama attends NATO summit in Strasbourg and gets commitment from allies to send up to 5,000 more military trainers and police to Afghanistan.
April 5: Obama launches an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them, during a speech in Prague, “the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War.”
April 6: Obama speaks to Turkey’s parliament, declaring that “the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”
April 7: Obama pays a surprise visit to Iraq, meeting with U.S. troops and Iraqi leaders.
April 9: Obama sends a request to Congress for $83.4 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
April 10: Obama says the economy is showing “glimmers of hope” after meeting with top economic officials.
April 12: Obama authorizes a military rescue of an American sea captain taken hostage by pirates in the waters off Somalia. The rescue results in the deaths of three pirates, the capture of the fourth and frees Capt. Richard Phillips.
April 13: The administration announces that Cuban-Americans will be permitted to make unlimited transfers of money and visits to relatives in Cuba. The decision also clears away most regulations that had stopped American companies from bringing high-tech services and information to Cuba.
April 14: The Obamas introduce their new puppy, Bo, in a photo session on the White House lawn.
April 16: Obama meets with Mexican President Felipe Calderon on his first trip to Mexico and Latin America. The leaders agree to cooperate on combating drug violence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
April 17: Obama releases memos from the Bush administration authorizing harsh interrogation techniques but says no CIA employees who followed the memos will be prosecuted.
April 17: Obama travels to Trinidad and Tobago for the 34-nation Summit of the Americas and declares that he “seeks a new beginning with Cuba.”
April 18: At the summit, Obama shakes hands with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, the socialist, anti-American leader who had called Bush a devil.
April 19: Obama calls on Cuba to release political prisoners as a way to improve relations with the U.S.
April 20: Obama holds the first formal Cabinet meeting of his administration, ordering department heads to slice spending by $100 million, a tiny fraction of the $3.6 trillion federal budget he proposed a month earlier.
April 21: Obama leaves the door open for prosecution of federal lawyers who wrote harsh interrogation memos during Bush administration and says if there’s an investigation, it should be done by an independent commission.
April 22: Obama makes his first visit as president to Iowa, the state where his 2008 Democratic caucus victory launched him toward the presidency.
April 23: Obama tells congressional leaders he will not support creation of an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques.
April 24: Obama declines to brand the early 20th century massacre of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey a “genocide,” breaking a campaign promise.
April 27: Obama says the government is concerned about the spreading swine flu virus but there’s not yet “a cause for alarm.”
April 28: Obama welcomes Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party.
April 29: Obama urges parents to prepare for the possibility that their children’s schools could be closed temporarily if swine flu cases spread to them. Assessing his first 100 days, Obama says: “I’m pleased with the progress we’ve made but I’m not satisfied.”
Obama is OverWhitehouse.gov
When a president frames his speech around a call for a "year of action," you can safely bet that the next 12 months will be as action-packed as an afternoon nap. The subtext of last night's State of the Union address was that Obama's presidency is not just frustrated but tired it's not only that he can't do much, thanks to Republicans in Congress, it's that he has so few remaining ideas about what to do. (Last night's most significant new ideas was a vaguely explained government-backed retirement savings program.)
Five years in, the Obama presidency has already been exhausted. And so Obama plans to ride it out, propping up the laws he has already passed, doing his best to stop Democrats from losing too many seats in 2014, and tweaking policies through executive action where he can. Yes, there will still be controversies surrounding his administration, and yes, the president will still be the center of considerable attention and controversy from both fans in critics—but mostly for what he's already done, not what he wants to do. He'll be in office for another three years, but he's already finished. Obama is over.
Meanwhile, as the Obama presidency grows stale, it's the once agenda-less Republicans and their conservative allies who are busy generating fresh new ideas. Obama has talked broadly about tax reform for years, but it's Republican Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) who recently put forth a big plan to overhaul the tax code. Obama last night challenged Republicans who oppose Obamacare to present some kind of alternative—but failed to acknowledge the three GOP Senators (Coburn, Hatch, and Burr) who did so just this week. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Sen. Marco Rubio have spent the last month talking up policies to address poverty. Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are amongst the nation's most aggressive champions of criminal justice reform. Obama's State of the Union rehashed old, flawed arguments about health care and education Sen. Lee's response to the president's address highlighted a slew of Republican reform ideas from transportation to education to energy.
Meanwhile, small but influential journals like National Affairs provide a forum for right of center policy wonks to work through their ideas in detail, looking at both what to do and how to do it. The evidence suggests that at least some Republican politicians are listening.
You can see tensions, too. There's a push and pull at work, between technocratic conservatism and revivalist libertarianism, between those who are more concerned with, say, spending taxpayer money well and those more concerned with spending money less, between the party's individualistic impulses and its communalist concerns. There's still plenty left to work out.
But this is how a party develops an agenda. Not overnight, with a dictum from the top or the selection of a presidential candidate, but over time, through iteration and experimentation, and through a conversation with itself—and eventually with its critics as well. For too long, the right has lacked the infrastructure to start this conversation and the political will to carry it on. Its agenda has been opposition, and little else. But that's changing, in part because of the efforts of conservative reformers, and in part because the Obama agenda is so clearly nearing its end.
Not all of these Republican ideas are fully formed. Not all of them are practical, or politically feasible. And not every Republican is on board party leadership is still far too hesitant to engage with the right's policy reformers. But Republicans are, finally, talking about what to do. Obama is stuck talking about what he's already done.
Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.
2020 Deep State coup 2.0
- ↑Investigate Obamagate, The American Spectator
- ↑ Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Pre-Indictment Delay, United States v. Vadim Mikerin, Criminal No. TDC-14-0529 (D. MD) at 1. http://fcpa.stanford.edu/enforcement-action.html?id=583
- ↑ "Libya agrees pact with Italy to boost investment", Al-Arab, 2 March 2009.
- ↑ "Italia-Libia, firmato l'accordo", La Repubblica, 30 August 2008. (Italian) Archived from the original on 3 December 2013.
- ↑ Judicial Watch. "Motion for Status Conference", June 27, 2014. Retrieved on August 15, 2014.
- ↑ Andrew Zajac. "Judge Prods IRS on Effort to Save Lois Lerner’s E-Mail", August 14, 2014.
- ↑ Kevin G. Hall. "Group: Inquiry ordered into lost IRS emails", August 14, 2014.
- ↑ "Judge orders State Dept. to work on recovering emails, suggests Clinton violated policy", Fox News. Retrieved on August 27, 2015.
- ↑ "Sen. Ted Stevens's conviction set aside", CNN, 2009-04-07.
- ↑ Duggan, Paul (September 28, 2010). Justice Dept. lawyer kills self. Washington Post.
- ↑ “I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college—I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html
- ↑New Unit to Question Key Terror Suspects - Move Shifts Interrogation Oversight From the CIA to the White House, Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post, August 24, 2009.
- ↑National Security Council Reloaded, J. E. Dyer, Commentary blog, 08.25.2009.
- ↑ACLU Urges Congress to Examine White House National Security Council as Central Decision-Maker on Torture, ACLU Press Release, (6/10/2008).
- ↑ Tower Commission Report, p. 13.
- ↑ A few weeks after Obama's election, former Weather UndergroundterroristMark Rudd wrote, "the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment. Look to the second level appointments. There's a whole govt. in waiting that Podesta has at the Center for American Progress. They're mostly progressives." http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/mark-rudd-lets-get-smart-about-obama.html?m=1
- ↑ U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2009, Released by the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Washington, DC, (October 26, 2009). www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
- ↑Darrell Issa, "Update on Operation Fast and Furious" House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, May 3, 2012.
- ↑ 37.037.1 Fortune
- ↑ Reyes, Gerardo and Santiago Wills. "Fast and Furious Scandal: New Details Emerge on How the U.S. Government Armed Mexican Drug Cartels." ABC News. September 30, 2012. Retrieved on October 6, 2014.
- ↑ "2010: Ocurre en Juárez la 'Masacre de Salvárcar' 15 jóvenes fueron asesinados." El Siglo de Torreón. Thursday January 31, 2013. Retrieved on October 6, 2014.
- ↑ Martínez-Cabrera, Alejandro. "Official: Villas de Salvarcar massacre suspect tortured by Mexican army." El Paso Times. March 16, 2012. Retrieved on October 6, 2014.
- ↑https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/362127538/Citizens-United-Releases-Clinton-Russia-Related-FOIA-Documents-From-State-Dept p.20
- ↑ CBS
- ↑ 53.053.153.253.353.453.5 Washington Post
- ↑ A violate of section 301c of the Foreign Assistance Act.
- ↑The Gaza Aid Package: Time to Rethink U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Palestinians, Heritage.org, March 9, 2009
- ↑Barack Obama announces $400m aid package to Gaza and West Bank, Guardian.uk, June 9, 2010
- ↑Visiting journalist finds Hamas is stealing Gaza's aid, Israel Today, September 22, 2010
- ↑ Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” THE NEW YORK TIMES(April 23, 2015).
- ↑ Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Oversight of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and Attempts to Influence U.S. Elections: Lessons Learned from Current and Prior Administrations, Testimony from Mr. Bill Browder at 20-21 (July 27, 2017).
- ↑Gun From El Chapo’s Hideout Linked to Fast and Furious Operation Time Eric Tucker & Alicia A. Caldwell March 16, 2016
- ↑‘Fast & Furious’ rifle capable of taking down helicopter found in 'El Chapo' cache, Fox News, January 20, 2016.
- ↑ Credit:Sharyl Attkisson. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1210665_obama-leak-investigations-internal-use-only-pls-do-not.html
- ↑ CFIUS Certification to Congress, Case 10-40: Rosatom (Russian Federation)/Uranium One, Inc, (October 22, 2010).
- ↑In Redistricting Year, GOP Gains a Big Edge (November 4, 2010).
- ↑Four More Lessons from the GOP Landslide (November 4, 2010).
- ↑ 77.077.1Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats (November 4, 2010).
- ↑Carrie Johnson, "Emails Show How 'Fast And Furious' Ambush News Unfolded At Justice Dept". NPR, January 27, 2012.
- ↑ Department of Justice report
- ↑ 87.087.1The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling Cartel Violence (PDF). United States Congress.
- ↑ Yost, Pete. Justice memo mentioned gun-walking probe. Yahoo! News. Retrieved on June 20, 2012.
- ↑ Department of Justicebreport
- ↑ 90.090.1 Christian Science Monitor
- ↑ Wagner, Dennis. Phoenix-area gun store, ATF sting may be linked to shootout. The Arizona Republic.
- ↑ Lott, Maxim. "Senator Calls ATF on Allegations Agency Is Allowing Guns Into Mexico", Fox News, February 2, 2011.
- ↑ 93.093.1https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-dept-vows-jail-reporters-jobs/story?id=23915952
- ↑ Department of Justice Inspector General report
- ↑ Salant, Jonathan. "Erroneous Gun Letter Based on U.S. Attorney, Documents Show", Bloomberg.
- ↑ Weich, Ronald. Letter dated February 4, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice to Senator Charles E. Grassley (PDF). United States Senate.
- ↑ Serrano, Richard. "Family of U.S. agent slain in Mexico demands to know gun source", Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2011.
- ↑ Carroll, Susan. Slain ICE agent's family still searching for answers. The Houston Chronicle.
- ↑ Perez-Trevino, Emma. Straw purchaser of guns pleads guilty in Dallas defendant linked to Zapata death. The Brownsville Herald.
- ↑Phoenix Field Division. ATF.
- ↑ Titus, Elizabeth. Cornyn Presses Holder on Alleged Texas Operation. The Texas Tribune.
- ↑ "Timeline of "Baytown Crew" case." (PDF), CBS News. Archived from the original on June 2, 2013.
- ↑Sharyl Attkisson, "Second gun used in ICE agent murder linked to ATF undercover operation", CBS News, February 22, 2012.
- ↑ Hooper, John. "Silvio Berlusconi sent for trial accused of paying for sex with teenager", The Guardian, 15 February 2011.
- ↑ "Silvio Berlusconi faces Ruby sex charge trial in April", BBC News, 15 February 2011.
- ↑ Squires, Nick. "Libya: Italy Fears 300,000 Refugees", The Daily Telegraph, 23 February 2011.
- ↑ "Libya Opposition Launches Council", Al Jazeera, 27 February 2011.
- ↑ "Libyan Rebels Said To Debate Seeking U.N. Airstrikes", The New York Times, 1 March 2011.
- ↑ Serrano, Richard. "Angry former ATF chief blames subordinates for Fast and Furious", Los Angeles Times, December 24, 2011.
- ↑ Murphy, Kim. "Mexico lawmakers demand answers about guns smuggled under ATF's watch", Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2011.
- ↑ National Security Hillary’s war: How conviction replaced skepticism in Libya intervention, By Joby Warrick, Washington Post, October 30, 2011.
- ↑LESSONS OF LIBYA FOR FUTURE WESTERN MILITARY FORAYS, By John Barry, Newsweek National Security Correspondent. europeaninstitute.org
- ↑How Obama turned on a dime toward war.
- ↑ Attkisson, Sharyl. "Obama on "gunwalking": Serious mistake may have been made", CBS News.
- ↑French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November, by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.
- ↑ Longbottom, Wil. "U.S. Attorney General issued with subpoena in probe over 'Fast and Furious' gun trafficking", Daily Mail, October 13, 2011.
- ↑ Serrano, Richard. "Fast and Furious weapons were found in Mexico cartel enforcer's home", Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2011.
- ↑Attorney General Eric Holder Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee CSPAN May 3, 2011.
- ↑ 138.0138.1 Hennessey, Kathleen. "Senate grills Holder on Fast and Furious gun-trafficking sting", November 9, 2011.
- ↑ Attkisson, Sharyl. "Attorney General Eric Holder grilled by Congress on ATF "Gunwalker" controversy", CBS News.
- ↑ CBS 100311
- ↑ Department of Justice
- ↑ Lajeunesse, William. "House Panel Releases Scathing Report on 'Fast and Furious' Gun Operation, Sure to Anger Mexico", Fox News, June 15, 2011.
- ↑ Murphy, Kim. "Report describes gun agents' 'state of panic'", Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2011.
- ↑ La Jeunesse, William. "Justice Officials in 'Panic Mode' as Hearing Nears on Failed Anti-Gun Trafficking Program", Fox News, June 10, 2011.
- ↑ Johnson, Kevin. "ATF agent calls gun-tracking program a 'disaster'", USA Today, June 16, 2011.
- ↑ Holub, Hugh. Statement of John Dodson about ATF gunwalker scandal: 'The very idea of letting guns walk is unthinkable to most law enforcement.'. Tucson Citizen.
- ↑ Sharyl Attkisson. ATF Manager says he shared Fast and Furious Info with White House, CBS News, July 26, 2011.
- ↑ consortiumnews concludes, "This is how propaganda, press manipulation and lying to the public is manufactured in Washington, DC. Hillary and her crew, with the help of Jamie Rubin, pushed the meme that Hillary, not Obama, deserved the credit for the “success” in Libya. Absolutely. Let her have it. Hang this festering turd of a policy around Hillary’s neck. To do so is only just. She is a power hungry thug who helped cause the deaths of thousands just to advance her own vile political ambitions." https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/07/hillary-clintons-libyan-fingerprints/?print=print
- ↑ Serrano, Richard A.. "Gun store owner had misgivings about ATF sting", September 11, 2011.
- ↑ "200 mexicanos murieron por armas de 'Rápido y Furioso': congresista de EU", October 28, 2011.
- ↑ LA Times
- ↑http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/control/ p.764 pdf
- ↑ Attkisson, Sharyl. "ATF Fast and Furious: New documents show Attorney General Eric Holder was briefed in July 2010", CBS News.
- ↑ Attkisson, Sharyl. "Eric Holder calls "gunwalking" unacceptable, regrets tactic as part of Fast and Furious", CBS News.
- ↑Holder emails (PDF).
- ↑Dennis Wagner, "Ex-U.S. Attorney Burke admits to leaking whistle-blower's records" The Arizona Republic, November 10, 2011.
- ↑Carrie Johnson, "Justice Withdraws Inaccurate 'Fast And Furious' Letter It Sent To Congress" NPR, December 2, 2011.
- ↑Jake Sullivan b. 1976. Sullivan, who was 35 years old at the time is presumably one of the "35-year-old PhDs who love to talk, because that's the way you let everybody know how smart you are, is how much you talk." Sec. Hagel continues, "[Obama] has a staff around him that's very inexperienced. I don't think there's one veteran on his senior staff at the White House. I don't believe there's one business person. I don't believe there's one person who's ever run anything. Other than Vice President Biden, none of them have ever been elected to anything." Sec. Gates criticized "staffers calling senior commanders out in the field and asking them questions, of second guessing commanders. I told my combatant commanders and field commanders … if you get calls from … the president, that's one thing. But if you get a call from some White House or National Security Council staffer, you tell them to call me instead, and then tell them, by the way, go to hell." Hagel also criticized Susan Rice's approach and subservience to Obama.https://youtu.be/GPPx83VoLyY
- ↑The document reads in part: "Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today."https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
- ↑ Issa, Darrell (May 3, 2012). Update on Operation Fast and Furious (PDF).
- ↑ Ingram, David (May 13, 2013). Associated Press says U.S. government seized journalists' phone records. Reuters Canada.
- ↑ 215.0215.1https://youtu.be/6M7Rp_Ghv6k
- ↑ Jackson, David. "Obama claims executive privilege Holder held in contempt", June 20, 2012.
- ↑ Dwyer, Devin. "Committee Votes Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress After Obama Asserts Executive Privilege", ABC News, June 20, 2012.
- ↑Issa: Obama executive privilege claim is cover-up or obstruction Washington Times June 26, 2012
- ↑https://www.scribd.com/document/322851482/Hillary-Clinton-FBI-302-V2-6 pg.2
- ↑Associated Press and Daily Mail reporter. "Revealed: Operation Fast and Furious guns used in 2010 Mexico massacre of 16 people - including 14 TEENS". Daily Mail. October 1, 2012. Retrieved on October 6, 2014.
- ↑ The article states, "Rice has managed to make an impressive array of enemies . when she was an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, she appalled colleagues by flipping her middle finger at Richard Holbrooke during a meeting with senior staff at the State Department, according to witnesses. Colleagues talk of shouting matches and insults. Among those she has insulted is the woman she would replace at State. Rice was one of the first former Clinton administration officials to defect to Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Rice condemned Clinton’s Iraq and Iran positions, asking for an “explanation of how and why she got those critical judgments wrong.” Clinton got a measure of revenge in 2010 after she worked out a deal with the Russian foreign minister on a package of Iran sanctions to be adopted by the U.N. Security Council. The White House wanted Rice to make the announcement (part of a campaign to increase her profile that included high-visibility foreign trips and TV appearances), but a Clinton aide got Kerry to ask Clinton about the matter during an unrelated Senate hearing. It was Rice’s own shoot-first tendency that caused her to be benched as a spokesman for the Obama campaign for a time in 2008. She unnerved European allies when she denounced as “counterproductive” and “self-defeating” the U.N. policy that Iran suspend its nuclear program before talks can begin. She criticized President George W. Bush and McCain because they “insisted” on it. But, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out at the time, European diplomats were rattled by such remarks because the precondition was their idea. Rice’s pugilism provoked the Russians to weigh in this week in opposition to her nomination as secretary of state." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1112/milbank111912.php3#.WOvs0_9MHMI
- ↑ Hacker Begins Distributing Confidential Memos Sent To Hillary Clinton On Libya, Benghazi Attack, The Smoking Gun (Mar. 18, 2013), http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/sidney-blumenthal/hacker-distributes-memos-784091. Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail draws scrutiny. The Smoking Gun (Mar. 3, 2015), http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/hrc-e-mails.
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named AutoLC-98
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named CNN220130423
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named AutoG4-3
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named cbs20130516
- ↑ 264.0264.1Boston Suspect’s Writing on the Wall. consortiumnews.com. Retrieved on April 8, 2015.
- ↑ 265.0265.1 "Boston Marathon Bombing Trial Jury Sees Photos Of Tsarnaev Boat Note", CBS Local Boston, March 10, 2015. Retrieved on March 12, 2017.
- ↑ 266.0266.1 "Note by Boston Bombing Suspect Sheds Light on Motive, Officials Say", May 16, 2013. Retrieved on April 11, 2015.
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named AutoLC-150
- ↑Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag no text was provided for refs named AutoLC-151
You must specify title = and url = when using <>. Available parameters: You must specify title = and url = when using <>. Available parameters:
You must specify title = and url = when using <>. Available parameters: