http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/
Afghanistan's Karzai And US: An Angry Confrontation
"If you hires you a thief, ain't no sense gettin' mad because he steals" - Old African -American proverb.
Apparently the Obama Administration and Afghan president Hamid Karzai are on the outs, and in a big way.
A number of senior sources have confirmed the details of a meeting between Mr Holbrooke and Mr Karzai held on 21 August, one day after the election.
The meeting was described as "explosive" and "a dramatic bust-up".
Mr Holbrooke is said to have twice raised the idea of holding a second round run-off because of concerns about the voting process.
He is believed to have complained about the use of fraud and ballot stuffing by some members of the president's campaign team, as well as other candidates.
Mr Karzai reacted very angrily and the meeting ended shortly afterwards, the sources said.
Richard Holbrooke, of course, is Obama's special envoy to the region.
This breakup has been coming ever since Obama took office back in January. The Obama Administration has never liked Hamid Karzai, whom they perceived as Bush's man in Kabul. And Karzai returned the favor, criticizing US activities in Afghanistan and campaigning with a distinctly anti-American slant in the recent presidential election.
The Obama Administration was probably hoping Karzai would be ousted in the election, and are angered that he likely resorted to cooking the results in his favor. That probably strikes Karzai as rank hypocrisy, since he's not exactly ignorant of American politics (Karzai used to be an Exxon executive)and knows all about Obama, ACORN and Chicago.
In any event, the real irony is that Obama needs Karzai if he plans on continuing to maintain any US presence in Afghanistan, and ticking him off over allegations of 'voter fraud' unless Obama plans an immediate pull out...which in fact might very well be the case.
Like most thing in Afghanistan, it comes down to tribalism.The Pathans are the dominant tribe in Afghanistan, any leader of Afghanistan has to be a Pathan and Karzai is the only Pathan leader capable of governing. In the current election, the only challenger anywhere close to Karzai's vote totals is Abdullah Abdullah, who's only half-Pathan ( his mother was a Tajik). And Abdullah Abdullah campaigned on tossing NATO out of the country and negotiating a truce with the Taliban.
Karzai is simply doing what any other Afghan warlord in his place would do - collecting tribute, rewarding his followers and doing what's necessary to stay in power.That's the kind of place it is, and expecting him to act with higher ethical standards than the ones shown in places like Cook County, Illinois is simply ridiculous.
It might be more productive for us to start figuring out what we're doing in Afghanistan and what we hope to achieve there. So far, I don't think Obama has a clue.
New Bill Would Give Obama 'Emergency' Control Of Internet
Declan McCullagh at CBS has the story....
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector.{...}
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process.There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
Two critical things that come to mind are the ability of Obama to simply declare a national emergency and then to require government control over the 'net,especially when it comes to requiring companies to share information...like the names, addresses, social security numbers and other data of 'dissidents', or the shutting down of websites criticizing Obama's policies. It's a Leftist wet dream.
Probably no president should be entitled to exercise this much power without oversight. But the current occupant of the White House has already shown some fairly authoritarian tendencies in this regard, and a real sensitivity to any dissent and criticism of his policies. While an actual policy for cybersecurity might be vital, Obama has already proven that he's not the man to be trusted to implement it.
This is real Reichstag fire territory. Contact your Congressmen. Now.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Obamacare Will Divulge IRS, Financial Info To Thousands Of Government Workers
Just another inconvenient truth about the Democrat's government -run healthcare bill..
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
The writer, Declan McCullagh goes on to attempt to debunk this a bit ( after all, it is CBS news) and suggest that the bill be changed a bit to limit access to private data. He might want to ask Joe the Plumber, the people reported at flag@whitehouse.gov or the millions who got partisan spam e-mails from David Axelrod courtesy of a marketing company paid for by your tax dollars about how likely any respect from the Obama Administration for individual privacy is...even if it's legislated.
An Inconvenient Point About Obama's Eulogizing Ted Kennedy
With all the pious mouthings coming out of Obama over the death of Ted Kennedy, it seems like there's something that's not being noticed.
As Tim Blair rightly points out, Obama best pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn dedicated their communist manifesto Prairie Fire to Sirhan Sirhan, among others - the Arab murderer of Ted Kennedy's brother, Robert F. Kennedy.
Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Obama's Coming Middle East Plan - A Disaster In The Making
This is still reportedly in the works, but the outline of Obama's brand spankin' new Middle East Peace Plan is apparently being worked on as I write this, and one of my notorious Little Birdies has given me a few details to work with.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were humiliated by the Arab's absolute refusal to toss any reciprocal concessions Israel's way in exchange for concessions by Israel. So naturally, the Obama Administration decided to concentrate on wringing more concessions out of Israel in the hopes of persuading the Saudis and the Arab League to give a little, because this time, hey, maybe it might work!
In fact, it won't, as the Arabs have made abundantly clear, most recently at the Fatah conference. But given the hostility towards Israel by Obama, that's the track that's being pursued.
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama's US Middle East envoy George Mitchell reportedly dickered back and forth at a meeting they had in London and reportedly came up with a deal on Israel's building homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria. The Israelis are reportedly offering a temporary 9 month freeze in these areas, although a number of already started projects will be completed. They're also committing not to build any new Jewish communities in these areas.
On Jerusalem Netanyahu and Mitchell have agreed to disagree, with Netanyahu stating that Israel will continue to build in its capitol and Mitchell saying that the US will continue to oppose construction in East Jerusalem. But the basic idea is that Netanyahu will limit construction in East Jerusalem and the US will limit its opposition to rhetoric.
What Israel is supposedly going to get in return is a harder US line on Iran. I've seen speculation on this several places. The US, along with Britain and France, is supposedly going to try to get the United Nations security council to expand sanctions to include Iran's oil and gas industry.
I personally doubt that, because I'm sure Netanyahu is smart enough to realize that Obama isn't going to be able to stop China or Russia from vetoing any meaningful sanctions. Not to mention the fact that EU countries like Germany who have a healthy trade with Iran aren't about to abide by any sanctions that do get through. The UN's Oil For Food scandal is a pretty good indication on how well that works. Obama isn't going to let America's military do anything personally to stop Iran's nukes, that's for damned sure. And I certainly don't see Israel trusting France or Britain (Britain??? Guffaw!) to do anything meaningful either.
I think a more likely scenario is something like this: in exchange for a temporary building freeze, Obama has promised to try to try and get some kind of symbolic concession out of the Arabs and to come up with whatever watered down sanctions the he can get through the UN, and if that doesn't work out by say, year end, he'll wink at the IDF taking out the Iranian nuke sites.
There are a number of things wrong with this scenario, from Israel's point of view and from America's.
First, Obama's new revelation on Iran (if in fact it even exists) is a day late and a dollar short. The mullahs are at most six months to a year from developing nuclear weapons, and their missile technology has progressed to solid fuel, putting all of Europe in range. The day is long past when sanctions can be expected to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This has implications for America as well, in that it will give Iran the power to shut off oil from the Persian Gulf any time it chooses.
Second, Israel already had a formal agreement with the US on Judea and Samaria, one made between President George Bush and Israeli PM Ariel Sharon. That agreement was that existing Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria would be part of Israel in any final settlement and that normal building would be allowed. And the Obama administration, aided and abetted by ex-President Bush's cowardice in keeping his mouth shut has simply pretended it doesn't exist.
If the Israelis go along with a freeze, they're essentially agreeing to waive the agreement they made with Bush, the entire basis by which Israel signed on to the Roadmap in the first place. Not only that, but they'd be making a new deal with an American administration that has already shown its hostility to Israel and its willingness to renege on any agreements it makes.
When it comes to Israel, Obama simply isn't part of their fan club. Just like his closest friends, advisers and associates. And don't be fooled by the Jews in his administration like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. They're simply ruthless and ambitious hard Left careerists who are primarily interested in their own power and aggrandizement. They've latched onto Obama and could care less about any 'anti- Zionist' policies the boss man comes out with as long as they maintain that connection.
Obama wants to appease the Muslims world and sees Israel as an obstruction,not an ally. As Victor Davis Hanson astutely pointed out, "to Obama, Israel is the exploiting Jewish landlord,the Palestinians are the oppressed tenant and Obama is the superior, all-knowing organizer-mediator who will give pep talks to the Palestinians on "responsibility" and "self-help" while drawing material concessions from the too wealthy Israeli building owner."
Obama will take whatever the Israelis give him and then ask for more, and there's no agreement Netanyahu could make with him that would be worth anything.
Imagine this scenario: Obama addresses the UN General Assembly in September, as he's scheduled to do. He has an informal agreement with Netanyahu along the lines mentioned above. But then, surrounded by the Arab nations in the anti-Israel UN, Obama unilaterally expands on that agreement, announcing a new plan that would substantially follow theSaudi peace ultimatum, which he's already endorsed.In exchange for an ill-defined 'comprehensive peace' with the Arabs, Obama calls for the Israelis to redivide Jerusalem and cede the Golan and the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria ( AKA the West Bank)to the Arabs, effectively making them judenrein and pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders Abba Eban aptly called 'the Auschwitz lines'. he calls fo rIsrael to unconditionally recognize a Palestinian state.
He doesn't address the other two parts of the Arab demands,releasing convicted murderers from Israeli prisons and swamping what's left of Israel with genocidal 'refugees'- for the present.
Instead he introduces a couple of new angles. He calls for his anti-Israel adviserSusan Powers' solution, imposing this new settlement and enforcing it with a UN peacekeeping force to establish 'security' along the new borders, which would work about as well as UNFIL has enforcing UN resolutions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. And as a 'confidence building measure' to facilitate negotiations with Iran, he demands that Israel sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and open its nuclear site to
Can you imagine the UN not jumping at the chance to vote for this as a binding resolution,particularly with American support? Would anyone listen to the Israelis protesting this rape of their country?
If Israel accepts anything like this, it will be national suicide. If they don't, they will be seriously isolated as a pariah nation and likely subject to massive sanctions for disobeying the UN diktat....which is probably what Obama intends.
Middle East peace for the Arabs has never been about 'settlements', 'occupation' or 'refugees'. It's always been about destroying Israel and the Jews. The ludicrous thing, the cosmic bad joke about the whole affair is that by helping destroy Israel, America and the EU are not buying themselves peace but paving the way for their own destruction. As the Iranians and others are fond of chanting, first the Little Satan, then the Big Satan.
Since Obama is likely to do this no matter what the Israelis agree to, they'd be far better off not bothering with making deals with him. Far better for them to simply hunker down and wait things out, concentrate on their own priorities and perhaps look for some new best friends. India and China look promising.
Posts
