ObamaOdrama

The Washington Post reports that congressional Republicans and Democrats both agree to disagree with Obama on closing Guantanamo Bay if detainees end up on U.S. soil.

The Democratic-led House Appropriations Committee yesterday passed a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while stripping the more than $50 million that administration officials had requested for closing the prison and starting the relocation of its 240 prisoners.
Lawmakers criticized the administration for not yet offering a detailed plan on prisoner relocation.
Republicans, who have said the issue is an example of Obama’s weakness on national security, accused the president of endangering Americans. They proposed legislation dubbed the “Keep Terrorists Out of America Act,” which would bar moving Guantanamo prisoners to a U.S. facility unless the receiving state’s governor and legislature approved.
“Our constituents don’t want these terrorists in their neighborhoods,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.).
But several Democrats have joined Republicans in saying they do not want Guantanamo prisoners in their states or districts. When officials in Hardin, Mont., a city that has a prison with no inmates, said they would accept detainees from Guantanamo Bay, the state’s Democratic senators shot down the idea.
“You cannot close Guantanamo unless you have a plan,” said Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
“I wouldn’t want them, and I wouldn’t take them,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “I don’t see a solution.”

When an administration has scratched the word terrorist from it vocabulary, it doesn’t take much to appreciate Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that United States will not release anyone considered a terrorists into the country.

The AP reports that before a House Armed Services subcommittee, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency, and other military leaders delivered prepared testimonies that described the U.S. military’s cyber capabilities as inadequate and unable to keep pace with external threats.

As you might recall last month, the Pentagon “released” a flood of reports citing cyber-attacks on the U.S. designed to bring cybersecurity to the forefront of national attention.  On April 7th, the Pentagon claimed it spent more than $100 million in the last six months responding to cyber attacks.  The next day, a story about the U.S. electrical grid being infiltrated by cyberspies was “leaked” to the press.  On April 21st, the Pentagon claimed cyberspies hacked into its $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project.

it’s no surprise these testimonies come shortly before the Obama administration will release its review of our nation’s cybersecurity.  And, it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what the review will conclude.  Move over right-wing extremists.  There’s a new threat on the block and I’m sure it will require all Americans to make sacrifices for the common good.  I’m sure Obama will command his Democratic army to move swiftly in passing legislation granting him real ultimate power of the internet at the same time he assures the sleepy American people he really doesn’t want anything to do with the internets.

Yeah we’ve heard this “sacrifice” spiel before… ironic since Obama wasn’t willing to sacrifice his blackberry despite security concerns. 

P.S.  The legislation has been in the works since the April fools long before the administration began ginning up this crisis.

Back in June, as the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Obama made the following statements at an annual American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) meeting in Washington:

“There’s no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran.”

“The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

Speaking before 300 major APAIC donors on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel addressed how Obama plans to eliminate that threat:

Thwarting Iran’s nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Israeli TV reports said Monday that Emanuel made the comments in a closed-door meeting the previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors.

Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem’s commitment to the peace process.

Not really a surprise considering back in June, Obama also said:

“As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing…”

And backed that statement up with a special Nowruz YouTube message for Iran’s mullahs.

Just another example of the Obama administration pushing the reset button.

Corky Boyd over at Island Turtle posted an incredibly revealing morning talk radio interview with bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria who represents a handful of hedge funds holding Chrysler debt.  In the interview, Tom Lauria revealed that the Obama administration threatened to destroy his client’s reputation via “the full force of the White House Press Corps” if the client didn’t accept the government’s proposed Chrysler restructuring plan.

Here is the tape of Beckman’s interview of Lauria. The relevant portions begin at the 1:30 mark. Listen to it.

Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That’s a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.

Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

Naturally, the White House denies the claims.  It appears that so does Perella Weinberg (bold text added for emphasis)?

Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.

We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’ money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.



While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.

In outlining the plan for Chrysler’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy announced on Thursday, April 30 and Obama’s recent statements about shrinking the financial sector by heavily regulating risk-taking, there is no mistaking Obama’s position. 

When Obama wants to change the fundamentals of what makes America the strongest economy in the world, when he looks to lesser economies for direction, and he punishes individuals for the benefit of others, it’s clear the Obama doesn’t think very highly of capitalism or those who practice it.

Fox News reports:

The Justice Department acknowledged Saturday that the Obama administration is considering reviving the military commission system that the president criticized in the past for prosecuting terrorism suspects held at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But the system would likely include changes, particularly ones to afford greater due process to the accused, the Justice Department said in a statement in response to a story by The New York Times.

Following a town hall meeting in northern Virginia on Saturday, GOP leaders seemed to revel in Obama’s apparent change of heart.

“I think that President Obama is learning now that he is in office that a number of the things that he campaigned against and opposed, he was actually wrong on,” former presidential candidate Mitt Romney told FOX News.

Having based his entire presidential campaign on attacking the Bush administration and its policies to distinguish himself as an agent of change, it would appear that Obama’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.