WikiLeaks: US shocked at EU 'fixation' with privacy and oversight

It's not as though many in Washington really gave or give a damn about privacy. As long as this one way street continues, everyone benefits from WikiLeaks information. How sad that oversight is regarded with such contempt by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

“Paranoia runs deep especially about US intelligence agencies,” a secret cable from the American Embassy in Berlin said. “We were astonished to learn how quickly rumors about alleged U.S. economic espionage” had taken root among German politicians who opposed the bank-monitoring program, it said.

The memo was among dozens of State Department cables that revealed the deep distrust of some traditional European allies toward what they considered American intrusion into their citizens’ affairs without stringent oversight.

The program, created in secrecy by the Bush administration after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has allowed American counterterrorism officials to examine reams of banking transactions routed through a vast database run by a Brussels consortium known as Swift. When the program was disclosed in 2006 by The New York Times, just months after the newspaper reported the existence of the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program, it set off protests in Europe and forced the United States to accept new restrictions.

Read the rest of this post...

Obama is off criticizing Democrats again

At what point will Democrats on the Hill learn that this man is not their friend. He singlehandedly brought down Democratic control of the House, and now he's still playing the "pox on both your houses" game. Here is an excerpt of the President's statement about the tax cut cave:

I know there’s some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession/

I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe.

So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories.

I just want everybody to remember over the course of the coming days, both Democrats and Republicans, that these are not abstract fights for the families that are impacted.

We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems.

This is a blueprint for this President's approach to any problem. Rationalize, then cave. He actually thinks he's a hero. The problem is that this President doesn't understand that he keeps agreeing to deals that are far less than he could have gotten had he simply tried.

It's not about not preferring compromise, and anyone who thinks that that's what this is about is a fool. It's about always preferring compromise, and worse, compromising with yourself. It's about always striving for less because you just can't bring yourself to fight for anything. Read the rest of this post...

They're only symbolic battles when you never intend to fight

Symbolic battles?

In brief remarks Monday evening, Obama said he was disappointed that the deal would extend breaks for the wealthiest households, but he warned Democrats not to make good on threats to allow all the cuts to expire, as an expression of the party's opposition to preserving the top-rate cuts. "Sympathetic as I am to those who would prefer a fight to compromise -- it would be the wrong thing to do," the president said. "The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles."

And that is the problem, isn't it. The President just can't conceive of actually fighting for anything, and in fact, he seems to view the notion with distaste.

So, yes, if you're afraid/don't know how to/don't believe in fight(ing), you would per se see any fight as symbolic because you know you're going to lose, simply because you're opening strategy is always to throw the fight.

Symbolic battles. Try symbolic presidency. Read the rest of this post...

Obama caved; Social Security is next

Sucks to be us. Obama caved. And the Social Security theft is already being sold as a way to pay for the Rich Boy tax cuts (h/t Digby, who has a great article up). Bloomberg:

Lawmakers may embrace plans by President Barack Obama’s debt commission to curb the costs of Social Security and $1 trillion in tax breaks even as comprehensive deficit reduction hinges on whether both parties seek confrontation or accommodation.

Gee, who'da thought? (Sucker.)

Note this list of names, from Digby. Suspects all:

This view about Social Security is backed up by Peter Orszag, recently departed from the administration (and reportedly headed to Citi), Dick Durbin, the president's proxy in the Senate, ex-labor leader Andy Stern along with numbers of Democratic Senators, signaling that Social Security really is on the menu.

Orszag is a known quantity, a made man. But Durbin and Stern still have some cred. Watch them carefully, especially Durbin. He'll be re-burnishing lib-cred shortly. Don't be dazzled.

You knew this was a war, didn't you? Gird up; it's (sadly) the times we were born to. Others have had it this bad; it just bad luck. When the Romans marched in, everything changed, and no one got a vote on it. Sucks to be us, but hey.

Note of hope — watch the House. If they have to re-vote on what the Senate vomits up, things could get interesting. Got a local "Democrat" representative? Sharpen those quills (politely, of course) and write.

GP

UPDATE: Cave confirmed. Sam Stein of Huff Post is on Countdown now (hosted by the intelligent Sam Seder) calling the deal a "capitulation."

UPDATE 2: Conyers is opposed, and Sanders (via The Ed Show) may filibuster. One can only hope. Read the rest of this post...

Looks like a deal was reached on tax cuts and UE benefits

UPDATE: From the NYT:

But Congressional Democrats have expressed increasing anger that the payroll tax cut and the jobless aid, which Mr. Obama demanded in exchange for continuing the Bush-era tax rates for the highest-income Americans, were not enough in return for such a big concession.

The payroll tax cut would put about $120 billion back in the pockets of workers and the unemployment benefits would cost about $60 billion, officials said. Continuing the lowered tax rates for the highest-earners, by contrast, would cost the government $700 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years, according to budget analysts.

The White House was also said to have agreed to Republican demands on the estate tax that would result in an exemption of $5 million per person and a maximum rate of 35 percent. Some Democratic aides said that concession alone was reason enough for Democratic lawmakers to oppose the deal when it comes up for votes in the House and Senate.

UPDATE: WSJ says it's indeed the Social Security tax. It's not terribly clear how taking more money out of Social Security helps. Not to mention, tax cuts are some of the worst stimulus - the President already made that mistake once. Now we're doing it again.

UPDATE: Here are the details. I just read that this means they cut the money that goes into Social Security for a year, so that we can give people yet another useless tax cut that won't stimulate the economy. More to come.

From the White House:

6:10PM THE PRESIDENT will make a statement to the press on tax cuts and unemployment insurance

The irony here is that the President should have been able to block the tax cuts for the rich, and get the unemployment benefit extension, both without having to give up a thing. The tax cut extension for the rich is polling at 26%. As for cutting off unemployment benefits to millions of Americans right before Christmas, imagine how well that would have flown with the American people.

The problem, however, is that the President doesn't know how to negotiate, and Democrats across the board have no idea how to market anything. Let's wait and see what the President actually agreed to, but if past is prologue, it's going to be a doozy. Read the rest of this post...

Elizabeth Edwards very ill: 'further treatment for her cancer would be unproductive'

This is a sad story on many levels. Read the rest of this post...

WikiLeaks: Saudi Arabia a terrorist ATM

So it confirms what everyone already thought. If ever there was a time for the US to get serious about fuel efficiency and moving beyond oil, it would be now. The addiction to oil continues to be a national security nightmare. Instead of wasting money on flawed programs like the TSA, we ought to be focusing much more on moving forward. Sure, the Democrats are somewhat better but anyone is better than the Stone Age apologists in the GOP. It's hardly impressive to say "we're better" in that competition.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

Read the rest of this post...

A reader's friend writes about her recent TSA experience

Had a good time in Orlando but, the airports on my way home were horrible!! At Orlando I walk through metal detector it beeps the Guard yells alert female and tells or more like yells step in here and points to a glass box and stands at the entrance, as though my shocked and scared facial expression didn't guaranty I wouldn't make a run. I asked what was wrong and nothing. I'm standing there in a clear box and the other passengers look at me as if I was a suspect/criminal. It seemed as if I was in there forever when another agent opens the back and states she had to test my fingers and proceeded to wipe my hands. She doesn't explain just tells me to step back and closes the door. Still in the glass cage being watched. I bet the other passengers were thinking they were glad it was me not them!! Finally, she comes back and says I was negative with no explanation and tells me I can proceed. Since my plane was delayed I had to stay in Atlanta and what happens when I am going through security? I get selected to go through the X-ray machine. The agent says spread your legs by putting your feet on the yellow feet on the floor and hands above your head like the picture. Again. In a glass while other passengers watched. To make things worse you have to stay in that position until they ok your X-ray. Terrible, Terrible experience!!!

Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: Obama shouldn't cave on tax cuts

I'm posting this for historical reasons only. Paul Krugman's Monday column made a last ditch attempt to tell "The Incredible Shrinking President" why he shouldn't give in to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts (my emphasis throughout):

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. ... America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

And we’re not talking about government programs nobody cares about: the only way to cut spending enough to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the long run would be to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare.

Which certainly is part of the plan. (Remember: The crisis is always the plan.) As one commenter smartly pointed out yesterday, passing the Bush tax cuts will immediate turn up the heat on the deficit discussion. By my count, immediately means within the same news cycle; they won't even get to catch their breath. "From your pocket to mine, sucker" indeed.

But what about the presumed necessity of continuing some of the tax cuts? The Professor handles that, and even includes numbers:

A few months ago, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the impact of various tax options. A two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, it estimated, would lower the unemployment rate next year by between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points compared with what it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to expire; the effect would be about twice as large in 2012. Those are significant numbers, but not huge — certainly not enough to justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears about what will happen if the tax cuts are allowed to end on schedule.

And remember: (1) when Conservatives say "jobs" they mean "profits"; and (2) when Conservatives say "small business" they mean "Bechtel" and "law firms." A difference of, say 0.2% in actual unemployment (as opposed to shouted unemployment) is within the noise of month-to-month jumps. Compelling arguments all.

Not that any of this will matter to Mr. Yes I can (And You Can't Stop Me). According to the New York Times, the deal is almost done.

So consider this a posting for the record. He was told not to on the day he's deciding to, and the Professor even gave him numbers. You can't say he never had a chance.

We should have elected a Democrat.

GP

UPDATE: Obama just caved. Read the rest of this post...

Hill source: Obama's insistence on START is dooming DADT

Some said the gays wanted too much too soon. Well, we're now about to get nothing for another generation. Hate to say we told you so, but we did. Read the rest of this post...

Wall Street continues to debate early bonus season to avoid taxes

Again, let the industry go under the next time there's a crisis. This has to be the most self-centered industry that we've seen in a long time. Every move is about protecting their lifestyle at the expense of others. What's worse is that Congress and the White House remains too afraid to call them out. This is class warfare against the middle class and poor but that's what happens when we get stuck with a Wall Street government.

At stake is a portion of the hefty annual payouts that are a familiar part of the compensation culture on Wall Street, as well as a juicy target of popular anger. If Congress does not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a typical worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year, depending on base salary.

Goldman Sachs is one of the companies discussing how to time bonus season, according to three people who have been briefed on the discussions. Pay consultants who work with major Wall Street companies say that just about every other large bank has also considered such a move in recent weeks.

With tax politics in Washington unpredictable, bank executives have spent months sketching out several options for their bonus plans, including the possibility of an earlier payout. Lawmakers have been trading accusations across a partisan divide, but after this weekend, it appears likely that a compromise will extend the tax cuts for all income levels.

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President is heading to North Carolina. He'll be in Winston-Salem at Forsyth Technical Community College. Expect him to make some remarks about the deal he's working on with Senate GOPers. John wrote a post about the grand deal last night. According to the New York Times, Obama has agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for several years. The Times notes, "In return, Republicans said they would probably agree to extend jobless aid for the long-term unemployed. GOPers are going to extend unemployment benefits in return." The operative word there is "probably." Boy, that Obama is one tough negotiator -- with himself.

None of this bodes well for DADT. In fact, today, the National Journal is reporting:

DON’T EVEN ASK. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on Saturday that he did not think it was possible to meet Republican demands for an open amendment process on the Defense authorization bill, which would include a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The open amendment process could doom the Defense bill. Even Republicans who support the provisions, such as Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, say they won’t back cloture on the Defense bill without an open amendment process. Politically, both sides may be willing to see the bill to die on a cloture vote, hoping to blame the each other for killing it.

At 1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT, a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. That's the Prop. 8 case. Our side, led by Ted Olson and David Boies won in August. The state of California is not appealing. Anti-gay intervenors have appealed the case. We're going to host a live chat at AMERICAblog Gay during the arguments, which will be aired live on C-SPAN. Our chat will begin at 12:30 PM ET. We'll be joined by USC Constitutional Law Professor David Cruz.

Never dull. Read the rest of this post...

WikiLeaks: al-Jazeera bends to editorial pressure from Qatar

The right wingers who called for the head of Julian Assange will be praising him with this news. It does also raise some questions related to the shocking Fifa World Cup news last week. The Guardian:

Qatar is using the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders and offering to cease critical transmissions in exchange for major concessions, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim.

The memos flatly contradict al-Jazeera's insistence that it is editorially independent despite being heavily subsidised by the Gulf state.

They will also be intensely embarrassing to Qatar, which last week controversially won the right to host the 2022 World Cup after presenting itself as the most open and modern Middle Eastern state.

Read the rest of this post...

Switzerland ignores pressure to bring down WikiLeaks

Maybe they don't really care about Joe Lieberman's threats.

WikiLeaks received a boost tonight when Switzerland rejected growing international calls to force the site off the internet.

The whistleblowers site, which has been publishing leaked US embassy cables, was forced to switch domain names to WikiLeaks.ch yesterday after the US host of its main website, WikiLeaks.org, pulled the plug following mounting political pressure.

The site's new Swiss host, Switch, today said there was "no reason" why it should be forced offline, despite demands from France and the US. Switch is a non-profit registrar set up by the Swiss government for all 1.5 million Swiss .ch domain names.

Read the rest of this post...