Demonized in Damascus? Kucinich protests
One of the Obama administration’s sharpest critics on the left is coming in for some sharp criticism himself after what appeared to be a friendly visit to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich — an Ohio Democrat who has proposed ordering Obama to halt U.S. participation in NATO airstrikes in the Libya conflict — sat down with Assad in Damascus over the weekend and emerged to face accusations that he was getting too cozy with an autocrat whose security forces have killed some 1,300 people as they attempt to crush a revolt against his rule.
Kucinich said he made the trip, which also included a stop in Lebanon, on his own accord after being requested to go by his constituents.
“I don’t support the violence, I don’t condone the violence and by direct appeal to President Assad and in supporting those who are seeking freedom and serious reforms, I am working to end the violence. I appealed to President Assad to remove his forces from the cities. He told me he would, and today we learned that he has begun to do just that,” Kucinich said in a statement on his official website .
Kucinich’s statement came one day after the Washington Post’s editorial board accused him of “taking the side of Syria’s murderous dictator” in an editorial that blasted him as being too quick to believe Assad’s vague promises of reform.
“The only people who take the regime’s rhetoric seriously are those who wish to defend it, who excuse its horrendous crimes and who oppose genuine democracy in Syria. Mr. Kucinich has just made himself one of the more conspicuous members of that camp,” the Post said.
Washington Extra – The choice
President Barack Obama wants the “Arab spring” to bloom.
And that means having choice. The United States supports “the right to choose your own leaders — whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran,” he said in a much awaited Middle East speech.
For Syria: “President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”
In Libya, Obama didn’t think leader Muammar Gaddafi would be left with much choice. “When Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.”
On Israeli-Palestinian peace (something many U.S. presidents before him have tried to broker) the choice was left up to them. “Ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action.” And Obama saying any future deal should be based on Israel’s 1967 borders drew a swift Israeli retort that this was no choice at all.
Across the entire region, Obama said, was “a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people…”
But when all is said and done, the evolving reality of the younger generation may leave no choice but change. “Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.”
Washington Extra – Playing ball
The White House was clearly relieved to announce that at 6 a.m. GMT NATO took over the ball for running the military operation on Libya.
Not a minute too soon for members of Congress concerned that the United States could get bogged down in another war. “I sincerely hope that this is not the start of a third elongated conflict,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon said.
Republicans and Democrats say they want to play ball to prevent a government shutdown, but so far have not reached agreement on spending cuts.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said congressional leaders do not want a government shutdown and the public does not want to see spitball fights (we’d like to see polling on that).
Perhaps the two teams on Capitol Hill need to work it out on the ball field, like the “cricket diplomacy” being exercised by India and Pakistan.
No presidential first ceremonial pitch on this opening day of baseball season. Although that Bronx Zoo escapee which charmed 200,000 followers on Twitter with its cobra chit-chat made it to Yankee Stadium.
The real misssssing snake has been found (was it curled up in a ball?). Will it continue tweeting from captivity?
And today’s word from Washington is … stalemate
Congress has it. Gaddafi wants it. And President Obama is trying to figure out how best to avoid it. What is it? The answer: stalemate (noun \ˈstāl-ˌmāt\) … that unsatisfying state of affairs in which there can be no action or progress.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the four-star U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman, conceded the possibility of a stalemate in Libya way back on March 20, a day after U.S. forces and their allies started raining high explosives on Muammar Gaddafi’s military infrastructure and ground forces.
The acknowledgment raised worries that a stalemate would allow Gaddafi’s government to live to fight another day — in perpetuity – while delivering an embarrassing defeat to the U.S. and its allies.
The stalemate hobgoblin has haunted the U.S. debate on Libya ever since. The possibility is now increasingly palpable on the ground in Libya, where rag-tag rebel forces are demonstrating their inability to cope with pro-Gaddafi fighters, even as aircraft can be heard screaming overhead in prelude to the heavy thump of ordnance in the distance.
Obama and his advisers are said to be in a fierce debate about whether to arm the Libyan rebels in hopes of ejecting Gaddafi and avoiding a stalemate.
But Obama may face a more immediate stalemate threat at home. In Congress, the bombastic budget battle over government spending is not only pitting Democrats against Republicans, but Republicans against their newly minted Tea Party brethren. GOP rising star Marco Rubio, a Floridian Tea Party favorite, says he won’t vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it’s the last vote of its kind and accompanied by momentous tax, regulatory and fiscal reforms.
Do these things speak of dialogue? Perhaps two little children shall lead them.
Obama defends Libya policy during hectic New York day
President Barack Obama followed up his speech to the nation defending his Libya policy on Monday night with a whirlwind visit to New York City. He explained the policy in three network news interviews (ABC, NBC, CBS) — at the city’s famed Museum of Natural History.
Then he made a quick visit to a kids’ science fair, joking to the high school students that they are smarter than he is, before dedicating the new Ronald H. Brown U.S. Mission to the United Nations building.
There his Libya strategy was applauded by a roomful of diplomats and endorsed by a Democratic predecessor, ex-President Bill Clinton, the husband of his secretary of state.
“I had to apologize to President Clinton before we walked out because he never sees his wife,” Obama joked as he began his remarks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was flying back from her latest overseas mission — a quick trip to London for an international conference on Libya.
Bill Clinton got big applause at the dedication of the new U.S. Mission to the UN when he said Brown, who was his commerce secretary and died in a plane crash while traveling to the Balkans, would have approved of the action in Libya.
“He would be very proud that Barack Obama became president of the United States, and very proud of you, Mr. President, for what you are doing in Libya, with the international community.”
Mohammed Albdel-Rahman Shalgam, who was Libya’s UN ambassador until he spoke out against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and all of the ambassadors from UN Security Council member countries were in the audience.
In Libya speech, Obama reminds Americans of their country’s birth by revolution
Americans take great pride in how their country was formed through a spirit of rebellion and revolution that overcame tyranny.
And President Barack Obama managed to tie that ultimate banner of American patriotism to his decision for military action on Libya in one simple sentence, hoping it will resonate with the public and soothe concerns about another intervention in the Middle East.
“Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way,” Obama said.
“Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith — those ideals — that are the true measure of American leadership.”
Obama also appealed to other ideals that people like to live by — the desire to make a difference for the good and not to turn a blind eye to atrocities.
“The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference,” he said in a speech at National Defense University.
“In this particular country -– Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence,” Obama said.
Bush lied to the nation to get his war for political capital. And he changed his story several times as each one was exposed as a lie. Obama has been very straightforward as to why he commmitted forces to Libya, and the goals in Lybia are clear. With Bush, we never really knew what the object of the mission was. We still don’t know.
Washington Extra – Some explaining to do
Critics say President Barack Obama has some explaining to do.
So tonight he plans to do just that in a speech on U.S. military involvement in Libya at the National Defense University.
One question clearly on people’s minds is when will it end? But clarity on that question is unlikely since Obama himself probably doesn’t know right now.
It’s turned into a NATO operation, which means more countries have more say in decisions — although obviously the United States remains a key player.
Republicans have plenty of questions for Obama. For example, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wants to know: “What is the role of our military and military alliance in providing support to an opposition that we are only now beginning to understand?”
But most of all, members of Congress want Obama to state clearly that he will consult them on any future military operations.
We’ll see at 7:30 p.m. whether Obama’s speech offers answers or raises more questions.
Washington Extra – Let’s talk
Members of Congress have been complaining all week (while out of town on a weeklong break) that they weren’t given enough information when President Barack Obama moved ahead with military action on Libya.
What is the goal in Libya? How will the goal be achieved? Explain, explain, explain! they demanded (while Obama was on a Latin America trip).
So today, Obama held a conference call with leaders of Congress from both parties to consult on Libya, and he plans to address the public in the “very near future” (although not today), White House spokesman Jay Carney said. “We take the need to consult very seriously,” he said.
Congress returns next week and so there will be plenty more calls for more consultation.
No matter which party controls Congress or the White House, when the president makes a big decision, sometimes feelings get hurt on the Hill with lawmakers believing they did not have enough of a say (which can actually offer good cover for unpopular decisions).
Sometimes a trip to the White House for consultation can smooth ruffled feathers. We’re guessing it’s going to take more than a conference call this time.
Here are our top stories from Washington…
Reuters/Ipsos poll: Obama seen as cautious commander-in-chief
The military operation on Libya has once again put President Barack Obama’s commander-in-chief credentials to the test, and nearly half of Americans — 48 percent — describe his style as “cautious and consultative,” according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Obama was seen by 36 percent as “indecisive and dithering”, and the fewest, 17 percent, viewed Obama as a “strong and decisive” commander of the armed forces.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll interviewed 975 adults online and was conducted on March 22, three days after the bombing campaign was launched against Libya to impose a no-fly zone.
When it comes to spending for military operations on Libya, Americans say the financial cost is justified 51-49 percent. But when they are told the price tag is $100 million a day, the number who say it is justified falls to 43 percent with 57 percent disagreeing.
A majority, 60 percent, support U.S. and allied military action in Libya and there is little difference between Democrats, 65 percent, and Republicans, 63 percent. An even greater number, 79 percent, say U.S. and Western allies should seek to remove Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
As for solutions if the air strikes fail to restrain Gaddafi, Americans were divided about what should be done next — 25 percent said the U.N. should send peacekeeping troops, 23 percent said increase air strikes and 20 percent said send in special forces. There was very little support, 7 percent, for sending in ground troops, which Obama has said he will not do.
Fifteen percent said none of those actions should be taken, and 29 percent said they don’t know.
The Obama Derangement Syndrome gripping the right has reached truly comical proportions. Next, they will be saying he’s not even an American citizen.
What would Gingrich do?
President Obama may be in hot water with lawmakers who think the U.S.-led military mission in Libya is a big mistake. But some GOP voices are calling for an escalation of U.S. involvement — or at least an expansion of U.S. goals.
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, tells NBC’s Today show that the United States will face defeat in Libya if the current mission ends with Muammar Gaddafi still in power.
People might have a hard time arguing with that point.
But what would he do now, if he were president?
Gingrich’s answer sounds just like the message John McCain conveyed on the same TV show a day earlier, when he called for arming the Libyan rebels to ensure the end of Gaddafi’s 41-year rule.
“We should be very clear to the Libyans that Gaddafi is going to go,” Gingrich says. ”We should help equip the Libyan rebels.” Otherwise he’d let the Pentagon, the CIA, etc, determine what needs to be done “to win”.
But there may be problems with the arm-the-rebels idea. Reports from the field suggest the rag-tag Libyan rebel force wouldn’t be able to defeat Gaddafi in its present state. According to accounts, some rebels are so innocent of martial tactics that they may not even be sure which end of the gun goes ‘Bang!”
Newt Gingrich famously said, “It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
So I guess the answer to the question posed by this article is, It doesn’t matter what Gingrich would do, only what he says OTHER people should do.
