Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Of his many promises during the 2008 Presidential campaign, one of the most appealing was Barack Obama's pledge to make his administration "the most open and transparent in history." The democratizing tools mastered at MyBarackObama.com and the inspiring grassroots enthusiasm for the Obama campaign opened the door to a Presidency that--in stark contrast to the eight years before it--could be an honest conversation with the American people. This week we are launching a new project to continue that effort; more on that in a moment.
Like many of the issues that Barack Obama now confronts as President, prioritizing his campaign promise of open government and meaningful dialogue with citizens has proved challenging. After some interesting forays into interaction at change.gov during the transition, The White House itself has not yet found it's way forward on interactivity.
As newspapers struggle nationwide, and citizens demand more transparency in the wake of unprecedented government action on the economy, I believe this is a critical moment to advance participatory, bottom-up journalism and citizen engagement. Interest in our new President is at a peak, and instituting an independent and sensible way for the people to have a platform at the highest levels of government is essential to informed debate and progress on the changes many of us hope to see over the next four years.
In that spirit The Nation, with several partners, is launching a new initiative, "Ask the President," to advance citizen voices and participatory media at The White House. The idea is simple: at www.communitycounts.com/ Obama, anyone can submit a question for President Obama, written or by video. Site visitors then vote on the questions, with the most popular and pressing ones rising to the top. We will then send a credentialed journalist into formal Obama Administration press conferences to ask the leading citizen questions. Presently we are in conversations with the Administration about this effort.
Our coalition includes new and traditional media from across the political spectrum, including: The Nation, The Washington Times, Personal Democracy Forum, Change.org, Democrats.com, Care2.com, Citizens for Civil Discourse, Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist), Professor Larry Lessig; Professor Hugh Hewitt (HughHewitt.com); The Field Blog; Jack and Jill Politics Blog; Culture Kitchen Blog and the Smart Mobs blog, among others.
So far, initial conversations about this project with The White House have been encouraging. We see this as an innovation that President Obama should welcome--an independent, cooperative way to forward the President's promise of transparent government that empowers voices beyond Washington.
You can read the proposal in more detail by checking out Ari Melber's article in the current issue of The Nation; then go and submit your questions now at Ask the President.
The technology, of course, is a means to an end: an engaged and excited electorate having a spirited debate with the President. Granted, this is only one question at a semi-regular event, but as journalism transforms and technology shifts, Ask the President could help to democratize the reporting and prioritizing of political news, and encourage the Obama administration to keep a critical promise. It's just a first step, but one that we believe is well worth taking.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"The technology, of course, is a means to an end: an engaged and excited electorate having a spirited debate with the President."
I'm sorry, you REALLY think that that's going to happen.
Nothing against Obama nor ANY President (Repub or Dem) to come, but the President of the United States, especially in a world of economic and foreign policy crises, doesn't have the time to "have a spirited debate" with Joe and Mary Smith of Pleasantville.
He'll take some questions. Maybe include a few responses in a Saturday morning address. But it won't be a "debate".
Posted by Mask at 03/20/2009 @ 11:55am
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/20/2009 @ 10:30am - in part:
"We will then send a credentialed journalist into formal Obama Administration press conferences to ask the leading citizen questions."
Any journalist who needs a committee to tell him/her what important questions to ask is in the wrong line of work.
Posted by Incoming at 03/20/2009 @ 12:11pm
sounds safer than the oprahfied tour thing...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/20/2009 @ 12:12pm
KVH, everyone with a problem doesn't need nor require the president to "fix" whatever is wrong with their little corner of the world. That's what local and state government are for.
This country cannot afford to have the leader of the free world wasting his time reading useless emails from every fringe group that has an agenda of its own. Look, no body said being the President was going to be an easy job. So he needs to really get his sh*t together and start coming up with his own ideas and proposals and present them with clarity, and confidence. No one will take him seriously until he does.
And he can start by getting rid of Tim Geitner.
Posted by ACook at 03/20/2009 @ 12:19pm
I think Mr. Obama and his Ship of Fools.....need more TelePrompters......before handling more questions!
Posted by Happy at 03/20/2009 @ 1:01pm
Mr. President, some have said your assumptions are optimistic and that today, you do agree with Sen. McCain as to the fundamentally sound nature of our economy, then, can you explain why the CBO's projections is for our deficits to increase by over $10,000,000,000,000 in the next 10 years????
$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years
Mar 20 12:20 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget....
The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy....
Posted by Happy at 03/20/2009 @ 1:34pm
Mask,
You say "...Nothing against Obama nor ANY President (Repub or Dem) to come, but the President of the United States, especially in a world of economic and foreign policy crises, doesn't have the time to "have a spirited debate" with Joe and Mary Smith of Pleasantville.
He'll take some questions. Maybe include a few responses in a Saturday morning address. But it won't be a "debate"...."
Mask, you forget that when some people ask questions, they may actually be pertinent and probing and well-thought out and meaningful questions, and there may be benefit for the President to have a spirited debate with "Joe and Mary Smith".
Joe and Mary aren't necessarily going to ask the kind of questions that you ask, which are usually meant to irritate and annoy people.
Posted by sjchermak at 03/20/2009 @ 2:19pm
I think Mr. Obama and his Ship of Fools.....need more TelePrompters......before handling more questions!
Posted by Happy at 03/20/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Do you think he should get one of those 'black box' things on his back like **your** President had?
Posted by Lillian at 03/20/2009 @ 3:01pm
It would be so homey to have the President just chat with taxpayers, wouldn't it? What could he possibly have to do that could be more important than listening to a deluge of sob stories in the form of suggestive questions from "victims" seeking cash for beer and cigarettes? The democratic beauty of it brings tears to my eyes!
Posted by jsens at 03/20/2009 @ 3:08pm
Do you think he should get one of those 'black box' things on his back like **your** President had?
Posted by Lillian at 03/20/2009 @ 3:01pm
BUWAHAHAHAA.
Ohhh, it is so nice to have a president that speaks English, has a sense of humor, actually answers questions and seems to know what is going on in the country. A breath of fresh air in the foul swamp created by our Masters of the Universe and their former cheerleader in chief. Wasn't he the "CEO" president? What they meant was the CEO'S president.
Don't you just love how the fair weather most patriotic among us are really getting behind their president? Why, it was not long ago that they were excoriating all of us lefties for not supporting the policies of our Commander in Chirf, policies that got us into this quagmire and that quagmire. Now it is they that offer no solutions, no answers, just baby whining about how they don't like the way Obama is trying to fix Georges vast errors. Daily I can visit The Nation blogs and read the cons being what they hated.... 8 months ago.
Hypocrites to the max, dudes and duddettes.
What was that phrase of old from one of their more sage posters..."...the crack up is a beautiful sight to behold".
Posted by crabwalk at 03/20/2009 @ 5:32pm
Posted by ACook at 03/20/2009 @ 12:19pm
where does it say the the pres is going to take questions about every little problem? Projection again?
This idea is not much different that the Town Hall style "debates" that we were fed during the last 2 elections. You cons are really funny. The Nation posts an idea about being a clearing house for questions, and you take it way way way out to left field. Are you seeking the goalposts you moved into the concession stand last Nov?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/20/2009 @ 5:39pm
Like... after Helen Thomas was refused access to GWB's press conferences for three years... her first question upon being 'allowed' to come back in and do her job was:
"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?"
Although this 'appointing of media delegates' makes me nervous for obvious reasons... I think your presentation of the benefits of this type of presidential contact and feedback is clear and warranted.
...and the mere possibility... and the ease with which it might be accepted... are wafting in through the windows like a fresh spring day!
Posted by ttr at 03/20/2009 @ 6:03pm
"I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?"
It is a great idea to have "laypersons" ask the questions, as Helen Thomas, who I assume is an American, doesn't even know what foreigners have been able to ascertain by examining the record. Ms Editor's approach is thus sensible and sure to be interesting and informative.
For Helen Thomas's information there are three answers to her naive questions:
1. The removal of the Saddam regime from power was American policy from 1998. ( For those Americans not sure of their history Bush did not become president until 2000 so 2000-1998 is 2 years give or take a few months).
2. The intelligence about Iraq's probable intentions and capacity, since proven to be hopelessly inaccurate, (American intelligence of course, so why should we expect Helen to ask an intelligent question? ) demanded a swift response, in light of the then recent 9/11 event.
3. The October 2002 pro-war authorisation given by Congress after perusing the same intelligence Bush was given.
Any intelligent president could only come to the conclusion that the authority given to him to go to war, by the Congress, was a strong confirmation that his reading of the intelligence was correct and the action proposed was also the right action to take.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/20/2009 @ 7:41pm
by lrjones4 at 03/20/2009 @ 7:41pm...
His reading of the intelligence was as one sided as your interpretation of his actions... which proves my point.
GWB was unable to field unprepared-for questions from professional journalists... because to do so would have blown his 'cover' of objectivity...
Democracy only functions where transparency reigns... and 'Freedom of the Press' means more than being free to choose what press you (as president) are willing to talk to... or whether you condescend to to speak to them at all.
Helen Thomas spoke for hundreds of millions of people that day... and she would have years sooner, but... the president said no.
That wasn't Democracy, lrjones4...
I'm convinced that part of our problem these days stems from the lesson learned by the Germans and Italians back in the 40's and 50's... namely... that the transition from fascism to democracy is not an easy one... even when it is what most everyone wants.
Guns into plowshares, my friends... from dominance to husbandry... from telling to listening... from anger to peace... from hate into love... from now into tomorrows.
Posted by ttr at 03/20/2009 @ 9:28pm
by lrjones4 at 03/20/2009 @ 7:41pm...
"His reading of the intelligence was as one sided as your interpretation of his actions... which proves my point. "
Posted by ttr at 03/20/2009 @ 9:28pm
Could I suggest you read a little more slowly and forget rushing on to your Judeo/Christian allusion let alone your inadequacies in understanding what fascism was and is. You may be a poet where understanding of language and plain meaning is less important and which has possibly blinded you to the obvious implications of your recent political history. (Far be it from me to say that you are just another uniformed/deluded ideologue).
eg. If the majority of Congress (who were given the opportunity to read the October 2002 NIE ) voted to give GW virtual carte blanch wrt Iraq, the question most non-poets should be asking is why? Did they all also read that report through GW's spectacles? Or were they just a stupid bunch of American politicians waiting to be told by Bush what to think? Come on, you Americans surely aren't all so stupid that you believe that?
You haven't answered that or the other two objections I raised to the inadequate understanding of your history displayed by "young" Helen's naive line of questioning.
If you like to hum me a Bach fugue I'll settle for that but don't try all that poetic bullshit on me as I don't have a responsive bone in my body. On the other hand, facts and the valid implications that can be drawn from them turn me on.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/20/2009 @ 10:49pm
by lrjones4 at 03/20/2009 @ 10:49pm...
Could I suggest... forget rushing... your inadequacies... was and is... plain meaning is less important... has possibly blinded you... implications of your recent... uniformed/deluded ideologue... non-poets... inadequate understanding of history... naive line of questioning... hum me a Bach fugue... poetic bullshit... valid implications... turn me on...
Whatever dude...;^)
Its time to move on.
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 12:34am
Obamanation was totally WRONG! He is not good enough to bowl in the special olympics!!!
"The top bowler for the Special Olympics looks forward to meeting President Barack Obama in an alley.
"He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily," Michigan's Kolan McConiughey told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.
The athletic-minded president made an offhand remark Thursday on "The Tonight Show" comparing his weak bowling to "the Special Olympics or something." He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some of its athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.
McConiughey, who is mentally disabled, is just the bowler for the job. He's bowled five perfect games since 2005.
The 35-year-old McConiughey has been bowling since he was 8 or 9. His advice for Obama? Practice every day."
I wonder what would have happened if a republican has been on Leno's show?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/21/2009 @ 12:37am
snowball at 03/21/2009 @ 08:58am...
The truth will set us free!
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 10:16am
Do you contend that the Bush admin didn't 'cherry pick' (if not FABRICATE) their intelligence to make a case for invading Iraq?
Or do you contend that this selective process is not one-sided?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/21/2009 @ 08:54am
Before you make yourself look as silly as Helen Thomas check out the intelligence then available to Bush and Congress and see how much cherry picking you can find. Sort of prove what a bunch of dopes your federal politicians then were. If you take the time to read the actual pre-war intelligence assessments, instead of assuming your sources are competent and/or are telling you non-conspiracy-theory-truth you may find your Congress is not a place that was once used to house the mentally incompetent after all.
Thus by this means, which is sometimes known as research, it should become fairly obvious to all but those bound in an ideological straight jacket, that your Congress did not think, nor did it judge that Bush was selective with the intelligence that was then available to him and them.
That, triple six, is the guts of the argument viz. that the Congress vote to authorise the Iraq war was, in part, based upon its own assessment of the intelligence then available. That is why I was not particularly impressed with an attempt to play the line, sourced from the OT, about beating swords into ploughshares.
We would all like to see that happen one day but deliberate falsification by drawing highly improbable implications from your political history is actually the deception route that fascists whether of the German or Italian variety perfected in the first third to about halfway through last century. So we know what fascism sounds like when it attempts to distort history and that is not disguised by high-sounding rhetoric.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/21/2009 @ 10:42am
lrjones4 at 03/21/2009 @ 10:42am...
You are still 'cherry picking'... and trying to bluff your way through this 'off-topic' history rewrite to support a regime that had plenty of good reasons to back the UN effort to locate and weed out Saddam's WMDs... and Bush neglected to consult all sides of an intelligence that was conflicted, divided, and being misled.
Are you sure you want to go down this route?
Its a slam dunk.
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 11:44am
He failed to consult with all sides of our intelligence community...
Also... I wouldn't be putting Congress on any pedestals right now...;^)
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 11:47am
No way this will happen more than once or twice, if at all. Once the questions are filtered by a friendly press, it will be nothing more than a puff piece preaching to the choir. If it is a true debate with people who are not friendly....no president is going to expose himself (no pun intended) to that type of hazard. There is almost nothing to gain and a lot to lose. This the end of month two and look at the muddy water already stirred up - this is looking up to be to be a wild wild ride. It may end up making Clinton seem tame and Bush a saint (wouldn't that be delicious).
Posted by pyeatte at 03/21/2009 @ 6:05pm
Say Mr. Obamanation how are you going to get alternative energy going with extremist like Ted (no wind farm in my view)Kennedy and Feinstien blocking you?
"California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.
The Wildlands Conservancy orchestrated the government's purchase of the land between 1999-2004. It negotiated a discount sale from the real estate arm of the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad and then contributed $40 million to help pay for the purchase. David Myers, the conservancy's executive director, said the solar projects would do great harm to the region's desert tortoise population."
Just keep digging that ditch your neck deep in Mr. President, we will shovel the dirt back for you!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/21/2009 @ 6:45pm
You are still 'cherry picking'... and trying to bluff your way through this 'off-topic' history rewrite to support a regime that had plenty of good reasons to back the UN effort to locate and weed out Saddam's WMDs... and Bush neglected to consult all sides of an intelligence that was conflicted, divided, and being misled.
Are you sure you want to go down this route?
Its a slam dunk.
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 11:44am
I've been down the route that examines all the declassified evidence. You obviously haven't or you lack the ability to draw valid conclusions from it.
If you look at the intelligence then available there is strong agreement, across the spectrum of intelligence agencies, on all the important issues and a consensus of that intelligence is precisely what Bush and the majority of Congress accepted as part of the basis to disarm Saddam Hussein. There will, by the very nature of intelligence, be details of disagreement but none of those, though blown out of all proportion by those with an agenda, significantly change the thrust of the overall intelligence.
I came to this with an open mind as I'm not anti-American a pacifist or a political party hack. And what I discovered is that the great lie perpetuated is that Bush lied about the intelligence. That is the fascist like component of that cabal if you please.
I used the expression "part of" and that precisely is where you and the rest of the "Bush lied" people are floundering. If you check it out you will find that there was a growing across party consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power long before Bush came to office, not essentially for his (supposed) WMD program but for his extreme human rights abuse of Iraqis. That explains the alacrity with which Congress supported the Bush war vote.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/21/2009 @ 6:46pm
by pyeatte at 03/21/2009 @ 6:05pm...
The muddy water comes straight from the last administration... via Rush...;^)
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 6:48pm
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 11:44am
What you raise in relation to the UN has some validity but the political agreement on the consensus of the intelligence obviously overrode the option of waiting any longer to remove Saddam. That is understandable in the shadow of 9/11 and the way in which the UN sat on its hands while 900,000 Rwandans were slaughtered etc.
Maliki was in Australia this week on a state visit. He had one interview with our resident anti-American lefty TV journo (George Negus). To the question about the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the 2003 invasion, he responded ( in Arabic) by saying it would have been a much higher number had Saddam remained in office. (Incidentally he is quite happy for the Americans to now leave as Iraqis are learning once again to live at peace with one another and are also now capable of providing their own security).
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/21/2009 @ 7:04pm
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 6:48pm: Does you no good to live in the past. It belongs to Obama now and the muddy water is all his.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/21/2009 @ 8:47pm
by pyeatte at 03/21/2009 @ 8:47pm...
Who's living in the past? Blaming Obama for what's been going down across this country and the world is like blaming the afternoon for the morning it came from.
...and this is exactly what the right is trying to do now. Fortunately... it is obvious, and laughable. Unfortunately... it is a waste of time and precious minds.
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 9:35pm
While "largely symbolic", symbolism is where it's at baby! As under-appreciated as it is misunderstood. Thank you Mr. Melber and Ms. vanden Heuvel. You have two things pegged: 1- the 4th estate is broken, and 2- our 'representatives' just aren't. If I may, please follow up on a closely related and under-reported comment of Obama's probably a year ago. I think it was in response to concerns about media consolidation. He made a startling comment about being willing to take a close look a la trust buster Teddy Roosevelt. If I find the actual story, I'll post. He'll need some time, but addressing this could be among the most important things he does or doesn't do for us.
Posted by winyahn at 03/21/2009 @ 10:16pm
AAI Notes Comments by Obama on Media
On May 18, Senator Obama made extended critical comments about the current state of U.S. antitrust policy in response to a question at a campaign stop in Oregon. He stated that he intends to, if elected, enforce the antitrust laws more strongly and singled out media consolidation as a particular cause for concern. The Senator's comments come at a time when there is significant debate about media consolidation in light of the current Federal Communications Commission's relaxing of cross-ownership rules and the Department of Justice's approval of the Sirius-XM satellite radio merger.
"The AAI considers a presidential contender's comments on antitrust policy or enforcement priorities to be newsworthy, especially given that these issues are not often directly addressed in national political campaign," said Albert Foer, AAI President. "Discussion of the media industry is especially important to individual citizens, who rely on this industry to stay informed."
A survey of 20 prominent newspapers found that not one published independent reporting of the comments, nor the Reuters
Posted by winyahn at 03/21/2009 @ 10:19pm
AAI = American Antitrust Institute
Posted by winyahn at 03/21/2009 @ 10:21pm
"Before you make yourself look as silly as Helen Thomas check out the intelligence then available to Bush and Congress and see how much cherry picking you can find."LRJONES
Check out what the admin knew, what they redacted and excluded from the intel they gave congress, include the statement from Bush that "congress has the same information I have" (pure BS), spice with a lot of fear, some words about "with us or against us", flavor with a press secretary saying "better watch what you say", plop in a homosexual prostitute to ask softball questions like "Is this another piece of evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda?" and "[D]oesn't that, combined with the now proven Al Qaeda link between Iraq ... unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?", ignore the AIEA and UNSCOM's then current findings...
Well, you get it. Or maybe not.
Base line facts: no wmds', no links to AQ, no Niger uranium, 6 year quagmire, $3,000,000,000,000 US gone or soon to be gone
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:07pm
(Incidentally he is quite happy for the Americans to now leave as Iraqis are learning once again to live at peace with one another and are also now capable of providing their own security).
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/21/2009 @ 7:04pm
But not till 2011.
With 50k Us troops remaining.
I note Maliki will not answer the question of how many Iraqis died since March 2003 due directly or indirectly to the invasion. He speculates, like you, about where his country would have been. Neither you nor he can know that. Your whole basis for war was based on "if, maybe, could."
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:12pm
"Before you make yourself look as silly as Helen Thomas check out the intelligence then available to Bush and Congress and see how much cherry picking you can find."LRJONES
By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 10, 2006; Page A01
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote."
------
darn liberals in the CIA!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:18pm
Iraqis are learning once again to live at peace with one another and are also now capable of providing their own security).
Round-up of Daily Violence in Iraq - Tuesday 3 March 2009
Baghdad
A roadside bomb targeted a U.S. convoy in al Alawi central bus station, central Baghdad at 10.30 a.m. Tuesday. No casualties were reported.
A roadside bomb exploded on Mohammed al Qassim highway, near New Baghdad at 11 a.m. injuring two civilians.
One unidentified body was found in Shaab, northern Baghdad. The body was cut up in many pieces and dumped.
Twelve unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad Province during the month of February, said Iraqi Police, mostly in the suburbs.
Nineveh
Gunmen riding motorbikes opened fire upon a civilian in al Shaareen marketplace, central Mosul and killed him instantly.
Eight mortar rounds targeted the U.S. military base in al Ghizlani, southern Mosul on Tuesday according to Iraqi Police in Mosul. No comment was available from the U.S. Military at time of publication.
Diyala
A roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi Police patrol in Gatoun neighbourhood, southwestern Baquba at 8 a.m. injuring seven people including four policemen and three civilians.
Kirkuk
Gunmen driving a speeding car opened fire upon Werya Fattah Agha al Kakai, brother to Adnan Agha al Kakai, prominent notable of al Kakai clan in Kirkuk, and killed him, on his door step straight away. The incident took place in central Kirkuk, Tuesday morning.
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:35pm
Iraqis are learning once again to live at peace with one another and are also now capable of providing their own security).
Round-up of Daily Violence in Iraq - Thursday 5 March 2009
Baghdad
Around 8 a.m. gunmen attacked with machineguns Brigadier General Salam Solaiman, an officer in the ministry of interior affairs near al Gailani fuel station in downtown Baghdad injuring him seriously.
Three people (a policeman and two civilians) were injured by a roadside bomb in al Nosoor square in Yarmouk neighborhood west Baghdad around 10 a.m.
A member of awakening council was killed and three civilians were injured by a roadside bomb in Saidiyah neighborhood around 7 p.m.
Babil
14 civilians were killed and 55 others were injured by a parked car bomb in near a livestock market in Hamza al Gharbi area south of Hilla city around 8 a.m.
Nineveh
An Iraq soldier was killed and seven people were injured by a suicide car bomb in north Mosul city around 3 p.m.
A sniper shot dead an Iraq soldier in west Mosul city on Wednesday evening.
An Iraqi soldier was killed by a roadside bomb that targeted a vehicle for the Iraqi army in west Mosul around 8 p.m
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:37pm
Posted by ttr at 03/21/2009 @ 9:35pm:
That is simply not so. Obama's stated plans have spooked the markets which in turn has decimated people's retirement funds and savings in general. I realize many on the left could care less but that, in the end, will be your problem because the slow burn creeping though society will demand a different approach. The pushback will come not only from the right but from moderate democrats and independents. The AIG/bonus issue is not what is so dangerous, that is small potatos, it is the collapse of the economy that will trump everything. When people get scared they get dangerous and unpredictable and mob rule could take over which would be the worst possible outcome.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/22/2009 @ 12:20am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/21/2009 @ 11:18pm
Hi Crabs been following your career and see you still get off on lots of blood and guts. Sort of the more the merrier. Sorry things are improving in Iraq but I notice you are still able to dig up enough juicy bits to keep a smile on your face. I've always hoped for less of the gory stuff in Iraq and I'm sure despite your unusual addiction that the stats are showing dramatic and continuing improvement. I get off on those sort of stats.
All I ask for Crabs from you and the rest of your "Bush lied us into war" crowd is that you start to do a bit of your own reading of the source documents and stop relying on a very partisan player like Paul Pillar who really was on about how intelligence should be used. I in fact agree with his claim that the Administration (and the Congress) was pretty intent on giving Saddam the arse and the Oct 2002 NIE was only icing on the cake.
You know my position. It is that the Iraq war was/is fully justified solely on the grounds of the Saddam regime's capricious and gross abuse of Iraqis human rights.
Paul Pillar does not say that Bush et al rigged the intelligence (Pillar along with other analysts did this quite well themselves, though inadvertently, without any help from Bush, Cheney etc. Thank you very much). What he claims was that Bush and the Congress intended to give Saddam the flick regardless (or as in ILA1998).
Pillar confirms that by telling us that a few pages of the Oct 2002 NIE were all that most members of Congress could be bothered reading. So his charge essentially was the war was a goer even without the 2002 NIE. Anyway much of what was in that was already known. Which I suggest brings us back to the intention, of not only the Admin but also Congress, to say goodbye to Saddam.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/22/2009 @ 02:43am
Here's a bit more from Paul Pillar that sort of refutes the Bush lied us into war claim and rather points to the naivety if not stupidity of those who think he did. The Sept 2002 Bush speech to the UN along with his other speeches and ILA1998 is probably what Pillar's claim about the Iraq war is based on.
"Pillar criticized Congress both for not using the intelligence made available to it, as well as not necessarily asking questions about information not provided to them. "
"The proper relationship between intelligence gathering and policymaking sharply separates the two functions....Congress, not the administration, asked for the now-infamous October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, although few members of Congress actually read it. (According to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material, no more than six senators and only a handful of House members got beyond the five-page executive summary.) As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war." Paul Pillar
On the surface one could say Congress did not know the intelligence so how could it make a judgment on the situation in Iraq wrt WMD. Of course poor old Paul, who supplied the shonky evidence no doubt as a labour of love felt a bit miffed when no one wanted to read it. If one reads the report the five page summary gives a pretty fair indication of where the rest of it was leading and Congress along with Admin obviously saw nothing that did not confirm the already accepted view that Saddam had to go.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/22/2009 @ 03:06am
"Pillar criticized Congress both for not using the intelligence made available to it, as well as not necessarily asking questions about information not provided to them."
Thought you'd like that bit Crabs. Just shows that if you choose to be a smart arse and not provide all the information you want people (Congress in this case) to know, then you shouldn't chuck a spaz when they don't ask for it.
That would make a nice file heading.
The Paul Pillar File.
AKA
"Questions About Information Not Provided"
Shit not a wonder your intelligence was a bit off.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/22/2009 @ 03:17am
Here's a bit more on Paul Pillar. Thanks for the reference this joker is a laugh a minute.
"Scott Ritter, writing on his blog in February 2006, agreed with Pillar's assessment of politicisation, but suggested that Pillar had mixed motives in limiting "his criticism to the Bush administration during the time period leading up to the invasion in March 2003." Ritter criticizes Pillar for not mentioning "the issue of regime change and the role played by the CIA in carrying out covert action at the instruction of the White House (both Democratic and Republican) to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Because he was the former national intelligence officer for Near East/Middle East affairs, I find this absence both disconcerting and disingenuous. By failing to give due credence to the impact and influence of the CIA's mission of regime change in Iraq on its analysis of Iraqi WMDs, Mr. Pillar continues to promulgate the myth that the CIA was honestly engaged in the business of trying to disarm Iraq"
So it seems Paul's CIA was trying to implement the objective of ILA1988 on its lonesome but it took that "half crazy cowboy" from Texas to show them how to do it. No wonder Pillar has his nose out of joint. Boy I love the way you do things over there. Never a dull moment.
Listened to the Maliki interview an hour ago. The info I gave you was from an add.
Maliki is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He was an educator. He fled to Iran in 1980 when he was placed on Saddam's death list.
He said: ...."the removal of Saddam's regime was necessary before Iraq could become a democratic state"..........." sectarianism in Iraq is dead"........."though too many Iraqis have died since the invasion even more would have died had Saddam still been in power"..... (based on S's killing rates).
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/22/2009 @ 06:23am
Back to the topical header...
Much of the hysteria that led up to our 'hasty' approach to a very complicated and potentially long lasting morass in Iraq was created by the one-sided appraisal by the media...
The 'fourth estate' allowed itself to become biased and politically motivated... refusing to give even lip service to the more cautious and war wary among us...
And this is what we would be attempting to avoid in the future by keeping the lines of communication open and public between the head of the 'all powerful' executive branch of the US government and the people that he serves.
Democracy belongs in the hands and minds of the people... and many of us need to be reminded that our elected officials represent us... the common citizenry... and it is of the utmost importance for us, especially in times of crisis and trauma, get the facts.
Most of our 'opinion based' fourth estate is spin... and this is irreconcilable with effective democratic governance.
Posted by ttr at 03/22/2009 @ 11:13am
You know my position. It is that the Iraq war was/is fully justified solely on the grounds of the Saddam regime's capricious and gross abuse of Iraqis human rights. Posted by lrjones4 at 03/22/2009 @ 02:43am
I have to jump in here, regardless of what off topic 'information', came before.
Let's see.
If 911 was the 'original' sparking point for the war on terror... and most of the hijackers were arabs, you are really saying that because Saddam was violating human rights that it was the 'sensible' thing to do to start a war with a country that we had no 'war footing' with in the first place? No 911 hijackers? And then spend 60 trillion, which we could sure use right now, on a war which directed resources in the wrong way? Is that what you are saying?
So what's your answer to why it wasn't just as justifiable to bomb Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt? They are all rights violators too.
Mr. Jones, I've gained some respect for you, but now that you've revealed your point of view on this I find that you are just another 'informational obfuscator'. As with the warming issue, you must stand to profit from these aggressions. That's usually the source of the defensive 'If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit' posture. Profit.
My position about the human right issue is that there have always been countries that are human rights violators. There would be endless war in that case. Let's start a war with Mexico. Cheaper.
Posted by ficheye at 03/22/2009 @ 12:37pm
And we should be bombing the crap out of Burma as well. Let's get busy with those rights violators.
It's all about the dollars. They think there might be oil in Burma! Let's go. I made a hotel reservation for you.
Mr. Jones, you have just invalidated all of you positions about almost everything here. No amount of 'information gathering' is going to fix that now, because your fiscal obsessions cast all of that into doubt.
Ah, the pleasantries of the 'Let 'em die if we can't make some dollars', crowd.
Let's go back to the Obama topic, please.
Posted by ficheye at 03/22/2009 @ 1:04pm
--That's usually the source of the defensive 'If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit' posture. Profit.--
ficheye at 03/22/2009 @ 12:37pm...
You took the words right our of my thoughts!
Posted by ttr at 03/22/2009 @ 2:52pm
A citizens forum. fanfriggentatstic!!!!
Posted by julien38 at 03/23/2009 @ 08:53am
Open door? So far after phone calls, emails, and faxes, I've received NO RESPONSE from anyone in the Obama administration.
Perhaps The Nation will have better luck in covering this unique pre-Sept. 1, 2008, COBRA Premium Assistance 'dead-line'.
13 March 2009
Re: The COBRA Stimulus Plan -- Halfway to Hope
Millions of Americans who lost their jobs prior to September 1, 2008, could not afford Cobra. Millions more elected Cobra but have now depleted their resources and cannot continue on. Still millions more with pre-existing conditions who rely on cobra to bridge the 18 month gap between their former employers insurance and their state's high risk insurance pools are struggling to pay their premiums every month to prevent being locked out of insurance permanently.
Just when I was thinking there would be some relief and I would be able to continue my COBRA coverage, I was thrown this curve ball!
QUESTION: What if I was laid off before September 1, 2008, can I receive the premium reduction?
NO. To be eligible for the premium reduction you must have lost your job on a date between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.
Well, if that isn't a big kick in the face when I'm already down! I was left with no alternative but to regretfully resign a position with our local school system due to health concerns e.g. lower back/degenerating disc. I offered several options to exempt me from having to lift a student out of a wheel chair onto a bed. Physically incapable without damaging myself and/or the student! I resigned on 18 August 2008. That's two (2) weeks prior to this sort of magical cut off date. Mr. Obama, sir, the recession/depression started WAY before September 1, 2008!
Push back this arbitrary ‘deadline' for COBRA Premium Reduction.
see cobrareform.weebly.com
Posted by dwierhake at 03/25/2009 @ 9:20pm