Investigation of defunct solar company Solyndra heats up with Executives taking the fifth in Congressional hearings

 Following the FBI's raid on the headquarters of former White House "green energy" darling Solyndra Corporation earlier this month, the scandal surrounding the half-billion-dollar government loan to the now-defunct company, (a posterchild for President Obama's promotion of “green jobs” under the almost trillion dollar 2009 “stimulus” bill), is beginning to heat up, (pun intended), with Solyndra Executives taking the fifth in Congressional testimony last Friday and new eyebrow-raising revelations that the California Democrat Party is listed as a creditor on court papers filed in the companies bankruptcy, (for details click here).  

The revelations come on the heels of the feds raid on Republican-led Gibson guitar corporation in August and the release of emails from career analysts of the Office of Management and Budget, (the government agency responsible for analyzing the financial risk to the taxpayers), expressing concerns over approving Solyndra Corp's loan request shortly before being rammed through by political appointees in the Obama Administration immediately after coming to power in 2009, (see here or here, for more on the Gibson raid see here and here).

Sadly, they further underscore what is now becoming a shockingly familiar refrain, i.e., the apparent willingness of the Obama Administration to put political interests ahead of those of the nation, (see here , here, here, here and here).

Although the Obama Administration is resisting the investigation and has yet to properly comply with a subpoena by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for more information, the evidence to date reveals that Steve Spinner, a fund raiser for the Obama campaign in the 2008 Presidential election subsequently appointed by Obama to manage the disbursement of billions of dollars in pork “stimulus” money to “green” companies, aided by no less than former White house chief of staff and now Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, actively lobbied to force the loan to Solyndra through regardless of questions over an unsustainable business model raised by career civil servants in the Energy Dept. It has also raised pointed questions about how this Administration, (as well as others in the past), “do the people's business.”

“So what does this have to do with partisan politics?” you ask. After all, the Democrats don't have a corner on the market of political cronyism and corruption. Couldn't the eagerness with which the President's men pushed through the Solyndra deal just be due to a sincere, but misguided, effort on the part of the administration to encourage/create jobs in an environmentally beneficial industry, in the same way that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was premised by a sincere, yet mistaken, belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?

Putting aside the conclusions of an Inspector General report that the Energy Department, (the agency through whom the “stimulus” loans were disbursed), disobeyed its own rules in order to approve the loan guarantees to Solyndra, perhaps, (download pdf of report here).

In fairness, and along those lines, we concede it is certainly true that before leaving office the Bush Administration had considered the same loan guarantees for Solyndra as was ultimately approved by the Obama Administration.

The difference is that in the end Bush heeded the advice of government analysts and decided to nix the idea before it was apparently “resurrected” after the 2008 elections for purely political short-term gain by a White House eager to reward their special-interest allies in the environmentalist movement who had donated almost 200 million to the President for his 2008 election bid with full awareness of the potential consequences of the fallout posed by a Solyndra default, (see here).

In the words of an email released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee written Jan. 31, 2011 by an Office of Management and Budget staffer, "If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. … In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up." (“Optics” for those uninitiated is Washington speak for “image” or "political fallout" if this risky bet of taxpayer monies were to fall through).

Nevertheless, pressure from Obama political appointees like Emanuel and Spinner to approve the deal for purely political purposes, (i.e., to allow a nice photo op at a groundbreaking ceremony with Vice President Joe Biden), was apparently unrelenting, as clearly demonstrated by an email from an Energy Department analyst who wrote, “"given the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra, we don't have time to change the model," (see here).

Additionally-- and to tie this back to our comment above regarding the Gibson guitar company-- there is one other glaring problem in interpreting the Obama Administration's actions in an innocent, (if inept), way, (which is becoming increasingly clear is entirely implausible, see below).  But just for starters:

The head of the Gibson guitar company is an on-the-record Republican, known to favor-- and personally donate to-- Republican candidates for government office. And the powers that be at Solyndra? Well, put it this way: Solyndra’s biggest shareholders were the family foundation of Tulsa billionaire and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser, and Democrats all, (as are the CEO's of America's other guitar manufacturers, with the exception of Gibson of course). Coincidence? Again, perhaps, but not likely in our estimation.  Still not convinced?

  Conveniently, Obama's Department of Energy claims to have “not kept” the emails detailing how the federal agency determined what companies would receive loan guarantee “stimulus money,” a fact noted by a Government Accountability Office report, (see report here), but the fact that agents of the Obama Administration actively attempted to circumvent a more thorough analysis in light of concerns cannot be doubted. As an editorial in the Examiner noted, “An assistant to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked in yet another email if 'there is anything we can help speed along on [the Office of Management and Budget] side,' (more here).  However, the most damning information is still yet other "coincidences." 

  While the white house has been mum on to what extent the President himself may have been apprised of the extent of risk to taxpayers of the government's direct involvement via its "green agenda" loans to companies like Solyndra, (with reports that Administration officials actually took the highly unusual step of sitting in on board meetings of Solyndra for a period of time, see here), in other words, what the President knew and when did he know it, the L.A. Times reported late today that, in fact, the President was personally apprised of the risks to the plan to prop up solar companies by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic advisor Larry Summers nearly a year before the solar company went bankrupt, (see here and here for original L.A. Times article).

 Even more disturbing however is reports on cable giant Fox News late today that under what appears to be an unusual (and illegal!) "sweetheart deal" the Department of Energy additionally agreed before investing the taxpayer money that if, in fact, Solyndra went belly up― a prospect the President was keenly aware was probable even as the White House continued to publicly tout the Solyndra alliance as a wonderful example of a successful public/private partnership promoting the new "green economy" and supposed creator of the jobs of the future for Americans― early private investors would be entitled to recover their money first ahead of taxpayers.   And, yep, you guessed it. One of those early "investors" was a family trust fund connected to billionaire and major Obama donor George Kaiser.  So what can we conclude, indeed, what must we logically conclude?

  The end sum and inevitable conclusion is of a White House intent on pushing through for political reasons what would come to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in what it verifiably knew was an extremely risky proposition for political props, while at the same time protecting― and maybe even benefiting financially

―

 one of their key democratic campaign donors, (and all at taxpayer expense to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars!)

 We may not be too bright here at the ACLP, but we don't have to be to know that such an obvious "quid pro quo" for which the taxpayer was stuck holding the inevitable (and empty!) bag is malfeasance of the worst kind if ever there was!

  Now what we don't know-- dare we even to imagine?-- is whether members of the Administration, (perhaps even the President himself?), having advance knowledge of Solyndra's impending failure and having personal knowledge of his Kaiser family friends and donors so as to know of their 75 million initial investment, planned for just this outcome to occur, (i.e., knowing the bankruptcy of Solyndra was imminent a year in advance jumped into the vaunted "public/private" partnership and secured the sweetheart "early investor" provision for the sole purpose of insuring Obama's political cronies would be able to get out their initial investment in the doomed tech start up.

 We shudder to even think such could be the case, as if our speculations are even close our struggling body politic is even sicker than we thought.   Hopefully Congress will get to the bottom of this mess, (though judging from other investigations, lightsquared, fast and furious, Gibson guitar, etc. etc.) we won't hold our breath.

  In the meantime, and for fun sake, (and a honest gutcheck if you are still one of those who believes the media isn't in the tank for Obama and biased strongly left), just consider for a moment if George W. Bush had ever been accused of such a thing, (not to mention stonewalled investigators); there would have been a hew and cry from Democrats in Washington the likes of which you never saw and calls for impeachment until the Dems got blood and drove Bush 43 from town on a rail to places that would make Guantanamo Bay look like the picnic that it is! (sans prayers to Mecca five times a day and soccer for recreation).  But, so far at least, the main stream media has been extremely slow in connecting the dots of this Obama scandal, (at least publicly).  Indeed, and can you blame them when this is how they treat reporters who won't give up on getting to the bottom of this corruption and capitalist cronyism that is becoming a hallmark of this Administration? (Indeed, a simple review of how the President's men have fared financially in his first term in office is breathtaking, see here and here for details).

  Instead, and adding insult to injury, the Obama administration continues to dole out funds to other "green" pet projects while it further plans how to exploit less enlightened "environmental" minded folks for its own political and/or economic agenda.

  Indeed, even as we speak Mr. Spinner, as you'll recall from above one of Obama's chief fundraisers of 2008 and one of the main characters at the helm responsible for pushing the Solyndra deal through in the first place, has just recently announced invitation of Obama's national political finance committee to be wined and dined in Chicago at a fundraising "strategy" event dubbed “Technology for Obama,” (and the beat goes on!), making the whole sordid affair that much more difficult for us to swallow, (not to mention breathe!) in the face of a stench that would make living next to a garbage dump seem pleasant in comparison.

  Indeed, the emails released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the scandal are reminiscent of the Clinton's renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to Chinese arms dealers during their tenure, prompting at least one op-ed in Obama's hometown newspaper to liken such “hope and change” promised by the President with the old familiar ways (and smell!) of Chicago politics, (see article at Chicago Tribune by John Kass here).

  Of course, as we are a “non profit” organization prohibited from outright electioneering for or against any particular presidential candidate in the fast-approaching 2012 elections we will refrain from stating the obvious, (although others haven't, see here and here), but needless to say, we are of the opinion that such self-aggrandizing behavior at the expense of the taxpayer is NOT what we elect our leaders for, (nor, dare we say, what the American people bargained for when they elected Barack Obama President).

In that regard this sad morality tale of government corruption comes with both good and bad news.

The bad news is that there are dozens of other “green” loan guarantees to other companies totaling billions more in stimulus funds which were subsequently “approved” by the Obama administration, some of which undoubtedly have as equally dubious business plans' as Solyndra's, virtually guaranteeing that Solyndra's bankruptcy will not be the last for which the taxpayers are on the hook. 

The good news is we will have a chance to voice our opinions, and ostensible displeasure, in the 2012 elections. jp

President bows to Turkey, breaks campaign promise to acknowledge Armenian Massacre, Fails to Acknowledge National Day of Prayer

  As reported in the Armenian weekly, Despite his 2008 campaign promise that "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully... I intend to be that President," for the third year in a row President Obama completely ignored this first genocide of the 20th Century-- much to the Chagrin of the Armenian community and the attempts by Congress to acknowledge this pivotal and tragic turning point during and just after world war one-- that many say was the forebear and model for the way Hitler would treat the Jews in the 1930's leading up to WWII.   He also failed to issue an official proclamation marking America's National Day of Prayer or even Easter, the traditional national holiday marking resurrection of Christ for millions of Americans of all ethnic backgrounds and historic day of prayer for the victims of the massacre which saw up to 1.5 million Armenians slaughtered, raped and/or marched into exhaustion in the Syrian desert by their Muslim Turkish captors, (the forebears of modern-day Turkey).

  Initially, we should say that while the debate rages in the blogosphere on whether previous Presidents in fact issued "official" proclamations re: Easter and to what extent other comments of the President may have honored this sacred holiday in spite of his lack of official proclamation-- and in spite of his almost unbroken proclamations re: Muslim Holy days, see here-- whether or not Obama issued an 'official' proclamation matters less to us than the Administration's policies vis a vis their impact on matters where faith and public policy intersect and the results therefrom.

  On this score, and regarding the matter of the Armenian massacre, the President's actions seem like a deliberate slap in the face to the Armenian community for purely political purposes in order to appease Nato Ally in the "war on terror" Turkey, (which had protested and mounted a forceful and political public relations effort to defeat the attempts to publicly recognize this black mark of history).

  It is a whole 'nother matter regarding the pro or anti-Christian bias, (although, as above alluded to, we feel there is a connection between the two).  Again, we wish to emphasize that it is not the failure to "proclaim" anything  particular with regard to any specific religion or holiday 'per se' that we find so troubling, but the anti-Christian attitudes and policies that such a lack of proclamation may indicate are at the root of the Administration's actions (or lack thereof).

  Equally troubling, it seems to us to mark a continued pattern of willingness on the part of Obama to avoid having to make a public stand on important policy issues-- recall his voting 129 times "present" in the Illinois Senate from whence he came, see here and here-- and starkly belies Obama's promise to be "the most transparent Administration in history."  

   Moreover, in light of the President's failure to also acknowledge last Thursday's National Day of Prayer-- a practice recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, see HERE, and on which no Previous Presidents have demurred-- as well as many of his openly anti-Christian policies, it does not appear to be coincidence.

   So with this post we shall begin a journey of analysis that attempts to explain Obama's obvious reluctance to take the side of the traditional Christian mores in most all matters of public controversy, (whether it be gay marriage or abortion or stem cell research).

   We should say at the outset that the President's overall conduct and/or foreign policy inaction-- a la the President's delayed intervention in Libya, see here-- cannot sufficiently be explained by mere 'political' factors.  If that were the case, we could expect to see more forceful proclamations--  accompanied preferably by active intervention-- of the Obama administration in the case of other genocides around the world such as in Syria or Sudan, see here, which to the world's (and America's) shame have been largely ignored.

   Indeed, in examining the myriad of possible reasons for this "blind eye" of the President's towards hotspots of the world where Christians are being persecuted horribly one answer for the President's inconsistent reaction routinely arises: That he just isn't very sympathetic towards people of the Christian faith due to his lack of devout faith itself.  Indeed, none other than Franklin Graham, the son of world renowned evangelist Billy Graham and current President of non-profit Samaritan's Purse Ministries, have noted the President's seemingly nominal Christianity, see here.

   But while this explanation might go a long way towards explaining the President's attitude towards public expressions of opinion on matters of Christian faith generally-- as could also be said of President Clinton whose 'faith' it is safe to say was also less than devout and who also coincidentally failed to issue proclamations re: Easter along with most other modern President's, although not so the National Day of Prayer--  it still doesn't explain the seeming and persistent outright antithesis towards a pro-Christian, (or Jewish for that matter) perspective in most domestic and foreign affairs.  Indeed, from 'apologizing' to Muslim countries for "America's arrogance" to his domestic pro-abortion policies, it is almost like the President goes out of his way to diss Christian values and traditions, (often in favor of those of Islam).  This is even more evident when one considers that Obama didn't fail to publicly acknowledge the observance of all major Muslim holidays in 2010, Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fidr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.

  Whether this is due to experiences and influences as a boy growing up in Indonesia-- which included the sound of the Muslim "call to prayers" that Obama described in his book 'Dreams of my Father' as "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset"-- his being a "closet Muslim" as alleged by some, see also here or, as Franklin Graham theorizes, is simply non-devout, the public policy results can hardly be doubted:  There clearly appears to be a distinct, anti-Christian, (and/or anti-American?), bias to the President's foreign (and domestic) policy positions.

  Indeed, from repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in the military to his unilateral decision not to defend the Defense Of Marriage Act to his not allowing evangelical Christian groups to pray at the Pentagon, see here, the President Obama's antithesis towards matters of faith and, indeed, the entire Christian 'world view' as expressed in his policies, is obvious, (even if the entire reasons are not).

  In Dinesh D'souza's book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," he theorizes that Obama's anti-Christian/ Anti-American bent is in fact caused by a deep "anti-colonial" hatred for the West passed on to him from his Father and Grandfather before.  Such influences, joined as they are with memories of subjugation often blended with Christian missionary influences-- in the minds if not in reality for many members of the former African colonies-- would certainly explain Obama's reluctance to take the "pro-Christian" view or become involved in foreign affairs and even domestic policies where Christian religion or influences are implicated.

  Of course, the problem with this is that almost all American institutions are-- and for the most part continue to be in spite of liberal progressives' most ardent efforts to the contrary-- infused with our nation's founding Judeo-Christian roots and beliefs; indeed, from the Mayflower Pilgrims to the Declaration of Independence to our nations laws and monuments, the history of America and its abiding principles of freedom, justice, and the dignity and worth of every person made in God's image just don't make sense apart from the Christian faith, (however much a proper understanding of this has been erased in the minds of the present generation, another topic for another day).

  In any case, such an approach as the President exhibits is sure to promote the roots of injustice and genocide generally in the modern era, as it supplies a potent motive for "revenge" and the continuing of barbarism on a whole different set of peoples not responsible for the "sins" of their fathers and denies the dream of equality across racial and/or religious lines.  A Dream hoped for by none other than American visionary and slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King who spoke of the need-- if ever different races and/or religions were to get along in a just society-- for people to no longer be "judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  NOTE: Yes, we do realize that race and religion are distinct matters and that Dr. King was speaking-- as a Baptist himself-- from a predominantly 'Christian' point of view, (indeed, as his famous "letter from Birmingham" shows, it was his entire impetus for speaking out against racial segregation).  However, as herein shown, (witness Sudan), sometimes, race and religious belief sadly coalesce.  In any event, we are sure Dr. King wouldn't mind as, in his own words from the Birmingham jail, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

  To that end, we ask that all our readers please pray for President Obama in accord with your religious tradition.  Whatever the devoutness of his Christian faith, (or lack thereof), our country can only be better off for our prayers.  Perhaps it might lead to a badly needed "spiritual rebirth" or awakening in our society generally or on behalf of our President that might move him to a more balanced and helpful view of things to the salvation of many souls, (in the temporal if not the eternal).   Failing that, in the least perhaps our prayers (and accompanying actions) might be successful in removing his administration from power in 2012 if he will not change his evident policies of blocking justice for victims of genocide and Christian values generally for mere political reasons.    jp

For my liberal readers who can't admit truth that 'torture' helped get Bin Laden

  I have received one too many obnoxious 'comments' from my liberal (friends?) whining about my balanced and reasoned-- if too "conservative" and personally distasteful in its conclusion-- reporting on the controversy over whether so called "enhanced interrogation techniques" were responsible for identifying the "trusted human courier" of Bin Laden's that led to the terrorist leader's hideout at a fortified private compound in Abbottabad, Pakinstan.  So finally, after enduring their attacks, (which usually consist of just insults or hysterically accusing me of "lying" without any particular evidence or refutation of my facts, name calling, "right wing" smears, you know, all the typical stuff), and now that it's become obvious-- even if all the left-leaning bloggers can't bring themselves to admitting the truth and keep posting the opposite!-- that it was in fact Bush-era 'enhanced interrogation' policies that enabled their man Obama to track down the mass murderer and leader of the Al-Qaeda terror network, (see statements of Democratic CIA Chief on msnbc, not exactly "right wing" sources), I have decided to post links to multiple sources that confirm my initial conclusions.

  The reason I decided to simply post the "evidence" if you will and let it do the talking instead of responding to the same old arguments is I am, at heart, and the ACLP is, an organization dedicated to the discussion of ideas, and more importantly, hopefully solutions for the serious policy and other problems vexing our Republic currently, (not, believe it or not, just arguing about the politics of the situation, as interesting as that may be).

  We would hope that by discussing the various pros and cons of issues affecting our nation, we might, in some small way, call attention to issues needing redress, or bring another angle to an issue that perhaps you haven't thought about.  Then, and as is the genius of our constitutional Republic our Founders so wisely bequeathed to us, the people, once informed, can properly direct their elected representatives and leaders-- are you listening Mr. President?-- on the way in which they wish to be represented on such matters with the goal of breaking through the political morass that is Washington which we hope in turn will enact pragmatic, common sense solutions for our present problems that actually work, (rather than top-down government bureaucratic solutions which history tells us don't). 

   And while we realize we may not always succeed, and that some of the issues facing our nation are vexing and complex-- and will accordingly require more systemic, long-term change-- the solutions are indeed often simple, (I said simple, not necessarily easy.  Making money in the stock market is also simple, exemplified by the dictum "buy low, sell high," but the "doing of it" is not always an "easy" thing to do in practice, especially in the short term!)   Take, for example, our huge budget deficits.  Solution?  Reduce spending, and/or raise revenue.  Simple solution, difficult in practice to do, (especially politically).  But nonetheless necessary, (at least if we are to avoid becoming a third world nation of want and anarchy).   But I digress.

  The long and short of it is, for all the above-- and other reasons, chief among them being time-- and since my liberal 'friends' are obviously so unhappy with my analysis and/or can't seem to add anything substantive or positive to the discussion, I have decided to just point out the sources supporting my conclusions directly.

   As you can see from the list, they are not all "conservative," (unless you consider MSNBC and the London Telegraph "conservative!")  Anyways... here's hopefully to better understanding... Happy clicking!

Obama CIA Chief Panetta confirms contribution of waterboarding- MSNBC 

"Intelligence gained by waterboarding" under Bush-- Chairman of Homeland Security, Congressman Peter King R-NY

Straight from the horses mouth- Donald Rumsfeld on Hannity May 3 2011 (Video

Straight from the horses mouth Part Two- Donald Rumsfeld on O'reilly Factor May 4 2011 (Video)

Proof of prevarication on Bin Laden raid facts in accounts from White House

Overview of Bin Laden capture narrative- London Telegraph

Rumsfeld says misquoted on enhanced interrogations (great links too!)

Explanation of how liberals are sowing confusion on waterboarding issue

CIA Chief Leon Panetta admits waterboarding yielded "vital" intelligence- London Telegraph

declassified docs on enhanced interrogations

Critique of New York Times biased coverage on "torture" issue

  As you can see, the support for my conclusions is fairly conclusive, in fact, overwhelming if you are honest about it, (notwithstanding all the bloggers to the contrary).  So unless this is all just some grand "conspiracy"-- wait, I thought it's only the political right that believes in conspiracies, was that really a third shooter on the grassy knoll? lol-- I'd have to say to my liberal friends that their argument isn't with me, but the truth.

  Having thus said, we are open to alternate points of view on here, which is better than you'll get at the Daily Kos or Obama's site if you happen to try posting from the "conservative" point of view.  In that regard, we welcome your disagreement with our reasoning or conclusions.  All we ask if you post here is a few basic ground rules:  1)  That you don't accuse us of lying, (this is just so pointless, as it usually is mere political-speak for you don't agree with our conclusions);  2) That you refrain from name-calling and personal insults, (or, just as bad, meaningless labels and/or talking points), AND, 3) Actually have something specific to say that will contribute to a rational discussion, (not just "that's false" or "I disagree" but WHY you disagree, with reference to facts, sources and logical argument, I know kinda elementary but you should see the comments we get!)  Otherwise your comment will get deleted. It will NOT get deleted for merely disagreeing with us or disputing the facts, (as our publishing previous dissent shows.  However, you can expect further rebuttal and/or discussion on anything you challenge, as a perusal of prior comments also shows. It might even spark a whole post if it's that thought-provoking!  But that's just Free Speech in the greatest country in the world in action :)

  Finally, for those who have taken the time to comment positively, (or even not so positively!); thanks for your feedback, (even the nasty ones let us know we're getting noticed!) and stay tuned for news on our expansion coming soon due to our increasing support and web traffic!  Your prayers and encouragement, including suggestions about how to improve the site, are, as always, much appreciated.   And if you're enjoying the site, PLEASE click buttons at bottom of articles to register your vote and/or comment, as well as use your google, yahoo or email to "follow us" so we will know you're on board (or better yet add a link to us on your own blog or social media site!)  Thanks again for being in the fight for truth and helping heal our body politic from the malaise in which it finds itself.  jp

Former Defense Secretary confirms likelihood of Bush-era Enhanced Interrogation Techniques contributing to Bin Laden Capture

 Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed on Fox News' 'Hannity' show last night that the receipt of voluminous actionable intelligence from the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the Bush Administration, including information received from the waterboarding of Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed, was likely ultimately responsible for the Obama Administration's successful capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, (the Al-Quaeda terror leader responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on the world trade center in 2001 which killed 3000 Americans).  In that regard, the death of Bin Laden in last Sunday's daring raid on a sprawling Pakistan compound largely due to U.S. intelligence has kindled a fierce debate over just to what extent the Bush-era "enhanced interrogation techniques" contributed to the success of the operation as well as the appropriateness and efficacy of such techniques from a moral and legal perspective.  But again, don't just take my word for it.

"It is correct that today CIA Director Pendeta indicated that one of the individuals that provided valuable info had been waterboarded. I think that anyone who suggests that enhanced interrogation, let's be blunt, waterboarding,did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence isnt facing the truth. The facts are,Gen. Mike Hayden,who had no connection to waterboarding concluded that most of the intelligence came from the three men who had been waterboarded."-- Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, 5/3/11

 The three men that both Obama CIA Chief Leon Panetta, Peter King, (R-NY) and the former Secretary of Defense above refer to were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.    


  While previous statements of Rumsfeld's that the Department of Defense procured no actionable intelligence from waterboarding at Guantonomo have been repeatedly misquoted out of context by the political left-- Rumsfeld subsequently explained he was only talking about alleged interrogations at Gitmo by the military, and NOT that done by CIA contractors at prisons in Eastern Europe during "rendition" where the controversial interrogation tactics were used to great success-- there is little doubt that it ultimately yielded the critical information about the identity of Bin Laden's trusted "courier" that led U.S. intelligence investigators to the Pakistan compound where Bin Laden was found.


  That however hasn't stopped the controversial interrogation tactics-- including that of "rendition" where an enemy combatant or terror suspect is taken to a foreign detention center overseas and out of the jurisdiction of American courts for aggressive interrogation techniques up to and including the water-boarding that Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed and the two other Al-Qaida terrorists were subject to during the Bush Administration-- from engendering a firestorm of debate.  Indeed, some of the techniques might well be considered "torture" if conducted on American citizens within the U.S. and subject to the same level of constitutional analysis that a typical and more common criminal case would be in the federal court system.  (Aye, but there's the rub, your average joe mohammed terrorist plotting mass murder just to make a political point is NOT typically a U.S. citizen and these are anything but "common" criminal cases, if only the Obama Administration would stop treating them as such!)  And this besides the fact that many military types-- in all probability including the very special-ops navy seal team which apprehended Bin Laden-- have voluntarily or as part of their training undergone such techniques with no lasting harm, (for an account of one who has written about the experience click HERE).


  But opponents, one of whom recently wrote me to protest what a "stain" on America such practices are, say that such techniques violate our fundamental constitutional values and only prove what the terrorists say about America as the "Great Satan."  Consequently, or so goes this narrative, they are used to recruit potential terrorists from Mid-eastern men who become "embittered" against the West by news of the interrogation tactics, (or, unfortunately, pictures).  Moreover, and in any case, such "torture" techniques --as opponents of such practices call them-- do not yield accurate or useful information anyway, (obviously one reason why the Obama Administration is fighting so hard to deny the former President's policies may have contributed to the apprehension of Bin Laden).


  Proponents of such techniques on the other hand say that to cling to Westernized Democratic concepts of constitutional "values" to appeal to still largely authoritarian and tribal societies who in all likelihood are going to hate us anyway is penny wise and pound foolish, and that in a crisis where a terror suspect in custody could provide "Jack Bauer" sort of "real-time" information that may be needed to stop an imminent and disastrous nuclear or chemical attack is not the time to "play nice," (especially so in an age when our attackers no longer come dressed in military fatigues and attack when and where we most expect them).


  According to this perspective, we simply must reserve the right for our military and intelligence communities to use whatever techniques as they deem helpful in stopping such attacks, and prohibiting them from doing so is simply naive and irresponsible.


 While it is admittedly a close call, and the debate is likely to rage on as long as we have those among us who would blow others up just because they don't agree with their beliefs or may not like our politics-- as a person who I recently met in a Starbucks near where I live stridently made clear-- it does seem to us, perhaps precisely because we don't find causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people just to achieve ones political ends at all rational, that whatever the merits of their political ends, (if there are any), the latter perspective makes more common sense from a "public safety" perspective in an age in which saving lives from wanton terrorist attacks must be the paramount deciding factor.   


  After all, while the blame-American-first crowd would certainly strenuously argue, as I'm sure my Starbucks friend and recent commenters would-- and our President publicly has-- that it is in fact American policies and arrogance that-- to quote Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright-- have caused the radical Islamist terrorists to "come home to roost," the bottom line as we see it is when one terrorist in custody has information on an active terror plot that could potentially kill tens of thousands of Americans, constitutional niceties such as reading terrorists miranda warnings and asking "please" just doesn't cut it.  Indeed, when it comes to stopping nuclear, chemical or other mass attacks that could kill thousands of innocent Americans in a population centers like New York City or Chicago in just moments, outright prohibiting such techniques for sake of a "principle" to benefit those who have none instead of allowing our President to make the tough choices necessary is akin to arguing over who forgot to change the battery in the smoke detector while the house is on fire.  


  And if the string of terror attacks and attempts in just the last few years is any indication, our house is indeed "on fire." 


 Moreover, to those who would emphasize constitutional principle over public safety we would like to point out this is no mere "academic" matter.  Rather, it is especially of great and timely interest going forward from Sunday's raid, as even prior to these recent events, warnings had been issued, ostensibly from high ups in the world-wide Al-Qaeda network, of dire consequences in the event their leader Bin Laden was killed or captured, see here and here.


  So it is with great interest we come to the former Defense Secretaries statements last night on Fox.  Now to be fair, surely some will say that he is just "covering" for his former boss.  Perhaps.


 However, also to be fair, and unless we are mistaken, he was also known recently to have opposed such practices personally, which, if true, would raise the credibility of his statements now.


 Add to that the fact that whatever his former employment, we see little reason to believe Mr. Rumsfeld would say things that could later, if proven untrue, undermine his own integrity and credibility.  Indeed, in addition to Donald Rumsfeld just seeming to us to be too much of a "shoot from the hip" straight-shooter kind of guy to beat around the Bush-- no pun intended!-- or care about political correctness, it makes little sense he would lie to defend his former employer who holds no sway over him now when he is a successful author and personality in his own right. 


 Between that and the Chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee Peter King's (R-NY) emphatic statements that he knows those who have personal knowledge of the intelligence gleaned from the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003 and that such information divulged the "nick name" of the human courier later identified from further interrogations of captured Al-Qaeda combatant Al-Libi in 2007 as the real-life courier of Bin Laden's which ultimately led U.S. intelligence to the compound in Iraq-- admittedly after further steps such as the electronic "pinging" of his cell phone--  we feel confident that in time the veracity of these accounts will be confirmed.  Indeed, when combined with declassified information from a 2004 GAO report supporting the assertions of efficacy of such techniques, (see yesterday's post), we feel the burden is on the other side to disprove such claims.


  After all, it's not as if Obama doesn't have reason to want to be seen as the "sole defender" of America against terrorism.  Indeed, his popularity in the polls have jumped nine points since announcement of the death of Bin Laden.  Let's just hope that the President will put the nation's good above his own political ambitions at re-election.  Our country just can't afford to play politics with the nations's safety.  jp

Osama Bin Laden killed by CIA, U.S. "Special Ops" Navy Seals in Pakistan!!!

  Tonight, May 1, 2011, President Obama declared that Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 world trade center attacks on America and head of Al Quaeda worldwide, was killed in a "firefight" between CIA and NSA-directed U.S. "special ops" Navy Seals and Bin Laden security personal today at a privately-owned compound in Pakistan, see here, (NOTE: this is being published at just after midnight and technically May 2nd).  The news began circulating shortly before 10pm Eastern that the White House had informed national news media of a "big" news item to be released in a quickly arranged and highly unusual late Sunday evening news conference.

  According to news reports and President Obama's address to the nation on the meticulously and jointly-planned CIA-NSA Special forces assault early Sunday morning, the operation utilized Blackhawk Chinook attack helicopters which landed the highly-trained Navy Seals inside the compound upon exhaustively-confirmed human intelligence of Bin Laden's presence, (indeed, one might even say the cautious nature of our President which we have often criticized was on full display, thankfully to no ill effect here).  In the ensuing 40 minute gun battle in which residents of the sprawling compound resisted American forces, Osama Bin Laden was killed by gunshot wounds to the head and the chest by U.S. Navy Seals after being given a brief chance to surrender, and, according to at least some reports, after one American helicopter was shot down by pro-Osama snipers on the roof in the initial attack, though with no American casualties, (see below).  The Administration awaited the return of conclusive DNA tests on Bin Laden's body to release the information of the attack and his demise. 

   Bush Administration 'enhanced interrogation techniques' vindicated?

  The "human intelligence" information that led U.S. forces to the conclusion-- in conjunction with further and ongoing CIA investigations in recent years that narrowed suspicions re: the occupants of the million-dollar compound located in a private resort setting near military facilities often called the 'West Point' of Pakistan in the Abbottabad district-- was originally provided from joint CIA-military questioning of enemy combatants pursuant to policies of the Bush Administration which were heavily criticized by candidate Obama in 2008 and in large part banned under his Presidency, details here and here.

  The Bush-era 2003 capture and subsequent waterboarding of Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed the "nick name" of a trusted "courier" to Osama Bin Ladem, (who had ceased using all modern technology in favor of human to human communications to avoid detection by U.S. intelligence authorities).  This alleged Al-Qaeda courier's area of operations in Pakistan, as well as real identity, was subsequently confirmed by further Bush-Administration-authorized enhanced interrogations-- now banned by the Obama Administration-- of Guantuanomo-held enemy combatant Abu Faraj al-Libbi in 2007.  It is the discovery of the true identity of this trusted associate of Bin Laden's, as well as his further tracking by U.S. intelligence subsequently over the last four years, that led the Obama Adminstration to the discovery of the compound in Pakistan where Bin Laden was found and killed.

 Thus, whatever role the Obama Administration played in following up on this Bush-era information vis a vis U.S. intelligence agencies, however "augmented" it may have been with more recent and extensive "on the ground" human intelligence and surveillance of the reclusive compound in Pakistan by CIA operatives over the last six months, there can be no doubt that the success of the Obama Administration's efforts to find (and kill) Osama Bin Laden was directly tied to information gathered by Bush Administration's interrogation policies, (the very policies that Obama has expressly banned and personally renounced as being 'unreliable' and 'against our principles.'  Of course, President Obama mentioned none of these facts in his evening news conference but only his re-affirmation of the Bush-era policy authorizing the assassination of Bin Laden as if it were his own).

  As for the mission itself to actually take down Bin Laden-- which to his credit Obama did authorize--  the President gave the final go-ahead on Friday April 29 at 8:20am before leaving to view Alabama's devastation from recent storms in the South.  Originally planned for Saturday night, the operation was moved to Sunday due to inclement weather in Pakistan.  But to deny the critical role, and indeed, contribution to the entire mission's success that the Bush era policies had played, was, we feel, dishonest in the least and pure partisan one-up-man-ship for the purposes of Obama's personal political gain in the worst, (more on this below).  

      On the compound in which Osama Bin Laden was hiding    

 The sprawling 16 acre compound, seen in video here burning from the crash of a U.S. helicopter into the compound, (see below), was said to be well-constructed and defended-- replete with eighteen foot barbed-wire-topped walls, more details here-- and was located geographically less than 40 miles from the capital city of Islamabad on the outskirts of affluent suburb Abbottabad, just 100 yards from a Pakistani army base, (sure to raise thorny questions of why the sprawling compound, built in 2005 and eight times bigger than any other structure in the area, was not noticed by the Pakistani military and/or government sooner, especially in light of the 3 billion in annual aid we provide Pakistan).  The total American military operation on the ground was made up of 24 Navy seals directly involved in the assault.

   On 'civilian' casualties and 'the 'burial' of Osama Bin Laden

  In addition to the death of Bin Laden, also killed in the attacks were personal members of Bin Laden's family and entourage, including his oldest son and one of his wives which Bin Laden allegedly used as a "human shield" in a cowardly effort to save his own life.   Bin Laden's body was then seized by U.S. forces, undoubtedly photographed, and treated in accord with "Islamic practices"-- i.e., wrapped in a white sheet and interred within 24 hours-- and being accorded a Muslim burial ceremony replete with attendant Imam off the U.S. aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson, ostensibly to eliminate any chance of a "shrine" arising to the terrorist leader at any land-based burial site that could serve as a rallying point to foment further terrorist acts or martyrdom propaganda and "protests" from supporters of the 9/11 mastermind, (if there could be any?!)   In a Monday afternoon press conference split between White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and White House National security personnel, Obama Administration National Security adviser John Brennan refused to elaborate on what specific Muslim authorities were consulted on what constituted "proper" burial Muslim burial practices, but indicated that there was a Muslim "imam" present in response to a direct question on that point by Mara Liason of NPR and Fox News.

  Speculation leading up to the news conference was rampant before leaks of the substance of the impending news conference came out about half an hour before President Obama's speech, (somewhat surprising in light of the stellar success of the Administration keeping news of the highly sensitive operation under wraps).  News in the U.S. appears to have first been leaked by persons using the 'twitter' service, in "tweets" from Keith Urbhan, a former Chief of staff for Donald Rumsfeld at around 9:45pm May 1 and a Pakistani neighbor of Osama Bin Laden's who tweeted about the unusual affair of helicopters overhead in Abbottabad and "window shaking" bangs beginning at 1am local time (he subsequently connected the dots upon announcement of the U.S. President's news conference).

  Finally a note on our coverage of this issue overall.  While we here at the ACLP have often been critical of the Adminstration's policies, (especially pertaining to its views of constitutional authority, abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law), we are also duty-bound to give credit to the Administration where it is due, (even as we ask, if we can do this in Pakistan, why not in Libya and other places around the world when necessary?  Sure is cheaper in blood and treasure than full scale wars!)

  Even if Obama didn't give fill credit to an ever-gracious George W. Bush and his Administration's policies that produced the intelligence enabling the success of this operation, (see below and subsequent post), we still are grateful for Obama's decision, however belated, to go after Bin Laden.  (He could, after all, just have chosen to ignore the intelligence and let this killer continue to go free).  Of course, to what extent the President's doing so was motivated by the unpalatable thought of the political backlash in light of the rapidly approaching 2012 elections if potential inaction on his part was subsequently revealed, in much the same way as Clinton's failure to seize Bin Laden in 1996 was, we shall never know.  Even still, we are grateful for the capture of this terror mastermind regardless.  (NOTE: For whatever can be said of the downfalls of the American party system, it's moderating influence on partisan politicians is legendary and undoubtable in its desirable effects!)

    The ACLP rejoices with the American people over this victory in the war against terror!

  Accordingly, the ACLP welcomes the news of this blow to the Al Quaeda organization at the heart of terrorist attacks against America over the last 18 years, including the first world trade center attacks, the Yemen attacks against the U.S.S. Cole, and the bloody African embassy attacks, (now why couldn't we do this in Libya?)   However, and more ominously, the assault raises many questions for another day about the reliability of Pakistan as an ally in the war on terror, the Administration's inconsistencies and unwillingness to acknowledge the critical contribution of Bush-era policies and intelligence to the mission's success, and the obvious and frankly offensive political correctness of the President's actions regarding the religious 'niceties' provided Osama Bin Laden inherent in his U.S. taxpaid and Islam-approved 'sea burial,' (niceties which weren't offered to the American victims of the world trade center bombings on 9/11).

  For today however-- and mindful that the war on terror is bigger than any one Administration-- it is enough to rejoice with the American people at this wonderful victory of American against the forces of evil that would destroy our civilization.  Indeed, we think a quote from former Vice-President in reaction to these events is apt.

The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of American forces is a victory for the United States and a tremendous achievement for the military and intelligence professionals who carried out this important mission.   Their tireless work since 9/11 has made this achievement possible, and enabled us to capture or kill thousands of al Qaeda terrorists and many of their leaders.  I also want to congratulate President Obama and the members of his national security team.  At this moment when bin Laden has been brought to justice, we especially remember the sacrifice of the young Americans who've paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation, as well as the nearly 3000 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11.  Al Qaeda remains a dangerous enemy.  Though bin Laden is dead, the war goes on.  We must remain vigilant, especially now, and we must continue to support our men and women in uniform who are fighting on the front lines of this war every day.  Today, the message our forces have sent is clear -- if you attack the United States, we will find you and bring you to justice.

Statement of former Vice-President Dick Cheney on the killing of Osama Bin Laden by U.S. forces in Pakistan.

  The President's news conference: An exercise in self-gratification and denial of credit where credit is due; Bush's policies and the amazing work of the U.S. intelligence community juxtaposed against the gracious reactions of Cheney and Bush.

  The President's Sunday news conference, originally scheduled for 10:30pm Eastern Time, was repeatedly delayed, reportedly as the President called U.S. political leaders to tell them the news and put American security forces and leaders around the world on high alert for any retaliatory attacks from Al Qaeda, (which in spite of the death of its well-known leader, still continues to pose a threat to U.S. national interests).

 The death of Bin Laden was a reminder to those who would harm our nation that although American justice may be slow, it is ultimately sure, and can only be a boon for the morale of a nation still reeling from economic recession and a divided body politic.

  Politically-- even though the action was taken in large part in response to a many-years-old directive of former President Bush that Bin Laden should be taken "dead or alive," a designation making legal all government agencies and armed forces to assassinate Bin Laden-- the death of Bin Laden follows reaffirmation by the Obama Administration of this national directive and is as likely to re-invigorate the political debate over the value of so called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, much criticized by the political left and banned by President Obama in 2009, as it is to provide a boost for the re-election prospects of Barack Obama, (especially in light of the fact the intelligence gathered which led to Bin Laden's courier was a direct result of the very Bush policies that Obama has eschewed!)   No civilians or U.S. forces were injured in the operation, (although one of the helicopters assigned to the mission experienced an unplanned "hard landing" or was shot down by Bin Laden security forces, depending on which account you believe).

  Jubilant and triumphant celebrations broke out among crowds who spontaneously gathered at Times Square and in Washington D.C. outside the White House singing patriotic songs and celebrating the news, singing such patriotic favorites as "the Star Spangled Banner" and the patriotic anthem "God Bless America."

  The location of the custom-built walled compound where Bin Laden was killed-- in a large city in which the Pakistani military retain a military base rather than in the mountainous border region with Afghanistan which had been popularly reported to be the locale where Bin Laden had been hiding in recent years-- also raises questions as to whether and how long the Pakistani government knew of Bin Laden's presence and Pakistani support of American aims in the region generally during a time of rising tensions between America and Pakistan over the war on terror.  Nevertheless, President Obama credited the support of the Pakistani government in the human intelligence pinpointing Bin Laden's location.

  The initial intel leading to the successful assault was allegedly received last August and came from CIA led interrogations of Gitmo detainees in Cuba, a factor sure to moot any continuing insistence from the political left that the military camp at Guantanamo Bay housing "enemy combatants" be closed, (long a campaign promise of President Obama opposed by many in both parties).  While the four military equipped Blackhawk Chinook helicopters involved in the assault on the Osama compound took off from American military bases in Afghanistan, the U.S. government did not give details of the planning or mission itself to Pakistan government or military forces prior to its execution, sure to cause some controversy among elements of the Pakistan populace and political parties there.

  Calling it a "testament to the greatness of the America" and even quoting the Pledge of Allegiance in his announcement to the nation, the President stated the successful mission was a testament to the fact that America "can achieve whatever we put our minds to" and the importance of "standing up for our values abroad."  The President also emphasized that America, while dedicated to protecting the interests of the free world, is not at war with the religion of Islam generally, (but only against those who choose terror against America and her citizens).  Politically correct assurances aside, this was undoubtedly a great victory for America and her allies in the global war against terrorism.

 President Bush, reached by President Obama by telephone with the news prior to his nationally-televised speech, expressed gratitude for our armed forces and condolences to the victims of 9/11, stating,

"This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done."

    The announcement of the Obama Administration must surely have been a bittersweet moment for the former President, as the failure to capture Bin Laden during George W. Bush's tenure as leader of the free world was seen by many as one of the most singularly embarrassing lapses of the Bush Administration, (which had made capture of Bin Laden and security of the nation an ongoing priority during the two terms of his Presidency).  The former President, ever gracious, also personally congratulated President Obama on the news.   Former President Clinton, criticized for allowing Osama Bin Laden to slip through his hands in Africa in 1996 due to distractions with his affair with Monica Lewinski, see here, was also personally notified by Obama.

Our hats are off to our intelligence community and the brave service men and woman involved in the planning and execution of this daring intra-Pakistan raid which resulted in achievement of one of the nation's number one security objectives!   jp

Updated May 2, 2011, 4:13pm
Updated May 3, 2011, 2:00pm, NOTE: Strikethroughs are matters of which the factual veracity, due to subsequent public statements of National Security Adviser John Brennan and other Obama Administration officials, are no longer trusted to be accurate.  SEE NEXT POST

The President's partisan 'budget' speech- The first political stump speech of 2012?

Yesterday the President delivered what was undoubtedly the first political stump speech of 2012 to a friendly audience at George Washington University.  Under the guise of a new and more "serious" approach to the nation's burgeoning budget deficit, the President's speech-- laced with class warfare, revisionist political history, and extremely partisan attacks on Republicans and their budget-hawk policies while delivered in an argumentative political style-- was interestingly timed to immediately precede no less than three Presidential fund raisers last night in his home town of Chicago in front of Democratic groups, (a fact that did not escape notice of his supporters on the left OR his critics on the right). 


 Indeed, in light of the coming 2012 Presidential elections forecast to cost as much as 8 BILLION dollars, (yes, that's with a 'b'!), catering to one's base of party activists who give the most money, time and energy to election efforts will be increasingly important to the President as the election draws near, (even at the risk of alienating some Independents, but see previous posts on Obama's tendency to dithering and the dangers thereof here and here).  


  True to form, as most of the President's speeches, it was big on "feel good" themes and short on specifics, even while it ridiculed Republicans' for their budget ideas and deficit-reducing proposals, (particularly those put forth by the Chairman of the U.S. House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, (R-WI), who has been in the lead on this critical issue).

 To add insult to injury, in "stick-in-the-eye" fashion, the President had personally invited several of his political opponents, including Congressman Ryan, to sit in the front row while he gave his speech, (forcing them to endure what must have been an extremely uncomfortable experience while the President droned on and lobbed partisan attacks at Ryan's recently unveiled deficit-cutting proposals and Republicans in general during the 43 minute long speech; indeed, so long was the speech that even Vice President Joe Biden became ostensibly bored at this display of same old same old and dozed off, see picture here).  


  Most importantly, (ominously?), coming on the heels of the recent budget "agreement" staving off a government shutdown that has yet to be approved by the full House, (a vote is expected imminently), it does not bode well for future bi-partisan cooperation between the Obama Administration and the Republican-led House; indeed, other than for pure political gain in his upcoming election we are hard-pressed to see how the President's actions could be interpreted as anything but unappreciative-- to put it mildly!-- of the lauded bi-partisanship expressed in his just-reached budget agreement with Republican Congressional leaders. 

 Indeed, in what has become almost an article of faith of the American political left, the President repeated his mantra that the deficit problems we face as a nation more than half-way through his administration's four year term are still somehow attributable to former President George W. Bush, and, as above alluded to, continued the Democrat staple of bashing the "rich," (seemingly belying the basic economic understanding that the only ones in society with the capital to create new jobs and factories are "the rich" and the fact that the top 10 percent already pay almost 70% of the taxes and the bottom 49% pay nothing at all!). 

    Nevertheless, and repeating the oft-cited canard that Republican economic policies "give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires" even while he simultaneously credited the Clinton administration for the bulk of any national prosperity over the last 20 years--  conveniently ignoring the critical role that the (then) newly elected Republican Congress played when it took over the House in the historic 1994 elections and forced President Clinton to agree to important systemic changes such as capital gains tax reductions welfare reform-- President Obama predictably proceeded to call for a repeal of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, higher taxes on job creators, unspecified reductions in health spending, and an almost 40% cut in military spending over the next 12 years!

 While acknowledging the need to cut government deficits and suggesting a cut of four trillion dollars to the federal deficit over that same 12 years-- never mind that all other budget proposals are historically implemented over 10 years and that all Obama's proposed "cuts" take place after the 2012 elections when he is (ostensibly) re-elected and there is no longer any way to hold him accountable if such cuts don't materialize-- the President's speech conveniently ignores that this leaves a full 2/3 of the deficit intact, (8 TRILLION dollars, with a 'T'!), and actually results in an increase in spending as compared to today.  


 Still, it was good to hear the President, at least in principle, concede the Republican argument that failure to deal with the deficit now will necessitate sudden and catastrophic cuts to all government programs later at a time we might not be able to choose how or the rate of change at which we wish to proceed, including medicare and social security, (the very programs it is oft repeated Dems want to "save.")  

 Ironically, while denying that "waste and abuse" play as significant a role as the Republicans, (and a recent Government Accounting Office report has suggested, see here and here to download full report), the President at the same time promised that his draconian cuts to American defenses will come, yup, you guessed it, from eliminating the very "waste and abuse" he claims is not significant in other areas (even as he claims such cuts will not harm what he termed "my most important obligation," that of defending the nation's security).  How exactly Obama plans on pulling off this feat in the midst of three wars-- one of which he started without a clear strategy of America's role or exit plan-- even as cracks appear in the coalition cobbled together by the U.S. Administration after getting U.N. Security Council "approval" for intervention in the African country, see here--  is an extremely open question, (see Parts I and II of our analysis of the Obama Administration's disregard of the War Powers Resolution Act last month and the imminently forthcoming Part III of our analysis on this blog).   Indeed, some would say such difficulties were all but destined to occur in the face of the ambivalence and abdication of American leadership in this action and with the professed goals of the coalition under the U.N. Security Council resolution limited to "protecting" the populace from Ghadaffi, rather than the badly needed regime change of which the  resolution is silent, (to say nothing of the dubious support of the American people!).

 Be that as it may, and in similar fashion to his State of the Union address, the President also repeated his extensive list of "investments" he feels the federal government is obligated to make-- read more deficit spending-- for pet programs we can neither afford nor is even certain that we need, (such as high speed rail, promotion of alternative and unproven energy sources while vast oil resources in Alaska sits untapped, increased technology spending and increased educational spending).  


 And while the President spoke of the importance of repairing and upgrading infrastructure like roads and bridges, in light of his spending "laundry list" and already strained-to-the-max spending in times of budgetary deficits, it is unclear where such money will come from, (and wasn't such "shovel ready" projects what the "stimulus" was for?!) 

Worst of all, the President continues, in spite of all evidence to the contrary and the great concern of vast numbers of Americans of all political stripes, that the economic effects of Obamacare-- in spite of its covering 50 million more people, translating to an increase in health care of at least 15%-- will result in a decrease instead of an increase in health care costs, (for our full analysis of this issue and related issues see last month's post "So what's really the problem with Obamacare?").

 Don't get me wrong... such facts were certainly nicely wrapped up-- or, depending on your perspective-- obscured, by glowing rhetorical flourishes and references to by-gone eras of "bi-partisanship" and America's admittedly generous and free heritage.

 In that light, if what you want in a President after 8 years of Bush's admitted weakness in public speaking skills is someone who can make you feel all "warm and fuzzy" inside with his mastery of the English language, professorial delivery and lofty political rhetoric-- even if the reality is nowhere near the economic facts-- then Obama is clearly your man.

 And while we won't here go into all the false presumptions, inaccuracies, and partisan jabs in the President's speech here, (for a video reply by Representative Ryan himself click here, for a full summary of the actual policy facts in written form click here), that is not really our goal.

 But it is certainly safe to say that any notions that the 2012 re-election campaign of this Administration hasn't yet kicked off-- as if in light of recent events any evidence were needed of this fact-- were handily dispelled by the President's front row and very personal performance for Representative Ryan. (Perhaps the President needs to spend a little less time polishing his speeches and a little more time brushing up on his manners? He did, after all, just finish gushing over the bi-partisan budget agreement with Republican speaker Boehner, (see last post this blog).  Indeed, such an about-face towards Republicans' and/or brazen attacks on their deeply-held principles does not bode well for the much more controversial debates ahead on the 2012 budget (which haven't even started but are about to).  Just because we've dodged one bullet in the way of government shut-downs doesn't mean there won't be others; indeed, we would be surprised if there weren't and could manage to avoid a shutdown-- or at least multiple threats of one-- before the year is out, (if not sooner!). 


 So strap on your seatbelts kiddies!  It's going to be a fun ride this election cycle, at least until the voters settle whose policies they trust more in 2012 once and for all.  jp

The President's speech and the Libyan intervention under the 1973 War Powers Act- Part Two

As promised last Tuesday-- I do apologize for the delay as I have been attending to other matters, including preparing to take grad entrance exams in a couple months and other issues-- today we are going to delve a little deeper into the whole Libyan matter vis a vis the War Powers Act, (i.e., the "War Powers Resolution Act" passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973).  Initially, and to bring us up to speed on the developments over the last week, we are thrilled to see that any "handing off" of control over American service men and women is apparently going to result in the continuation of their service under the command of an American General in Nato, (for news click here), even if some don't think it will occur at all, (see here). 

 But all such pronouncements arising from the President's speech to the nation last night-- complete with its ironic and almost megalomaniac attempts to take the opportunity to draw some kind of contrast with his presidential predecessors' alleged "delayed" actions vis a vis Bosnia and the Iraq war, see here-- appeared to us to be more about "politics" than anything else and did little to address in detail many lingering questions, including:  1) What are America's national interests in Libya? 2) What is the "exit" strategy and ultimate goal of this "police action," 3) Whether the "War Powers Resolution Act" passed by the United States Congress in 1973 and for which all modern President's have been criticized for not carefully heeding to, can be abrogated, or its requirements fulfilled, by resolutions passed from a world body such as the United Nations Security Council, and 4) if they can be, on what basis are they legal?

Much more than mere academics-  The Rule of Law and America's role in the World

 Such questions as these last two are far more than academic, as they go to the very core of what it means to be an independent Republic of laws and not of men, while the first two, admittedly more "policy based," are inextricably intertwined with the question of whether America will continue to be a strong and independent force for freedom and good in the world.  Indeed, it is the inherent tension between the two that the current Libyan intervention inexplicably raises.  The answers could well determine whether America will in the future be reduced to merely a puppet of other world powers to do their bidding when it suits them if only our President unilaterally consents or whether we will continue to be an independent Republic "governed by laws and not of men" and able to act, unilaterally and pursuant to our law, when it is in our national interests to do so.  


To get to the answers will require a review of relevant history and Constitutional provisions, as well as a brief analysis of international law and relevant treaties governing America's relationship with international organizations such as the U.N. and Nato, (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).


 And while the more "political" questions of various Presidents' regard, (or lack thereof) for the War Powers Resolution Act itself-- long a criticism of the political left but now also an issue raised by the American Tea Party movement-- will be addressed where relevant, it is not our primary focus of interest here, (as others have aptly weighed in on the legality of President Obama's actions generally, see here), and we have felt content to leave to history and the voters who have and will in due course render judgement as they see fit, (as is the genius of our free Democratic Republic under our Constitution).


As one might imagine, adequately addressing such a topic as I have raised will necessarily take some time. I therefore will devote as many posts as necessary to an adequate examination of this subject, (while allowing for other duties and interjection of other subjects as may arise of more immediate importance), and will note them appropriately for organizational purposes as their respective parts, (of which this is Part Two).


We begin our analysis of this subject with a review of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, our primary law which has successfully governed our Republic and insured our freedoms for over 230 years, (a record in the history of nation states!). 

The Congress' mandatory role under the United States Constitution and War Powers Act

The U.S. Constitution expressly states that "Congress shall have power to... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal," and to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations."   United States Constitution, Art. 1, Section 8.


In the same section the Constitution further grants Congress the right to "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States" (the so called "necesssary and proper" or "elastic" clause which those in support of Obamacare like to repeat, another subject for another day, but see previous post on this blog "So what's really the problem with Obamacare?").


As we alluded to in Part One of this topic, Congress intended to utilize this constitutional "necessary and proper" power found in Section 8 by creating the War Powers Resolution Act, (i.e., WPRA). Indeed, this proper ground for its authority is particularly referenced in the text of the WPRA itself:

 SECTION 1, SEC. 2. (b)

"Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

 As an aside, although President Obama stated in his address to the nation that he "consulted" with leaders of the Congress prior to approving military action to enforce U.N. resolution 1973 re: Libya, we note the President is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to do more than just garner international coalitions or "talk" with Congress.  Indeed, the WPRA doesn't refer to "talking" to Congressional leaders at all.  Rather, it clearly indicates the law's requirement that the President's "consulting" duties requires a more direct vote and approval of the Congress.  Again, I quote the relevant portions of the WPRA:

SECTION 1. 

This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY-  SECTION 2. (a)

"It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."

Moreover, such consultations with Congress are to take place before military forced is used, and insure the President continues to "consult" with Congress in accord with the Act's requirements, to wit:

The Requirement for Consultation with Congress under the War Powers Act

CONSULTATION- SECTION 3.

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations." - War Powers Resolution Act Section 3.

Further, the WPRA is clear about the circumstances under which force can be utilized. Indeed, under Section 2. (c), the only exception is when American forces are attacked or forced into military action due to the threat of "imminent threat of hostilities" upon American forces:

"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."  SECTION 2. (c) WPRA.

Moreover, as pointed out last time, it is the President's duty to-- within 48 hours of use of the armed forces under imminent threat or actual attack-- inform the Congress of the reasons for military action, (clearly not done in this case), to be followed up with written reports to Congress within specific time frames:

REPORTING- SECTION 4. (a)


"In the absence of a declaration of war, [By Congress], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."

Thus, while it remains to be seen whether the President will comply with the subsequent reporting required, it is inescapably clear that President Obama has clearly flouted the War Powers Act's requirements to initially do so within 48 hours upon one of the triggering events in order to apprise Congress of the reasons and authority for his actions and allow them to fulfill their constitutional role, (leading us to believe that Congressmen Dennis Kucinich's call for Obama's impeachment, while we think a bit over the top, at least has some basis in law, click here).

A question of Separation of Powers, not the 'moral' need for Intervention in Libya

Indeed, this action raises extremely serious constitutional questions regarding Separation of Powers, appropriate constitutional limitations on the two elected (i.e., "political") branches of our federal government, and the Obama Administration's questionable commitment to the Rule of Law. 


Of course, we here at the ACLP have often acknowledged President Obama's soaring rhetorical skills.  Unfortunately, admirable as that may be, it does not in itself change or effect the importance of what we are here discussing, (which is the very Rule of Law by which our whole system of government must continue or eventually fail entirely).  


In that respect, the speech to the nation last night by the President changes none of these matters. 


American interests?  The cost of intervention

Indeed, on that score, this is not about whether or not intervention was necessary in Libya in order to prevent a mass slaughter of civilians, or whether it is in America's interests for Gaddafi to be removed from power.  (As our previous posts make clear, we wholeheartedly agree that the "mad dog of Africa," as President Reagan used to call Gaddafi, needs to go, indeed such is expressly in our national interests.)   He does, after all, have the blood of hundreds of American lives on his hands, (e.g., Pan Am flight 103 terrorist attack as well as Berlin Disco bombing in the 80's and countless other covert terrorist acts around the world).  And this is so regardless of whether or not the rebels are connected to Al Quaeda, a very serious and separate question that must definitively be answered before we allow any other regime to establish itself and/or we decide to directly arm the rebels with American arms.  (Indeed, establishment of just another terrorist regime in Gaddafi's place wouldn't be worth the blood of even one American soldier, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars this attack is costing the U.S. taxpayers, see here and here. For reports upon possible Al Quaeda and terrorist connections of the Libyan 'rebels' click here and here).


The Rule of Law

Clearly, the questions at stake which we raise here rather go to the Rule of Law, (and to a lessor extent, the means by which the mission, even assuming it were clearly defined, will be accomplished; incidentally, the United Nations resolution does not authorize "regime change," the very action which would need to take place for any true freedom and protection for the Libyan people to endure as well as to bring the terrorist thug Gaddafi to justice).  Indeed, while the President's speech admits the desireability of removing Gaddafi from power, he openly admits there is no authority for such action from the U.N. mandate, (to say nothing of the War Powers Resolution!) and our limited goals in this regard. (And this on top of his utter failure to outline our exit strategy, the oft critically mentioned "end game" which the President openly admits doesn't exist, nor is there likely to be a clear one established once control of the mission is fully handed off to Nato, for full news on this see here).


Thus, while we here at the ACLP actually agree with the President that some action was desireable and even necessary, we continue to have great reservations about the process, plan and means being used to justify the use of American military forces to do so (even if there were a clear "end game," and even as the President has announced his policy of pursuing a mere "support role" going forward in conflict he has now involved American forces in). 

Non-sensical political correctness?

Indeed, while the President seems to be bending over backwards not to unduly threaten or "offend" other Islamic nations at the prospect of the "great Satan" intervening imperially into their affairs, it apparently hasn't dawned on him that the radical jihadists aren't likely to feel kindly towards us anyways, and that the moderates of the Muslim religion who yearn for freedom and make up the vast bulk of the citizenry want nothing more than for us to intervene, (in fact, if anything they are more likely to be radicalized and recruited for terrorism if we turn a deaf ear to their cries as we did with the Iranian student protestors in June of 2009, see here, here and here, and almost did in Egypt following a seeming pattern, see here).  Such arguments therefore just don't hold up.


As pointed out herein however that does not necessarily mean that we can dispense with the War Powers Resolution or assume military intervention in Libya is lawful.


Moreover, we have serious concerns about the criteria listed by the Administration, (as surely Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran and North Korea are countries fraught with unrest which are ruled by dictators who brutally repress and murder their own people as well as constitute potential (or actual!) hotbeds for terrorism and to varying degrees oppose America and its "freedom agenda" for Democracy around the world).

Don't misunderstand; The ACLP wholeheartedly supports promoting freedom and Democracy around the world wherever we can with decisive action, (one reason we were so unhappy with the Obama Administration's initial lack of decisive action three weeks ago when the "freedom fighter's" were on Tripoli's doorstep instead of now when the human cost and duration of our mission must necessarily be more extensive in order to achieve success).

But in an environment where today's freedom fighters often become tomorrow's terrorists-- and with little seeming ability to forecast the difference between the two-- and especially in this time of limited financial resources and great needs here at home, we simply cannot afford either the human or economic capitol that similar intervention in every country that meets this somewhat amorphous standard would cost.  

A call (and hope!) for clarity in the Libyan mission

In sum, and even as we continue to probe the Constitutionality of this military action, we look forward to receiving more clarity on the mission shortly from the Administration-- or at least news that Gaddafi has stepped down or been summarily deposed in a way that will usher in a free and open society in Libya-- and hope this intervention in Libya succeeds.  (Of course, even if it does, that will not have proven this little exploit was lawful, as we have already shown, it is very arguably not).  


Moreover-- and especially if this action continues with use of the American military for much longer-- the American people, and the men and women who stand ready to lay down their lives for our country every day in potential actions like this all around the world, deserve a lawful justification for the mission in Libya, as well as a better framing of just what are our goals and America's exit strategy for the mission there.

 Indeed, in light of the sacrifices our servicemen and women make every day, they deserve no less. jp