Professor, the memo itself notes that the Page surveillance order was issued on the basis of probable cause. There may have been lots of unconstitutional surveillance going on under FISA since it was supposed to stop in 2006 for all I know, but the surveillance of Page and others in this investigation seems entirely justified.
Professor, is it possible you are being a little unfair to Abadi in treating him as basically indistinguishable from the awful Maliki? He has had some success on the integration track if not on the corruption track, hiring a Sunni defense minister and making a deal on oil revenues with Kurds. But he is in a position with the MPs analogous to Obama's position with Congress--can't do much as long as they refuse to do their work and cling to the system that has been so profitable for them.
The Sadrists are pushing the MPs to do what Abadi has been saying he wants to do. The Times suggests he may quietly support them and this is the reason security forces are being delicate by Iraqi standards with the protestors. I'm wondering if this couldn't be true.
I'm sure that there is ongoing cooperation between Israel and the Nusra front at least in Golan, but I'm surprised you think the US would be "tempted" to join this unholy alliance, professor. Surely this is one of the angry points of division between Israel/KSA and the US.
It's hardly been the case that "strikes against al-Qaeda in Syria are rare", the US has been bombing Nusra from the beginning of the Syria campaign in March, and was violently criticized for it too, if I remember right, by self-denominated "progressives" who thought it should only strike Daesh. I'm also convinced that the training of "Sunni moderates" is designed to fail, precisely because these recruits cannot be trusted not to join up with Nusra (as they may have done in last month's "kidnaping").
KSA is certainly implicated, but not in support for
isis; rather for Isis's enemy al-Nusra Front, the heir to Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Which KSA does in fact back (along with Turkey, and maybe Israel and Senator McCain). It's most important for the US to be detached from Nusra; I believe that's the reason for relatively weak US support of those Syrian Sunni "moderates", because so many of them are really Nusra affiliates, and another thing I hope is that Obama resists the King's pleas on that subject.
It seems clear to me that Obama is well aware of how inconsequential the Iranian involvement in Yemen is, as he hinted in his Friedman interview in July (“In some cases, for example, the Houthis in Yemen, I think Iranian involvement has been initially overstated,” said Mr. Obama), and it's also clear to me that the US technical support for the Saudis in Yemen began in part as an effort to hold them back--to restrain the indiscriminate bombing and save civilian lives. But if so, it's clearly not working, as we learn today. I'd like to try to imagine Obama could use this meeting to make it stop.
Mentioning Isfahan made me think of the city's 1500 Jews so beautifully reported on in Larry Cohler-Esses's piece who Netanyahu and Barak would unhesitatingly bomb and irradiate to make their "point".
I fear poor Yemen is the biggest loser of all, not directly because of the deal but because Saudi Arabia seems determined to destroy it simply to take out its spite over its own loss of prestige.
Also missing from the reportage, though, was any discussion of what Hagel was up to in terms of policy as opposed to the usual middle-school terms of who likes who and oh no she didn't. He's been fighting defense budget cuts for over a year, publicly insisted that ISIS is more dangerous than the president says, publicly complained about the president's refusal to attack the Assad regime, and clearly belonged to the war party himself. You may feel the Obama policy isn't restrained enough, but it was too restrained for Hagel, he refused to defend it in public, and that 's why he was axed. It may not be peace, but it's a loss for the Stupid Shit Caucus and a good thing as far as it goes.
In addition to nuclear energy, and for the present more important, is enriched uranium for cancer radiation treatment, which Iran is unable to buy because of sanctions. I agree with the sovereign right to produce too, but Iran does have a practical use for enriched uranium. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121902171.html
That's it. "Obama's first pre-Super Bowl interview was with NBC's Matt Lauer in 2009. Since then he has spoken with CBS's Katie Couric in 2010, O'Reilly in 2011, Lauer again in 2012, and CBS's Scott Pelley in 2013." (http://m.localnews8.com/oreilly-to-interview-obama-for-super-bowl-pregame-show/-/22687636/24078998/-/12a7r9gz/-/index.html) Imagine O'Reilly screaming "coward" if PBO had turned him down this time. It unfortunately can't be helped. Also I think sometimes he deliberately chooses the dumbest interviewer (Chuck Todd) when he wants to edit his message for simplicity.
It's North Ossetia that counts in this calculus. If South Ossetia "kicks up" then of course Putin will simply bankroll them as before. There are places where he has no objection to "self-determination" at all.
Obama accepts the Likud claim that there was something benign about the original "unilateral" withdrawal from Gaza as if it had been a gesture toward Palestinian statehood (kicked out the settlers, took out the occupying troops). From that point of view I imagine the blockade seems reasonable (i.e., "We tried to give them freedom but they just couldn't handle it"). I don't think anybody Obama listens to is saying what the withdrawal really was--occupation from the outside, making Gaza a prison camp without any guards. We on the pro-human side should perhaps be saying this a little more loudly, because it's part of why we think the attack on the Mavi Marmara was such a bad thing (to the people Obama does listen to, it's just more "Israel has a right to defend herself").
To my mind it is just huge that Netanyahu could have used the word "apologize" at all. Bill, above, may be right on the importance of Syria in the calculations of all these persons.
Professor, the memo itself notes that the Page surveillance order was issued on the basis of probable cause. There may have been lots of unconstitutional surveillance going on under FISA since it was supposed to stop in 2006 for all I know, but the surveillance of Page and others in this investigation seems entirely justified.
Also, NPR had a shocking report this morning on Israeli authorities withholding water from West Bank Arab households.
Professor, is it possible you are being a little unfair to Abadi in treating him as basically indistinguishable from the awful Maliki? He has had some success on the integration track if not on the corruption track, hiring a Sunni defense minister and making a deal on oil revenues with Kurds. But he is in a position with the MPs analogous to Obama's position with Congress--can't do much as long as they refuse to do their work and cling to the system that has been so profitable for them.
The Sadrists are pushing the MPs to do what Abadi has been saying he wants to do. The Times suggests he may quietly support them and this is the reason security forces are being delicate by Iraqi standards with the protestors. I'm wondering if this couldn't be true.
I'm sure that there is ongoing cooperation between Israel and the Nusra front at least in Golan, but I'm surprised you think the US would be "tempted" to join this unholy alliance, professor. Surely this is one of the angry points of division between Israel/KSA and the US.
It's hardly been the case that "strikes against al-Qaeda in Syria are rare", the US has been bombing Nusra from the beginning of the Syria campaign in March, and was violently criticized for it too, if I remember right, by self-denominated "progressives" who thought it should only strike Daesh. I'm also convinced that the training of "Sunni moderates" is designed to fail, precisely because these recruits cannot be trusted not to join up with Nusra (as they may have done in last month's "kidnaping").
"I think Viktor Orban and Franklin Graham just got pwned."
Not to mention famous media papist Ross Douthat.
KSA is certainly implicated, but not in support for
isis; rather for Isis's enemy al-Nusra Front, the heir to Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Which KSA does in fact back (along with Turkey, and maybe Israel and Senator McCain). It's most important for the US to be detached from Nusra; I believe that's the reason for relatively weak US support of those Syrian Sunni "moderates", because so many of them are really Nusra affiliates, and another thing I hope is that Obama resists the King's pleas on that subject.
It seems clear to me that Obama is well aware of how inconsequential the Iranian involvement in Yemen is, as he hinted in his Friedman interview in July (“In some cases, for example, the Houthis in Yemen, I think Iranian involvement has been initially overstated,” said Mr. Obama), and it's also clear to me that the US technical support for the Saudis in Yemen began in part as an effort to hold them back--to restrain the indiscriminate bombing and save civilian lives. But if so, it's clearly not working, as we learn today. I'd like to try to imagine Obama could use this meeting to make it stop.
Mentioning Isfahan made me think of the city's 1500 Jews so beautifully reported on in Larry Cohler-Esses's piece who Netanyahu and Barak would unhesitatingly bomb and irradiate to make their "point".
I fear poor Yemen is the biggest loser of all, not directly because of the deal but because Saudi Arabia seems determined to destroy it simply to take out its spite over its own loss of prestige.
Well, I can see how you might read Hagel's angry memo to Susan Rice (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/222354-hagel-memo-criticized-wh-syria-strategy ) that way, because the reporting is deliberately ambiguous, though I can't: it seems clear to me that Hagel is pissed off with Rice as representing the don't-attack-Assad faction. But not Hagel's visit to McCain the week before the firing (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-24/john-mccain-chuck-hagel-was-up-to-the-job ). He went to McCain for sympathy because they agree with each other.
Also missing from the reportage, though, was any discussion of what Hagel was up to in terms of policy as opposed to the usual middle-school terms of who likes who and oh no she didn't. He's been fighting defense budget cuts for over a year, publicly insisted that ISIS is more dangerous than the president says, publicly complained about the president's refusal to attack the Assad regime, and clearly belonged to the war party himself. You may feel the Obama policy isn't restrained enough, but it was too restrained for Hagel, he refused to defend it in public, and that 's why he was axed. It may not be peace, but it's a loss for the Stupid Shit Caucus and a good thing as far as it goes.
In addition to nuclear energy, and for the present more important, is enriched uranium for cancer radiation treatment, which Iran is unable to buy because of sanctions. I agree with the sovereign right to produce too, but Iran does have a practical use for enriched uranium. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121902171.html
I think it is wrong to suggest that China is "excluded" from TPP. Rather, like Vietnam and South Korea (and Japan a little over a year ago), it is not *yet* in. All the openly available information I can see suggests broad agreement that China ought to be in, while China has been working to create a rival FTAAP that specifically excludes the US. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27107349 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304422704579569691355930008
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27107349
Is it possible, given the relative smallness of the gift, that it's not so much help for Syrians as STFU for Senator McCain and his friends?
That's how David Brooks writes, when he incorporates "facts" into a column! I got some persuasive evidence: http://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2013/01/libenter-enim-suffertis-insipientes_6.html
That's it. "Obama's first pre-Super Bowl interview was with NBC's Matt Lauer in 2009. Since then he has spoken with CBS's Katie Couric in 2010, O'Reilly in 2011, Lauer again in 2012, and CBS's Scott Pelley in 2013." (http://m.localnews8.com/oreilly-to-interview-obama-for-super-bowl-pregame-show/-/22687636/24078998/-/12a7r9gz/-/index.html) Imagine O'Reilly screaming "coward" if PBO had turned him down this time. It unfortunately can't be helped. Also I think sometimes he deliberately chooses the dumbest interviewer (Chuck Todd) when he wants to edit his message for simplicity.
To Fox, all scholars are basically Daniel Pipes--they have no clue what scholarship is.
It's North Ossetia that counts in this calculus. If South Ossetia "kicks up" then of course Putin will simply bankroll them as before. There are places where he has no objection to "self-determination" at all.
Obama accepts the Likud claim that there was something benign about the original "unilateral" withdrawal from Gaza as if it had been a gesture toward Palestinian statehood (kicked out the settlers, took out the occupying troops). From that point of view I imagine the blockade seems reasonable (i.e., "We tried to give them freedom but they just couldn't handle it"). I don't think anybody Obama listens to is saying what the withdrawal really was--occupation from the outside, making Gaza a prison camp without any guards. We on the pro-human side should perhaps be saying this a little more loudly, because it's part of why we think the attack on the Mavi Marmara was such a bad thing (to the people Obama does listen to, it's just more "Israel has a right to defend herself").
To my mind it is just huge that Netanyahu could have used the word "apologize" at all. Bill, above, may be right on the importance of Syria in the calculations of all these persons.