Starting Points

Aug 29, 2009

President Obama's Remarks at Sen. Ted Kennedy's Funeral - washingtonpost.com

The text of President Obama’s eulogy for Edward M. Kennedy at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica.

Boston, Mass. — Mrs. Kennedy, Kara, Edward, Patrick, Curran, Caroline, members of the Kennedy family, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Today we say goodbye to the youngest child of Rose and Joseph Kennedy. The world will long remember their son Edward as the heir to a weighty legacy; a champion for those who had none; the soul of the Democratic Party; and the lion of the United States Senate — a man whose name graces nearly 1,000 laws, and who penned more than 300 laws himself.

But those of us who loved him, and ache with his passing, know Ted Kennedy by the other titles he held: Father. Brother. Husband. Uncle Teddy, or as he was often known to his younger nieces and nephews, “The Grand Fromage,” or “The Big Cheese.” I, like so many others in the city where he worked for nearly half a century, knew him as a colleague, a mentor, and above all, a friend.

Ted Kennedy was the baby of the family who became its patriarch; the restless dreamer who became its rock. He was the sunny, joyful child, who bore the brunt of his brothers’ teasing, but learned quickly how to brush it off. When they tossed him off a boat because he didn’t know what a jib was, six-year-old Teddy got back in and learned to sail. When a photographer asked the newly-elected Bobby to step back at a press conference because he was casting a shadow on his younger brother, Teddy quipped, “It’ll be the same in Washington.”

This spirit of resilience and good humor would see Ted Kennedy through more pain and tragedy than most of us will ever know. He lost two siblings by the age of sixteen. He saw two more taken violently from the country that loved them. He said goodbye to his beloved sister, Eunice, in the final days of his own life. He narrowly survived a plane crash, watched two children struggle with cancer, buried three nephews, and experienced personal failings and setbacks in the most public way possible.

It is a string of events that would have broken a lesser man. And it would have been easy for Teddy to let himself become bitter and hardened; to surrender to self-pity and regret; to retreat from public life and live out his years in peaceful quiet. No one would have blamed him for that.

But that was not Ted Kennedy. As he told us, “...[I]ndividual faults and frailties are no excuse to give in — and no exemption from the common obligation to give of ourselves.” Indeed, Ted was the “Happy Warrior” that the poet William Wordsworth spoke of when he wrote:

As tempted more; more able to endure,

As more exposed to suffering and distress;

Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.

Through his own suffering, Ted Kennedy became more alive to the plight and suffering of others — the sick child who could not see a doctor; the young soldier sent to battle without armor; the citizen denied her rights because of what she looks like or who she loves or where she comes from. The landmark laws that he championed -- the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, immigration reform, children’s health care, the Family and Medical Leave Act –all have a running thread. Ted Kennedy’s life’s work was not to champion those with wealth or power or special connections. It was to give a voice to those who were not heard; to add a rung to the ladder of opportunity; to make real the dream of our founding. He was given the gift of time that his brothers were not, and he used that gift to touch as many lives and right as many wrongs as the years would allow.

We can still hear his voice bellowing through the Senate chamber, face reddened, fist pounding the podium, a veritable force of nature, in support of health care or workers’ rights or civil rights. And yet, while his causes became deeply personal, his disagreements never did. While he was seen by his fiercest critics as a partisan lightning rod, that is not the prism through which Ted Kennedy saw the world, nor was it the prism through which his colleagues saw Ted Kennedy. He was a product of an age when the joy and nobility of politics prevented differences of party and philosophy from becoming barriers to cooperation and mutual respect – a time when adversaries still saw each other as patriots.

And that’s how Ted Kennedy became the greatest legislator of our time. He did it by hewing to principle, but also by seeking compromise and common cause — not through deal-making and horse-trading alone, but through friendship, and kindness, and humor. There was the time he courted Orrin Hatch’s support for the Children’s Health Insurance Program by having his Chief of Staff serenade the Senator with a song Orrin had written himself; the time he delivered shamrock cookies on a china plate to sweeten up a crusty Republican colleague; and the famous story of how he won the support of a Texas Committee Chairman on an immigration bill. Teddy walked into a meeting with a plain manila envelope, and showed only the Chairman that it was filled with the Texan’s favorite cigars. When the negotiations were going well, he would inch the envelope closer to the Chairman. When they weren’t, he would pull it back. Before long, the deal was done.

It was only a few years ago, on St. Patrick’s Day, when Teddy buttonholed me on the floor of the Senate for my support on a certain piece of legislation that was coming up for vote. I gave him my pledge, but expressed my skepticism that it would pass. But when the roll call was over, the bill garnered the votes it needed, and then some. I looked at Teddy with astonishment and asked how he had done it. He just patted me on the back, and said “Luck of the Irish!”

Of course, luck had little to do with Ted Kennedy’s legislative success, and he knew that. A few years ago, his father-in-law told him that he and Daniel Webster just might be the two greatest senators of all time. Without missing a beat, Teddy replied, “What did Webster do?”

But though it is Ted Kennedy’s historic body of achievements that we will remember, it is his giving heart that we will miss. It was the friend and colleague who was always the first to pick up the phone and say, “I’m sorry for your loss,” or “I hope you feel better,” or “What can I do to help?” It was the boss who was so adored by his staff that over five hundred spanning five decades showed up for his 75th birthday party. It was the man who sent birthday wishes and thank you notes and even his own paintings to so many who never imagined that a U.S. Senator of such statue would take the time to think about someone like them. I have one of those paintings in my private study – a Cape Cod seascape that was a gift to a freshman legislator who had just arrived in Washington and happened to admire it when Ted Kennedy welcomed him into his office the first week he arrived in Washington; by the way, that’s my second favorite gift from Teddy and Vicki after our dog Bo. And it seems like everyone has one of those stories – the ones that often start with “You wouldn’t believe who called me today.”

Ted Kennedy was the father who looked after not only his own three children, but John’s and Bobby’s as well. He took them camping and taught them to sail. He laughed and danced with them at birthdays and weddings; cried and mourned with them through hardship and tragedy; and passed on that same sense of service and selflessness that his parents had instilled in him. Shortly after Ted walked Caroline down the aisle and gave her away at the altar, he received a note from Jackie that read, “On you the carefree youngest brother fell a burden a hero would have begged to been spared. We are all going to make it because you were always there with your love.”

Not only did the Kennedy family make it because of Ted’s love – he made it because of theirs; and especially because of the love and the life he found in Vicki. After so much loss and so much sorrow, it could not have been easy for Ted to risk his heart again. That he did is a testament to how deeply he loved this remarkable woman from Louisiana. And she didn’t just love him back. As Ted would often acknowledge, Vicki saved him. She gave him strength and purpose; joy and friendship; and stood by him always, especially in those last, hardest days.

We cannot know for certain how long we have here. We cannot foresee the trials or misfortunes that will test us along the way. We cannot know God’s plan for us.

What we can do is to live out our lives as best we can with purpose, and love, and joy. We can use each day to show those who are closest to us how much we care about them, and treat others with the kindness and respect that we wish for ourselves. We can learn from our mistakes and grow from our failures. And we can strive at all costs to make a better world, so that someday, if we are blessed with the chance to look back on our time here, we can know that we spent it well; that we made a difference; that our fleeting presence had a lasting impact on the lives of other human beings.

This is how Ted Kennedy lived. This is his legacy. He once said of his brother Bobby that he need not be idealized or enlarged in death because what he was in life, and I imagine he would say the same about himself. The greatest expectations were placed upon Ted Kennedy’s shoulders because of who he was, but he surpassed them all because of who he became. We do not weep for him today because of the prestige attached to his name or his office. We weep because we loved this kind and tender hero who persevered through pain and tragedy – not for the sake of ambition or vanity; not for wealth or power; but only for the people and the country that he loved.

In the days after September 11th, Teddy made it a point to personally call each one of the 177 families of this state who lost a loved one in the attack. But he didn’t stop there. He kept calling and checking up on them. He fought through red tape to get them assistance and grief counseling. He invited them sailing, played with their children, and would write each family a letter whenever the anniversary of that terrible day came along. To one widow, he wrote the following:

“As you know so well, the passage of time never really heals the tragic memory of such a great loss, but we carry on, because we have to, because our loved one would want us to, and because there is still light to guide us in the world from the love they gave us.”

We carry on.

Ted Kennedy has gone home now, guided by his faith and by the light of those that he has loved and lost. At last he is with them once more, leaving those of us who grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good that he did, the dream he kept alive, and a single, enduring image – the image of a man on a boat; white mane tousled; smiling broadly as he sails into the wind, ready for whatever storms may come, carrying on toward some new and wondrous place just beyond the horizon. May God Bless Ted Kennedy, and may he rest in eternal peace.

Suharto Family Angling to Re-Enter Indonesian Politics - The Jakarta Globe

Image via Wikipedia

Analysts said on Friday that the irrepressible Suharto family was courting its former bedfellow, the troubled Golkar Party, for a possible comeback.

A string of recent political events involving the two amounts to a “testing of the waters” for possible re-entry into politics, analysts said.

After keeping a low political profile since Suharto stepped down in 1998, members of the dynasty are now back in the news headlines.

Suharto’s youngest son, Hutomo “Tommy” Mandala Putra, speaking through an aide earlier this month, raised eyebrows when he floated his candidacy for the chairmanship of Golkar.

In a second instance related to Suharto’s family, a young rising Golkar figure, Yuddy Chrisnandi, held meetings with Tommy and his eldest sister, Siti Hardiyanti “Tutut” Rukmana, to drum up support for his own play for the Golkar throne.

Political analyst Ikrar Nusa Bakti from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) believed that both Tommy and Tutut were testing public reaction over the possibility of a return to political life. Tutut and another Suharto sibling, Bambang Trihatmojo, had previously been active on Golkar’s executive board, while Tommy served as a member of the Golkar faction in the People’s Consultative Assembly from 1992 to 1997.

“They want to see whether the public is still against the Suharto family or if things had now changed,” Ikrar said.

Burhanudin Muhtadi, a senior researcher at the Indonesian Survey Institute, said the Suharto clan still exerted substantial influence among Golkar elites, and recent moves indicated Tommy and Tutut were testing the party’s reaction.

He said the two saw Golkar as their most likely political vehicle to carry them toward the elections in 2014.

Golkar’s deputy secretary general, Rully Chaerul Azwar, said public perception of the Suharto clan, also called Cendana after the name of the Menteng street where the family compound is located, had changed.

“After years of reform, I see that many political stances against Cendana in the past have now softened because we see the reality that we can’t put the blame solely on Cendana,” he said.

Hambali Likely to Escape Prosecution For Bali Bombs: US Officials - The Jakarta Globe

Image via Wikipedia

Hambali, the terrorist mastermind believed by experts to be behind the Bali bombings in 2002, is likely to escape prosecution for his role in the attacks, The Weekend Australian newspaper reported on Saturday.

Citing unnamed senior US officials, the newspaper wrote that military prosecutors lack the evidence to charge the terror suspect over the bombings of two Kuta nightclubs, which killed 202 people.

Authorities should be able to connect Hambali to other terrorist attacks in Indonesia, meaning he will remain in custody, but there is not enough evidence to charge him for the Bali attacks, the newspaper stated.

"As it stands now, the case against Hambali on Bali is weak," the newspaper quoted an unnamed US official as saying. "But the investigation has not stopped. It is ongoing."

Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, was arrested in 2003 in Thailand as part of a US antiterror operation.

Terrorism experts have said that Hambali likely provided a large amount of funds for the Bali attack and acted as a treasurer for Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.

Merdeka - Nut Graph

28 Aug 09 : 8.00AM

By The Nut Graph team

(Pic by ~ezs @ Flickr)

THIS year, Merdeka falls on a Monday. Obligatory flags have been going up on most streetlamp posts and in most public spaces. Yet the number of cars sporting miniature Jalur Gemilang is notably sparse. It seems reasonable to believe that the fanfare surrounding Malaya's 52nd independence anniversary will be muted.

What has happened to the citizenry's display of patriotism?

An obvious factor is the commencement of Ramadan, which will render most Malaysians, an estimated 60% or more of the population comprising Malay Muslims, sluggish. Or the international economic downturn, which has rendered our collective pockets slim. It doesn't help that there's an influenza pandemic out there, too.

Maybe it's because it has been more than a year of political uncertainty. Since the landmark 2008 general election, we've seen the Barisan Nasional (BN)-engineered takeover of Perak, the constant stream of by-elections, and problems and infighting in Pakatan Rakyat (PR)-governed states. All these have undoubtedly caused consternation.

And then there's the perennial issue of race, a colonial construct designed to ease governance through communal divide-and-rule. One need only look at Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin's accusation of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as a race traitor, to see how much traction race-based rhetoric still has.

There is also that nagging feeling that Malaysia does not care for the welfare of all its citizens in equal measure. One doesn't even have to look at the long mismanagement of the New Economic Policy (NEP). Just consider the lack of action with regards to the Penan task force report.

Maybe our lack of enthusiasm stems from a suspicion that Malaysian independence is not all that it is cut out to be — being, as it is, a deal struck between Malaya's elite right and the British.

Between May and August 1947, the multiethnic and left-leaning Putera-AMCJA negotiated particulars of the "People's Constitutional Proposals for Malaya". They recommended, among other things, equal citizenship rights, a "conference of races" to block discriminatory legislation, and swift independence.

The proposals were ignored by the British administration. They instead adopted the less-progressive Revised Constitutional Proposals for the Malayan Federation, which was formulated jointly with the Malay Rulers and Umno.

The rejection of the so-called People's Constitution resulted in the All-Malaya Hartal on 20 Oct 1947, a peninsula-wide strike modelled after Indian strategies of non-violent protest. Notably, this part of our history is missing from our school curriculum.

The British reacted to the hartal with the declaration of the Emergency. What does it mean when colonial-style legislation, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Emergency Ordinances — used to detain the Malayan left at the outset of the Emergency — still remains intact today?

And why does Merdeka receive so much attention while Malaysia Day receives so little? Especially since the latter commemorates, on 16 Sept, the actual date Malaysia — Sabah and Sarawak included — came into being?

These are just some of the issues The Nut Graph finds itself mulling over, in the lead-up to Merdeka. We'd like to know what independence means to our readers. Is it everything, nothing, or a middling somewhere-in-between? What about Malaysia is most important to you? What are your hopes and worries, as independence day swings around? Tell us in six words.

Tunku Abdul Rahman declares Malaya's independence (Public domain)

Cindy Tham:

Step 1: Merdeka from colonial rule.

Next step: Remove relics of colonialism.

ISA, Section 377, divide and rule ...

Deborah Loh:

Selective historical interpretation can spoil Merdeka.

I feel most patriotic when overseas.

At home watching parades on TV.

Jacqueline Ann Surin:

Why did Britain deal with Tunku?

But colonial laws are still intact.

Colonial divide-and-rule is still officially practised!

Merdeka negara tetapi tidak merdeka minda.

What role did wasiat raja-raja play?

Still considered "pendatang" despite our independence.

Nick Choo:

Freedom from oppression and ... oh, wait.

52 years young and already deteriorating.

Image of a Malaysian flag
(Pic by Chris2K / sxc.hu)Independence Day: when the aliens attacked.

Country. Hell. Handbasket. Connect dots. Merdeka!

Shanon Shah:

Malaya: founded as a secular state.

Kemerdekaan siapa? Rakyat atau parti politik?

Kisah tanahair sentiasa berkembang. Hayatilah sepenuhnya.

Politik? Merdeka. Institusi? Merdeka. Minda bagaimana?

Let's focus on Malaysia Day, too.

Unity in diversity — theory or practice?

Erasing and forgetting the left's contributions.

Zedeck Siew:

Long weekend! Want to go holiday?

The Nut Graph is truly independent.

Inspired by Ernest Hemingway's genius, the Six Words On... section challenges readers to give us their comments about a current issue, contemporary personality or significant event in just six words. The idea is to get readers engaged in an issue that The Nut Graph identifies, while having fun and being creatively disciplined.

The Nut Graph needs your support

siew eng Posted: 28 Aug 09 : 9.32AM

Sidai bendera kat luar condo je.

Stringing up Jalur Gemilang around condos.

Superficial celebrations propping up flagging patriotism.

Robert Tori Posted: 28 Aug 09 : 10.25AM

Colourful fireworks wonder, 1BlackM'sia race ponder.

terri Posted: 28 Aug 09 : 12.46PM

ARISE! Dear Malaysians, arrest the rot!

Ritchie Posted: 28 Aug 09 : 2.50PM

Merdeka became replacement history and ketuan-ism.

Would-Be Killer Linked to Al Qaeda, Saudis Say - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

CAIRO — A suicide bomber who was trying to kill the head of Saudi Arabia’s antiterrorism efforts stumbled just short of his target and fell, detonating an explosion that had been arranged by an affiliate of Al Qaeda, a spokesman for the Saudi Interior Ministry said Friday.

The Saudi official, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who serves as deputy interior minister and is a member of the royal family, was slightly wounded in the attack in the Red Sea port of Jidda, Saudi Arabia, on Thursday, said Gen. Mansour al-Turki, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

The prince had allowed the wanted militant, who had come saying he wanted to turn himself in, to bypass security as a sign of good faith, General Turki said. The militant was killed by the explosion, the authorities said.

“He expressed his desire to turn himself in directly to the prince and the prince granted him his complete trust by requesting that he not be searched,” General Turki said. “And this is something that the prince does. It is not the first time, but it did not end in this deceptive manner before.”

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Saudi arm of the terrorist network, claimed responsibility for the attack, according to a message posted on Islamist Internet forums and translated by the SITE Intelligence Group. The attack was the first terrorist assault on a member of the royal family in decades.

It came during the holy month of Ramadan, after a long day of fasting, when the prince was greeting well-wishers in his home. When the man was allowed to bypass the security gate, he stumbled and fell, detonating the explosion, according to Interior Ministry officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release details.

The prince was taken to a hospital, where he was met by King Abdullah, in a meeting broadcast on Saudi television. The king could be heard on the broadcast telling the prince that the man should have been required to go through the security measures, and the prince acknowledged that it was his mistake.

The attacker was a wanted militant who had insisted on meeting the prince to announce that he was giving himself up to the authorities, General Turki said. Members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia traditionally receive visitors during Ramadan and at other times of the year.

General Turki said that the authorities were aware of plans by Islamic militants to kill government officials and religious figures, but that the bombing provided a warning to be vigilant.

Prince Mohammed is the son of the interior minister, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, who is technically third in line to the Saudi throne.

In 2003, militants launched a 20-month wave of violence across Saudi Arabia that included the bombing of foreigners’ residential compounds in Riyadh; shootings of Western citizens and the beheading of an American; gun battles in Riyadh, Mecca and Buraida; suicide attacks on Saudi government buildings and oil facilities; and the storming of the United States Consulate in Jidda.

The Interior Ministry responded with a crackdown that is estimated to have resulted in thousands of arrests. Amnesty International reported last month that “massive human rights violations” and acts of torture had been committed by the Saudi security forces in their effort to contain radicalism.

Six weeks ago, after secret trials, more than 300 militants, many accused of having ties to the Qaeda network, were tried and convicted, and some were given prison terms of 30 years, the Saudi Press Agency reported. Jamal A. Khashoggi, the editor of Saudi Arabia’s Al Watan newspaper, said he feared that the attack was a sign of a new tactic for Al Qaeda. Prevented by security operations from carrying out complex bombing attacks, he said, the militants may shift to strategic assassinations of leaders to destabilize the Saudi state.

“It is serious,” he said. “What I am afraid of is that Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia will be transformed into an assassin’s group.”

Nadia Taha and Sharon Otterman contributed reporting from New York, Mona el-Naggar from Cairo, and Muhammad al-Milfy from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

South American Leaders Assail U.S. Access to Colombian Military Bases - washingtonpost.com

Image via Wikipedia

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 29, 2009

BOGOTA, Colombia, Aug. 28 -- South American leaders meeting Friday at a special summit in Argentina lashed out at the United States and Colombia over an agreement that gives Washington access to seven military bases in this country.

The tension in the publicly televised meeting eased after the leaders unanimously agreed to a vague resolution that says no foreign military force should be allowed to threaten the sovereignty of a South American nation.

But the tone of the criticism and the apparent unease about U.S. American motives during the seven-hour meeting underscore the hurdles President Obama faces in trying to improve relations with countries that have distanced themselves from Washington in the past decade. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, president of regional power Brazil, said Obama should explain his administration's objectives, while the leaders of Ecuador and Venezuela warned that an expanded U.S. presence threatens their security.

"You are not going to be able to control the Americans," said Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa, locking eyes with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. "This constitutes a grave danger for peace in Latin America."

Cynthia Arnson, director of the Latin American program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said the agreement's scope and the secrecy of the negotiations between Washington and Bogota have generated controversy over what has always been a hot-button issue in Latin America: the deployment of U.S. troops.

"It's hurt the Obama administration's credibility in the region at a time when the administration was attempting to really set a different path in U.S.-Latin America relations that was multilateral, that involved working with allies," Arnson said, speaking from Washington by phone. U.S. relations with some countries in the region, particularly Venezuela, were in tatters by the end of President George W. Bush's term, she said.

"It's certainly the case that Chávez and his allies in the region have been the most vocal opponents," Arnson said, referring to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's hostility to the base access plan. "But it says a lot that countries like Brazil and Chile were also opposed to this."

Since some details of the defense cooperation agreement between Bogota and Washington became public last month, governments from Ecuador to Argentina have questioned why Uribe would permit the United States long-term access to three air bases, two army installations and two naval ports. Colombian officials have said that the United States has expressed particular interest in stationing surveillance planes at the German Olano de Palanquero air base, strategically located in Colombia's geographic heart.

Uribe told the presidents meeting in the Patagonian resort of Bariloche that the U.S. assistance was necessary to fight drug-trafficking and Marxist rebels but that the bases remained Colombian, not American. Colombian officials have also said that U.S. servicemen and planes have been operating in Colombia for years and that the agreement merely formalizes a string of old accords and cuts bureaucratic hurdles.

The Colombian leader, a stalwart caretaker of Washington's war on drugs, arrived in Argentina with the challenge of assuaging Chávez. All this month, Chávez has warned that the base plan could lead to war and prompt him to break diplomatic relations with Colombia. He has also said his country would curtail Colombian imports and start investigating Colombian companies operating in Venezuela.

Speaking to the other presidents on Friday, Chávez read a long document that he said demonstrated that the United States is planning a war on South America. "This is the global strategy of the United States," he said. "That's the reason for this. It's the reason why they're talking about those bases."

The document, which is public, is an unofficial, academic paper -- some 14,000 words long -- that explains the importance of more than 40 bases worldwide for U.S. air mobility.

The concerns of Colombia's neighbors have been heightened by Uribe's ties to the United States, which has historically been viewed with suspicion by leftist leaders on the continent. Ecuador has also repeatedly warned that Colombia is a threat to its sovereignty since March 2008, when Colombian planes bombed a Colombian rebel camp just inside Ecuador, killing two dozen guerrillas.

Referring to the document that Chávez read, Correa said the United States was treating the region like a colony and that its planes could be used "for intervention in other countries."

Uribe, though, described the agreement with the United States as irreversible, and Chávez was unable to muster support for his effort to have the pact officially condemned. Uribe also forcefully criticized Venezuela, both directly and indirectly.

He said that arms "from other countries" have been supplied to Marxist rebels here, and he accused Venezuela of giving refuge to two top guerrilla commanders, Luciano Marin Arango and Rodrigo Londoño. Uribe also noted that Chávez had publicly eulogized a guerrilla commander who was killed last year.

The Colombian leader stressed that, with U.S. support, his country had curtailed violence generated by the long, drug-fueled conflict that has plagued this country.

"We are not talking about a political game, we are talking about a threat that has spilled blood in Colombian society," Uribe said.

Tax Pledge Is a Target As Deficits, Debt Grow - washingtonpost.com

View Larger Map

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 29, 2009

During last year's campaign, President Obama vowed to enact a bold agenda without raising taxes for the middle class, a pledge budget experts viewed with skepticism. Since then, a severe recession, massive deficits and a national debt that is swelling toward a 50-year high have only made his promise harder to keep.

The Obama administration has insisted that the pledge will stand. But the president's top economic advisers have refused to rule out broad-based tax increases to close the yawning gap between federal revenue and government spending and are warning of tough choices ahead.

Republicans are already on the attack, accusing Obama of plotting to break his no-tax vow, the same political transgression that cost Democrats control of Congress under former president Bill Clinton and may have cost president George H.W. Bush his job. Democrats say Obama is highly unlikely to break the pledge before next year's congressional election and observe that it would be safer to wait until his second term if a tax increase becomes unavoidable.

Some lawmakers are focused instead on setting up an independent commission to solve the deficit problem. Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) plans to hold hearings on the topic when Congress returns to Washington this fall.

Obama, meanwhile, has vowed to pay for any new initiatives and to draft an overhaul of the health-care system that eventually would save the government money, driving deficits down. But effective health reforms would take decades to produce savings. In the meantime, White House budget director Peter R. Orszag acknowledged, "there are additional steps that will be necessary."

"The administration is very concerned about these [future] deficits, and getting those deficits under control is a top priority of the administration," Orszag told reporters this week as he rolled out a new economic forecast that added $2 trillion to deficit projections from 2010 to 2019.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers have both delicately sidestepped the tax question on Sunday talk shows. Orszag has also refused to discuss what steps Obama might take to reduce the deficit in the budget blueprint he will present to Congress in February. But budget analysts say he has few real options.

"If you rule out inflating our way out of the problem and defaulting on the debt, there are two ways: Cut spending or raise taxes," said William G. Gale, an expert on fiscal policy at the Brookings Institution. With more than 80 percent of federal spending devoted to politically untouchable programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, he said, "it's going to be really hard to make significant headway on the spending side. So that means you've got to think about taxes."

Spending cuts were a big part of the solution the last time the nation faced such a towering debt. In the aftermath of World War II, with the debt exceeding the country's entire economic output, the government slashed military expenditures. Within two years, Washington was spending less than it took in. Fifteen percent inflation also helped by reducing the real value of the debt. When the country went to war again in Korea and then Vietnam, tax increases helped keep the budget largely in balance and the debt continued to fall.

Today's problem is more complex. Obama not only faces the fallout from the worst economic downturn in 30 years, but also inherited the debt piled up by his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush. Bush invaded Iraq and approved an expensive new prescription drug benefit for the elderly while pushing through one of the biggest tax cuts of the post-war era -- worth an estimated $1.6 trillion in foregone revenue by the time the provisions expire next year. This was the first time the United States had not adjusted its fiscal policy to meet its wartime needs, according to "The Price of Liberty," a book on war financing by Goldman Sachs vice chairman Robert D. Hormats.

After running surpluses in the late 1990s, the government began spending far more than it took in, forcing the Treasury to increase borrowing from China and other creditors. During the Bush administration, the portion of the debt held by the public jumped from just over $3 trillion to nearly $6 trillion. Federal rescue efforts in the face of last fall's financial meltdown have rapidly driven the debt higher. Today it stands at nearly $7.4 trillion, or about 52 percent of the overall U.S. economy.

"There's no question in my view that Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the republic," said David M. Walker, the comptroller general under Bush who now advocates for deficit reduction. Obama "was handed a bad deck," he said. "But the question is, are you making it better or not? And so far the answer is no."

Obama campaigned on a promise not to raise taxes for anyone earning less than $250,000 a year -- about 97 percent of taxpayers. As part of the pledge, he said he would keep some of the Bush tax cuts, including a new 10 percent rate for the lowest bracket, a higher tax credit for children and a lower penalty for married couples filing jointly. He planned to let other Bush tax cuts that benefit mainly the wealthy expire, a move that would raise rates for the top two income brackets. He also proposed to finance a major expansion of health coverage by placing new tax increases on the rich. When he unveiled his first budget, Obama predicted that his fiscal policies would stabilize the debt at around 70 percent of the economy.

This week, after updating the budget to reflect the depth of the recession, the White House conceded its earlier predictions had been wrong. With unemployment now expected to top 10 percent, the government will be forced to spend more on unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. With wages more deeply depressed, tax collections have fallen further than expected. And with the economy likely to rebound more slowly than the White House once thought, those costly conditions will linger for at least the next two years.

The result: deficits of well over $1 trillion through 2011, which will push the debt to 71 percent of the economy by the end of Obama's first term -- the highest since 1954 -- and cause the debt to keep rising in the years beyond.

The sour economy also will increase the cost of some of Obama's initiatives. The economic stimulus package approved in February is likely to cost "tens of billions of dollars" more than $787 billion, Orszag said. Obama's plan to expand federal student loans will cost $27 billion more over the next decade "as more individuals choose to go to college in the weakened labor market," White House budget documents say. And tax increases for the wealthy won't bring in quite as much money as Obama had hoped, budget documents say, because even the wealthy are not earning as much.

Obama could try to cut spending, but his budget is probably already more frugal than politics will bear, budget analysts say. For example, the White House assumes that spending on federal agencies other than the Pentagon will be lower in 2019 than it is next year.

And the fastest-growing budget category is one Obama cannot touch: interest payments on the debt. These are likely to rise as the world demands higher interest rates in return for continuing to sate Washington's voracious appetite for credit. The White House projects interest payments will quadruple by 2019, when debt service will account for nearly the entire budget deficit. At that point, much like a family that has run up big credit card balances, the debt will continue to grow even if the nation all but stops borrowing money.

"We are entering a dangerous debt cycle," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "We don't know when interest rates will go up, but when they do, you can see that they will have a huge impact."

By contrast, Obama could raise taxes without taking any legislative action. If he let all the Bush tax cuts expire next year and refused to enact legislation to restrain the alternative minimum tax, deficits would be about $200 billion a year lower and the debt would stop growing as a percentage of the economy, according to Gale's analysis of new data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But that would mean big tax increases for most American families, violating Obama's pledge.

Whatever course Obama takes, Geithner said earlier this month that the economy cannot fully recover until deficits are brought under control.

"We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically," Geithner told ABC News. "And that's going to require some very hard choices."

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com

Image via Wikipedia

Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding

By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 29, 2009

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

"What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."

Mohammed, in statements to the International Committee of the Red Cross, said some of the information he provided was untrue.

"During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time," he said.

Critics say waterboarding and other harsh methods are unacceptable regardless of their results, and those with detailed knowledge of the CIA's program say the existing assessments offer no scientific basis to draw conclusions about effectiveness.

"Democratic societies don't use torture under any circumstances. It is illegal and immoral," said Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International. "This is a fool's argument in any event. There is no way to prove or disprove the counterfactual."

John L. Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general who investigated the agency's detention and interrogation program, said his work did not put him in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods."

"Certain of the techniques seemed to have little effect, whereas waterboarding and sleep deprivation were the two most powerful techniques and elicited a lot of information," he said in an interview. "But we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

After his capture, Mohammed first told his captors what he calculated they already knew.

"KSM almost immediately following his capture in March 2003 elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow airport," according to a document released by the CIA on Monday that summarizes the intelligence provided by Mohammed. The agency thinks he assumed that Ramzi Binalshibh, a Sept. 11 conspirator captured in September 2002, had already divulged the plan.

One former U.S. official with detailed knowledge of how the interrogations were carried out said Mohammed, like several other detainees, seemed to have decided that it was okay to stop resisting after he had endured a certain amount of pressure.

"Once the harsher techniques were used on [detainees], they could be viewed as having done their duty to Islam or their cause, and their religious principles would ask no more of them," said the former official, who requested anonymity because the events are still classified. "After that point, they became compliant. Obviously, there was also an interest in being able to later say, 'I was tortured into cooperating.' "

Mohammed provided the CIA with an autobiographical statement, describing a rebellious childhood, his decision to join the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager, and his time in the United States as a student at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, from where he graduated in 1986 with a degree in mechanical engineering.

"KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States -- which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills -- almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist," according to the intelligence summary. "He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country."

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal "supermax" prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who "at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999," according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

"Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his "overriding priority" was to strike the United States, but that he "realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures." Most of the plots, as a result, were "opportunistic and limited," according to the summary.

One former agency official recalled that Mohammed was once asked to write a summary of his knowledge about al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist group had explored buying either an intact nuclear weapon or key components such as enriched uranium, although there is no evidence of significant progress on that front.

"He wrote us an essay" on al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions, the official said. "Not all of it was accurate, but it was quite extensive."

Mohammed was an unparalleled source in deciphering al-Qaeda's strategic doctrine, key operatives and likely targets, the summary said, including describing in "considerable detail the traits and profiles" that al-Qaeda sought in Western operatives and how the terrorist organization might conduct surveillance in the United States.

Mohammed was moved to the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006, and his loquaciousness is now largely confined to occasional appearances before a military commission. Back in his 86-square-foot cell at the secret Camp 7 at Guantanamo, he spends most of his waking hours in prayer, according to a source familiar with his confinement who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But Mohammed has not abandoned his intellectual pursuits. He requested a Bible for study in his cell, according to the source, in order to better understand his enemy.

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

UAE 'seizes N Korea arms cargo' - BBC

Image via Wikipedia

The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship illegally carrying embargoed North Korean weapons bound for Iran, diplomatic sources at the UN have said.

A diplomat told the AFP news agency that the UAE had informed UN officials responsible for implementing sanctions on Pyongyang.

The UK-based Financial Times reported earlier on Friday that the ship was seized "some weeks ago".

It said the armaments included rocket-propelled grenades.

The arms had been falsely labelled as "machine parts," the Financial Times reported, adding that the vessel was still being held in the UAE.

The diplomatic source told AFP that the issue was being dealt with by the UN Security Council's sanctions committee, and declined to comment further.

A new round of UN sanctions on North Korea was approved unanimously on 12 June, following a nuclear weapons test by Pyongyang and subsequent missile launches.

The UN resolution, which aimed to cut arms exports as a source of revenue for North Korea, also called for tougher inspections of air, sea and land shipments to and from the hard-line communist state.

Megrahi backs Lockerbie inquiry - BBC

Image via Wikipedia

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has backed calls for a public inquiry into the atrocity.

Speaking to Scotland's The Herald newspaper from his home in the Libyan capital, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi said he was determined to clear his name.

He also said an inquiry would help families of the victims know the truth.

Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, was released from Greenock Prison in Scotland last week on compassionate grounds.

He returned to a hero's welcome in Libya after serving eight years of a minimum 27 years sentence for murdering 270 people in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over the town of Lockerbie, in southern Scotland. The scenes prompted international condemnation.

“ I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed ”
Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi

The Herald quoted Megrahi as saying he would help Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the disaster and who has frequently called for a full public inquiry, by handing over all the documents in his possession.

In his first interview since being released, Megrahi told The Herald: "I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed.

"In my view, it is unfair to the victim's families that this has not been heard. It would help them to know the truth. The truth never dies. If the UK guaranteed it, I would be very supportive."

But Megrahi said he believed the UK government would avoid a public inquiry as it would cost a lot of money and also "show how much the Americans have been involved".

He said he dropped his appeal in the Scottish courts because he knew he would not live to see the outcome and was desperate to see his family, and insisted there was no pressure from Libyan or Scottish authorities.

'Interesting position'

And he made scathing comments about the Scottish legal system, but said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison, describing him as "very decent".

Megrahi said his priority was now to spend time with his five children.

Lucy Adams, chief reporter of The Herald, told BBC News that Megrahi had looked "incredibly ill and weak" during her meeting with him, but had clearly been anxious for a public inquiry to be held.

Ms Adams said: "I think perhaps for those who are convinced of his guilt it seems interesting that he would back that [an inquiry] and he would hand over the papers he has and the documents he has.

"That seems quite an interesting position from his point of view, because that would indicate he has nothing to hide."

“ He is currently writing an autobiography in which he hopes to convince people of his innocence ”
Lucy Adams The Herald

Ms Adams said Megrahi had been interviewed in his large villa in Tripoli while he was lying on a "hospital-style bed" in his lounge.

She added: "He was surrounded by his family, his children and other relatives, and he seemed incredibly weak and frail. He spent much of the time coughing and having to pause, but seemed determined to talk about his case and the fact that in his opinion, while he will die soon, he said the truth will never die."

"He is currently writing an autobiography in which he hopes to convince people of his innocence. He has documents which have not yet been disclosed to the public, and documents that were being prepared for his appeal which he dropped last week as part of his hopes for returning to Tripoli."

The row over Mr MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds intensified on Friday when an ICM Research poll for BBC News said 60% of those questioned thought Mr MacAskill was wrong to release Megrahi, and 57% thought he should have stayed in prison until he died.

Thirty-two per cent said Mr MacAskill was right, 7% did not know, and 1% would not say.

The telephone poll of 1,005 adults took place on Wednesday and Thursday.

Confusion over Gabon candidates - BBC

Image via Wikipedia

Two days before elections in Gabon to replace the late President Omar Bongo, at least five out of 23 candidates have said they are pulling out of the race.

They say they will now back Andre Mba Obame, a former government minister.

But several other candidates denied media reports that they had also withdrawn in favour of Mr Obame.

The favourite to win Sunday's poll is Ali Ben Bongo, the son of the former president who ruled Gabon from 1967 until his death in June.

Some of the candidates have complained of voter registration irregularities, including Bruno Ben Moubamba, who has gone on hunger strike in protest.

He, however, denied reports that he was one of those who had withdrawn from the race and was supporting Mr Obame.

Following overnight talks, one of those pulling out of the race, Anna Claudine Assayi Ayo, said that "consultations resulted in a secret vote and the designation of Andre Mba Obame [as candidate]".

Mr Obame was the interior minister under President Bongo.

He was a senior member of the ruling Gabonese Democratic party (PDG) until deciding to run as an independent after it selected Ali Ben Bongo as its candidate.

He, and some of those who withdrew from the election, are from the Fang ethnic group - Gabon's largest - and correspondents say this could help him pose a serious challenge to Mr Bongo.

However, the anti-Bongo vote still looks set to be divided, while the PDG candidate enjoys the advantage of having the best-financed campaign.

Gabon is a major oil producer but most of its 1.4 million people live in poverty.

The late President Bongo was facing charges of corruption in a French court when he died.

UN Decries Greek Detention of Unaccompanied Child Asylum Seekers - VOA

Image via Wikipedia

By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 August 2009

Schlein report - Download (MP3)

Schlein report - Listen (MP3)

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says it is alarmed by the detention of unaccompanied children in Lesvos, Greece. It says the children are living in appalling conditions at a detention center there.

The U.N. refugee agency says staff members were shocked when they saw the living condition of asylum seekers detained at the Pagani facility on the Greek island of Lesvos.

UNHCR spokesman, Andrej Mahecic, says more than 850 people are being held in the center, which is meant to hold only a maximum of 300 people. He says this group includes some 200 unaccompanied children, mainly from Afghanistan.

"The UNHCR staff described the condition of the center as unacceptable," said Mahecic. "One room houses over 150 women and 50 babies, many suffering from illnesses related to the cramped and unsanitary conditions of the center."

"The deputy minister of health and social solidarity has given UNHCR his assurances that all the unaccompanied children at Pagani will be transferred to special reception facilities by the end of the month. The ministry has already taken some measures to that effect," he added.

Mahecic says Greece's asylum system has big problems. Last year, he says, the UNHCR with the support of the Greek Ministry of Interior, made recommendations for a complete overhaul of the system, including specific measures to protect children seeking asylum. But, he notes, these proposals, so far, have not been implemented.

"In 2008, the Greek Coast Guard reported the arrival of 2,648 unaccompanied children, but many more are believed to have entered the country undetected. Greece has no process for assessing the individual needs and best interests of these children," said Mehecic.

Mahecic says the government has made efforts to increase the number of places for children at specialized, open centers. But, he says those arriving in Greece outstrip these efforts, so children remain in detention for long periods.

He says Greece accepts far fewer refugees than other European countries.

Poll: 4 Percent of Israelis See Obama as Pro-Israel - VOA

Image via Wikipedia

By Robert Berger
Jerusalem
29 August 2009

Berger report - Download (MP3)

Berger report - Listen (MP3)

Tense relations between the United States and Israel are having a negative effect on Israeli public opinion.

President Obama (file photo)

A new Jerusalem Post poll shows that only 4 percent of Israeli Jews see U.S. President Barack Obama's policies as pro-Israel. That is a drop of 2 percent from the previous poll in June.
The survey found that 51 percent of Israelis see the Obama administration as pro-Palestinian, while 35 percent consider it neutral.

Mr. Obama has lost popularity in Israel because of American pressure to halt Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

"There's quite a bit of concern and disappointment in President Obama, in the sense that Israel [is] sort of under attack on all of these settlement issues, on Jerusalem," said Israeli analyst Dan Diker. "And I think that many Israelis are saying, 'Well wait a second, where is the friendly U.S. administration that Democratic and Republican administrations have been known to be?'"

President Obama's supporters say he is trying to take a more "even-handed" approach to the Middle East conflict than his predecessors. But his outreach to the Muslim world, and especially his landmark speech in Cairo in June, are seen by many Israelis as an attempt to appease the Arabs at the expense of the Jewish state.

"President Obama has been all over the Middle East, he's been in Turkey, he's been in Saudi Arabia, he's been in Cairo, and giving major speeches, and he has not spoken to or with the Israeli people or really sort of extended his hand as a partner in this entire process," he said.

Israelis had a much more positive view of President George W. Bush. According to a Jerusalem Post poll in May, 88 percent of Israelis considered Mr. Bush's policies to be pro-Israel.