Tag Archives: president

Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

Great idea.  While we’re at it, let’s invite al Qaeda to a conference on Israel’s future . . . On Morning Joe today, Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the US organize an “international conference” on Afghanistan’s future—and invite Iran to participate. The former Carter National Security Advisor didn’t say what positive contribution he might expect from a country working in defiance of international sanctions to develop nuclear weapons and that has stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map.  ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:  I think we have to have some sort of an international conference drawing in the neighbors of Afghanistan into the process regarding the future of Afghanistan.  That means, among others, the Iranians. So, there are a number of things we need to do, difficult as they are, to achieve the objectives the president has set for himself. Zbig’s daughter Mika could be heard uttering a [quizzical?] “hmm” in response.  Will any of the MSM pick up on Brzezinski’s suggestion?  Might Pres. Obama take a cue from Carter’s man?

Visit link:
Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

Rolling Stone ‘Runaway General’ Reporter: Aloof Obama ‘Didn’t Really Understand What Counterinsurgency Meant’

While the media are attempting to grapple with the change in leadership of the Afghanistan war and what that all means, one thing that could be learned from this, which has been ignored, are valid criticisms of President Barack Obama and his ability to command the U.S. military. Michael Hastings, author of the now-famous Rolling Stone magazine article “Runaway General” that captured several gotcha moments resulting in Obama relieving General Stanley McChrystal of his command, appeared on Al Jazeera English on June 23. He offered some startling insight into Obama’s failure to grasp what he was actually getting into with this Afghanistan strategy known as the counterinsurgency strategy. Hastings was asked if McChrystal had perhaps gotten the whole strategy wrong, but Hastings explained it was the President that didn’t know what he was really getting into. “I think that ship had sailed last year,” Hastings said. “I think once the decision was made to do a counterinsurgency strategy, they had a pretty clear idea in mind what they wanted to do and I think this is quite interesting. I think this is one of the issues Obama didn’t really understand what counter-insurgency meant and when the military said they wanted to do a counterinsurgency strategy that that actually meant 150,000 troops. Obama thought he could get away with just sending 21,000 over and getting a new general.” And as Hastings explained, Obama wasn’t prepared due to this miscalculation. “That clearly – anyone who has spent anytime around the military over the past few years you know, you know how many troops they wanted in Afghanistan all along, but I think Obama was clearly caught off guard by that,” Hastings said. Later in the interview, Hastings accused Obama of not dedicating a lot of his time into putting the counterinsurgency strategy (or COIN) in place. Instead the Rolling Stone reporter said Obama was looking for a quick way to fill a campaign promise with roughly a seventh of the troops needed to successfully implement the strategy. “I think it’s clear that [Defense Secretary Robert]Gates and [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike] Mullen are big counterinsurgency fans and they sold Obama on the idea,” Hastings explained. ” I don’t think Obama really put too much thought into it to be honest. I think it was a campaign promise that he thought he dealt with by just sending 21,000 troops and not really thinking about what that really meant. And that was clear even last August when, you know, Bob Woodward released that report of McChrystal’s strategy – you know that the Obama administration was like, ‘Whoa, what does this mean?’ And you know, I think anyone who knows anything about COIN – that’s what they call counterinsurgency, knows that it takes a heck of a lot of guys, a heck of a lot of money and a heck of a long time.”

Originally posted here:
Rolling Stone ‘Runaway General’ Reporter: Aloof Obama ‘Didn’t Really Understand What Counterinsurgency Meant’

Networks Snoozing on Hoyer Suggesting Dems Won’t Vote to Continue Bush Tax Cuts for Middle Class

Between the ongoing Gulf oil spill and the McChrystal row, this story is bound to get put on the back burner, but it still deserves attention by the broadcast and cable news media. Yesterday I wrote about the Washington Post burying its story on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying that congressional Democrats were not wedded to President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledge to not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 per year. Asked about those remarks at yesterday’s White House press briefing , Robert Gibbs said he had not seen the comments and would “be happy to look at and try to get a response after this [briefing].” Hours later, The Hill newspaper’s Alexander Bolton filed a story that noted it’s not just Hoyer who’s staking out this position : Democrats are looking at the possibility of raising taxes on families below the $250,000-a-year threshold promised by President Barack Obama during the election. The majority party on Capitol Hill does not feel bound by that pledge, saying the threshold for tax hikes will depend on several factors, such as the revenue differences between setting the threshold at $200,000 and setting it at $250,000. “You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.” Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, concurred, saying, “I don’t think there’s any magic in the number, whether it’s $250,000, $200,000 or $225,000. “The larger question is whether we’ll be able to extend the tax cuts for middle-income folks,” Dorgan said. “The answer, I expect, would be yes, but we don’t quite know how it all fits in the larger picture.” It’s certainly a compelling news story in a midterm election year. Thus far, however, the broadcast network morning shows and evening newscasts have ignored the story.

Read more from the original source:
Networks Snoozing on Hoyer Suggesting Dems Won’t Vote to Continue Bush Tax Cuts for Middle Class

Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?

When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans in 2005, numerous media members blamed racism for President Bush’s supposedly poor response to the disaster. According to LexisNexis, there were almost 1,000 reports in the nine weeks following the storm’s passage through the Gulf of Mexico that tied racism to the government’s post-hurricane strategy. Five years later, as oil slams the same region and polls show the public actually more unhappy with the response to this crisis than they were after Katrina hit, no such nefarious connection is being espoused. Why? Consider the media firestorm the following remark by rapper Kanye West set off just a few days after the hurricane hit New Orleans (video follows with transcript and commentary): I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food. And you know that it’s been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I’ve tried to turn away from the TV, because it’s too hard to watch. I’ve even been shopping before I’ve even given a donation. So now I’m calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us…George Bush doesn’t care about black people. Moments after this was uttered on live television, CNN’s Larry King asked guest Jesse Jackson about it: LARRY KING, CNN: Jesse, I understand that Kanye West, a rapper at the NBC telethon tonight, unscripted, said that President Bush, George Bush does not care about black people. Do you have that feeling? JESSE JACKSON: Well, he responded mighty late and mighty slow. There was one response to the tsunami and some years ago to the — a response to the Armenian earthquake crisis, but he came in five days late, with platitudes. And in the case of 9/11, he came in two days later and embraced all those who were involved. There’s a sense of alienation, a sense of distance, and we don’t feel good about it. I hope that there will be renewed commitment, not to just involve Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton, but why not involve people like Congressman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Cynthia Cleo Fields (ph) and Senator Bigenfiggis (ph). We… KING: But you don’t… JACKSON: … ought to have a sense of being a part of this, and we’re not. KING: You don’t think he doesn’t care? JACKSON: Well, he does not show it. And that’s the — that’s the rub. And we need to know, we need to have access for dialogue, and we don’t have it. CNN was all over this story doing numerous segments about it in the coming days, but the supposedly most trusted name in news was certainly not alone in advancing this truly disgraceful theory. All three broadcast network news divisions reported this possible connection as did most American newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. Magazines also did stories about what the disaster said of race relations in this country. The disgusting notion that Bush’s response was due to racism was espoused for years by press members and still is to this very day. Potentially even worse, this assertion helped make Bush a lame duck less than a year into his final term while assisting the Democrats to take back Congress in 2006 as well as the White House in 2008. As a result, this ugly contention will likely be a part of our 43rd President’s legacy unless sane minds in the future fight to counter it.   Yet, no such connection to the government’s pathetic response to the current disaster in the very same region is being made. Why?  Consider that a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found: Just 32 percent say Mr. Obama has a clear plan to deal with the oil leak, while 59 percent (including 64 percent of Gulf coast residents) say he does not. The numbers are not much better among those who watched the president’s Oval Office speech on the spill last week, with 35 percent of that group saying he has a clear plan and 56 percent saying he does not. If Bush was still President, would media blame racism for his lack of a plan? As the answer seems an almost certain “Yes,” why is that?  Regardless of the reason, the press would be dead wrong just as they were about Bush’s response to Katrina. Despite their assertions, whatever the White House did or didn’t do after that hurricane hit had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the race of those effected. That was a disgusting assertion back then that should never have been made or advanced by anyone in our media. BUT, if they were going to make such a connection then, and would if Bush was still in the White House, that they’re not espousing it now despite how absurd it would be makes the way they treated our 43rd President even more reprehensible.   Less so is the lack of curiosity about what is the reason for Obama’s pathetic handling of this crisis. Former New York City major Rudy Giuliani said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” last week that the response to this oil spill would have been swifter and better coordinated if it happened in the Atlantic Ocean and was impacting the East Coast. Assuming he’s right — and I believe he is — why would that be? Should government’s response to a disaster relate to what states are impacted by it? Such does seem to be the case with the current Administration which seemed quite disinterested in the recent devastating floods in Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the press also largely ignored that disaster. So what gives here? Are some people in this country entitled to greater federal assistance in an emergency than others? Aren’t we all Americans, or are some inherently more so? Finally, if folks in the media believe as I do that this response would have been different if the spill was battering East Coast beaches with oil, where are the questions and the investigations into why that is, or is such curiosity only acceptable when a Republican is in the White House?

Go here to see the original:
Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?

An Inconvenient Rumor: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault on Massage Therapist

Al Gore has had better months. Ever since the former Vice President of the United States separated from wife Tipper, scandalous allegations have been a-flyin’. The latest? The National Enquirer says Gore was accused of sexually attacking a masseuse in Portland, Oregon, back in 2006, and is named in a police report. The bombshell story will include the secret police documents, a photo of the woman making the stunning charges and will reveal the details, the tabloid says. Alleged proof of the encounter? Pants she saved as evidence. True or not, this report comes just weeks after Al and Tipper Gore split . The Enquirer says she suspected he was involved with “a gorgeous massage therapist.” Well, at least she’s pretty, supposedly. AL GORE SEX ATTACK : A month ago, if you told us we would report two stories about the former V.P. getting his freak on, we probably wouldn’t have believed you . He’s also accused of an affair with Laurie David , ex-wife of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm creator Larry David, and a producer on An Inconvenient Truth . The celebrity gossip tabloid says the 62-year-old Gore was in Portland at the time of the alleged incident – October 24, 2006 – and has the $540 massage bill. No criminal charges were filed against Gore, but Portland police prepared a document marked “Confidential Special Report” – containing explosive allegations. A woman, whose name is being withheld by the publication, reportedly lodged a complaint “unwanted sexual contact” by Al Gore “at a local upscale hotel.” We would say this is pure nonsense, but it’s not exactly loose, vague wording of the OK! or Star variety. Besides, after Rielle Hunter , nothing is surprising.

Read this article:
An Inconvenient Rumor: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault on Massage Therapist

Hillary Clinton: Gay Rights Are Human Rights

Obama, Clinton vow to defend gay rights, adding 'it's not who we are as Americans' By Elise Labott, CNN Senior State Department Producer June 23, 2010 1:48 a.m. EDT Washington (CNN) — President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to end violence and discrimination against gays and lesbians at home and abroad Tuesday, as the Obama administration moves to extend further benefits to gays working in the federal government. “It's not right, it's not who we are as Americans, and we're going to put a stop to it,” Obama told a raucous White House reception honoring Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Earlier, Clinton received several standing ovations from a standing-room only crowd of several hundred during her address at an event co-hosted by the State Department's Office of Civil Rights and GLIFAA, the organization for Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. “We are moving together in the right direction,” said Clinton. “We reaffirm our commitment to protect the rights of all human beings.” The White House event invited politicians and government officials as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American from across the country, including young people “who have stood up for equality,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye. At a similar event last year, six months after Obama took office, participants expressed frustration over what they called a lack of progress in confronting discrimination issues that the president had promised to resolve. This time, Obama received loud applause, cheers and whistles as he cited steps his administration has taken, including a new hate crimes law, extending federal benefits to gay employees and a push for an employee discrimination bill. The Obama administration is expected to announce Wednesday that gay workers will be able to take medical leave to care for the sick or newborn children of their same-sex partners as part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which generally allows those working for companies with 50 or more employees to take 12 unpaid weeks off to care for newborns or children with serious health issues. “And finally, we're going to end “don't ask, don't tell,” Obama said Tuesday of the policy that prohibits openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service. A bill that would repeal the policy after a Pentagon review is completed in December is before Congress, the president noted. “We have never been closer to ending this discriminatory policy, and I'm going to keep on fighting until that bill is on my desk,” he said to cheers. Attending the event was Janice Langbehn of Lacey, Washington, who was denied hospital visitation rights when her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm while on vacation in Florida. Obama mentioned her story on Tuesday, calling the way she was treated “wrong” and “cruel.” Earlier, Clinton said she is asking embassies in Africa and elsewhere to report on rights of the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. The State Department also is placing more attention on ensuring gays around the world have access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and providing grants to human rights activists who are persecuted either because they are gay or defend gay rights, she said. “These dangers are not gay issues. This is a human rights issue,” Clinton said. She drew more rousing applause when she declared “human rights are gay rights and gay rights are human rights,” a variation on the phrase she famously delivered in Beijing 10 years ago declaring “women's rights are human rights.” Clinton said she is equally concerned about creating an environment at the State Department in which gay employees feel valued and “can give 100 percent.” That is why, she said, she supported offering equal benefits to same-sex partners of State Department employees, a move that encouraged Obama to authorize such benefits for gays throughout the federal government. She noted the State Department also has made it easier for transgender people to change their passports and, for the first time, the agency's “equal opportunity statement” will include gender identity. It already includes sexual orientation. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report added by: EthicalVegan

Awkward: ABC Skips Report That Bianna Golodryga’s Fiancee Is Leaving the White House

Good Morning America on Tuesday skipped the news that Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, is resigning from the White House. Perhaps not coincidentally, Orszag is also the fiancee of GMA’s weekend anchor Bianna Golodryga. CBS’s Early Show and NBC’s Today both covered the subject. Today reporter Savannah Guthrie explained, “It’s a mix of the personal and the political. Most budget directors stay about 18 months. If he had stayed much longer, he’d probably have to get into the next budget cycle and be in for the long haul. He’s also getting married this fall .” The Early Show’s Betty Nguyen pointed out, “Orszag would be the first high profile member of the Obama administration to leave.” GMA has a history of ignoring awkward details for Golodryga. In January, the show skipped the fact that Orszag had a love child with his previous girlfriend (after divorcing his first wife). NBC covered it. On May 17, 2010, Orszag actually appeared on GMA to congratulate his fiancee for being named the new weekend anchor. With former Democratic aide turned host George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, doesn’t the program have enough conflicts of interest? Brief transcripts from The Early Show and Today can be found below: The Early Show 06/22/10 BETTY NGUYEN: It’s reported that President Obama’s budget director is calling it quits. A Democratic official tells the Associated Press that Peter Orszag is expected to resign in the coming months. Orszag would be the first high profile member of the Obama administration to leave. Today 6/22/10 MORALES: All right. Meantime, Savannah, there’s also some news this morning about the budget director, Peter Orszag? GURTHRIE: That’s right. As long expected, Peter Orszag is actually leaving the administration, probably some time this summer. Why? It’s a mix of the personal and the political. Most budget directors stay about 18 months. If he had stayed much longer, he’d probably have to get into the next budget cycle and be in for the long haul. He’s also getting married this fall. MORALES: All right. Savannah Guthrie with a lot there going on at the White House- thanks so much.

Follow this link:
Awkward: ABC Skips Report That Bianna Golodryga’s Fiancee Is Leaving the White House

Robert Redford Blames Cheney for America’s ‘Failed Energy Policy’

Actor Robert Redford lambasted America’s energy plan that he claimed led to the Gulf disaster, laying the responsibility at the feet of former Vice President Cheney. Appearing Monday night on “Anderson Cooper 360,” Redford blamed the Gulf oil spill not only on BP, but also because of the “failed” energy policy that led to this disaster. ‘There’s a lot being said about BP, and there’s a lot of truth that’s finally bubbling up to the surface,” Redford acknowledged. “But what I’m more interested in is – is looking at it from a historical point of view and trying to connect some dots about how we got here.” “Look, I think one of the reasons we’re in this problem is because we have not only a failed energy policy, but we have an energy policy – because of the way it was designed, and who it was designed by, Cheney – it’s sick and it’s dangerous.” Redford, who supports Obama’s drilling moratorium,  mandated that America must shed its current energy policy and adopt a new one. He rebuked the present policy as an unholy alliance of sorts between Congress, the government, and Big Oil. He gave the example of the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) as an example of a government agency that was asleep at the wheel in its oversight of oil companies. “Look, all that stuff has come out, and it’s painfully obvious what’s happened – the corruption that came with MMS as a result of Dick Cheney and how he engineered this whole thing,” he maintained. Redford’s solution? Get rid of former Vice President Dick Cheney – who’s been a private citizen for 17 months now – and his cronies. “You’ve got to get rid of Cheney and every – and all the horses he came in with. You’ve got to get rid of his energy policy. It’s bad for our health. It’s bad for our economy. It’s bad for our future.” A transcript of Anderson Cooper’s interview with Robert Redford, which aired on June 21, at 10:22 p.m. EDT, is as follows: ANDERSON COOPER, host: As you look at BP’s response to this spill, what stands out? I mean — I think, for a lot of people on the ground here, it’s the lack of transparency that we have seen. What surprises you about the way BP has handled this so far? ROBERT REDFORD: Nothing. What I’m kind of interested in here is, you know, there’s a lot being said about BP, and there’s a lot of truth that’s finally bubbling up to the surface. But what I’m more interested in is — is looking at it from a historical point of view and trying to connect some dots about how we got here. And, you know, when you stop and think about BP’s promises and the consequence of the collusion between government, Congress and big oil companies, what you get is what we’ve got: a failed energy policy — a terrible energy policy — that allowed this to happen. And so, I think, I’m interested in seeing if we can get to the public, connect the dots as to how we got here because we — there have been other disasters despite what they’re saying that have happened. COOPER: It’s interesting because — I mean, Senate Republicans told the President last week, look, focus on the oil spill right now, not on an energy bill. They say the President can’t afford any distractions until this is under control. You say the opposite. You say this is the time to focus on an energy bill. REDFORD: Look, I think one of the reasons we’re in this problem is because we have not only a failed energy policy, but we have an energy policy — because of the way it was designed by who it was designed by, Cheney — it’s sick and it’s dangerous. And any energy policy that’s designed behind closed doors with oil, gas and coal companies is bound to end up being a disaster of some sort. So, I think, we need a new energy policy. And I don’t think it’s next week, or next year or even — it’s now. If we miss this opportunity, we’re missing an incredible opportunity. And history will probably tell us that. So, get rid of this energy policy. It’s a disaster. COOPER: Do you think President Obama has shown leadership in that direction? I mean, he talked — he didn’t really give any details last week about what he wants to see in an energy bill. Were you satisfied with what you heard? Or were you looking for more specifics? REDFORD: No, I wasn’t satisfied with what I heard. I’m somewhat sympathetic to what the guy’s dealing with because he had all these other issues that were paramount when this thing came forward. And I don’t think he or the administration was quite prepared. Nor do I think BP was prepared. Nobody was prepared. I think he’s trying to do the best he can, but I think he’s got to do more. And I think if he thinks that he’s going to push something through with any kind of bipartisanship, I think it should be clear by now that there’s so many voices coming at him from the other side — the voices that, for me, is coming out of the Ice Age, you know, that he should forget about that. He better grab this moment. And I think the public is going to have to push him to push Congress. But he better push them. COOPER: Obviously, around here, the drilling moratorium, the deepwater drilling moratorium is hugely unpopular. There are a lot of jobs at stake here, there’s people suing in courts to try to get this thing overturned — although that seems unlikely to happen. We’ll have a ruling probably by tomorrow. You, obviously, I’m guessing, support the moratorium. Why? REDFORD: Well, I support the moratorium, because I think there’s so many disasters that have occurred in the past when we’ve been lied to about the fact that they would not happen. They have happened. Why have they happened? Because of the collusion between government, Congress and the big oil companies. So, I think — look, we’re not going to get rid of oil. I mean, we should accept that. I accept it. I worked in an oilfield as a kid. But I think what we’re asking for now is a new energy policy. And I think that — I’m totally sympathetic to the people in the Gulf who have lost their jobs, their way of life, environmental devastation and so forth. I understand the voices that want to not have a moratorium because they think it’s going to help jobs. But I think the first thing that should happen is that we have got to figure out — first of all, make sure BP pays every dime that’s owed to these people. My heart goes out to the people on the Gulf. And they need to be paid. And Obama has to push them to do it. Second, we’ve got to figure out how it happened. Why did this happen when we were told over and over again it wouldn’t happen? COOPER: And in terms of oversight by the government — I mean, clearly, the government, both under the Bush administration and even under the Obama administration, have not done as much in terms of reforming MMS. I mean, MMS, which has now been renamed today, has essentially, you know, been kind of a lap dog. REDFORD: It has. Look, all that stuff has come out, and it’s painfully obvious what’s happened — the corruption that came with MMS as a result of Dick Cheney and how he engineered this whole thing. You got to get rid of Cheney and every — and all the horses he came in with. You got to get rid of his energy policy. It’s bad for our health. It’s bad for our economy. It’s bad for our future. And I think the administration has to step up, get tough, get quick, and be very clear about what they’re prescribing. I think they have to be very clear about why there should be some moratorium, like should Shell be allowed to drill up in the Alaskan refuge? No, not yet. We got to get some facts in order first. COOPER: Robert Redford, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. REDFORD: You’re welcome.

Visit link:
Robert Redford Blames Cheney for America’s ‘Failed Energy Policy’

Obama’s Leadership Deficit

Editor’s Note : The following originally appeared at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood . Appearing on CNN with Anderson Cooper, film director Spike Lee implored President Obama to infuse his handling of the Gulf oil spill with more emotion. Demonstrating the astute analysis we have come to expect from the director, Lee implored Obama to “one time, go off.” Perhaps he is of the same mind as Bill Maher, that the authentic black man is one who is always armed and resorts to violence and loud-talking when things do not go his way. (Note to self: On the way home from the liquor store, I must pick up my Glock from the gun shop.) Both Lee and Maher seem to share the opinion of a great many progressives that emotion is the same as leadership and that problems are most easily solved by decree. It is no mistake that following criticism by Lee and others, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was declaring to the media that he had “seen rage from him [President Obama].” Apparently, when Obama gets angry, he clinches his jaw. Soon after the Gibbs press conference, the President showed up in Louisiana, walked the beach in shirt sleeves and then, with clenched jaw, he spoke of growing up in a culture where the water was sacred. The administration meant this to be a demonstration of leadership. However, in some quarters, this is also known as street theatre. Still seeking to enhance his “street cred,” the president then appeared on morning television, lowered his pants down below his buttocks, flashed his gold teeth, and announced that he was looking for some tail to kick. In the meantime, the oil continues to gush from the well and the resulting slick is now the size of a small state. As it turns out, sending the attorney general to Louisiana and ordering BP to “plug the damn hole” and then “going off” on national television didn’t solve the problem. If the poll numbers are to be believed, it would also appear that Americans are not impressed with how much booty a president can kick, especially if it is not accompanied by decisive action, which actually addresses the problem. Over the course of the last two months, the president has had several opportunities to take bold and determined action–to be a leader. He has dithered instead. A few of the missed opportunities: Fire-booms that were supposed to be a part of any oil-spill response were missing in action. When they were finally located there were too few to do much good. In the event of a major spill, federal responders had pre-approval to begin burning oil. They waited more than a week before doing a test-burn and then stopped. Experts have suggested that had the burning begun right away, 90% of the oil could have been burned away before it spread. Thirteen countries have offered the United States the advantage of their technical skills. To date, the Obama administration has declined to take advantage of all of this experience and expertise. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delayed the building of protective sand-berms until they could study the issue. The administration finally approved six berms, but only agreed to pay for one of them. Government officials say they want to first see if they work. Of course, by that time building more berms won’t do any good. Two months into the crisis, Admiral Thad Allen, the U.S. official in charge of the Gulf of Mexico crisis, (or is he?), is still talking about asking Congress for a waiver of the Jones Act, which would allow foreign vessels involved in the crisis to operate in American waters. However, that may not do much good. Louisiana boat owners who have volunteered to aid in clean-up efforts are complaining that bureaucratic red-tape is keeping them out of the water. On a positive note, the president did create another government commission. Leadership of the statesman variety–as opposed to the shirtsleeves and furrowed-brow-look-of-concern variety–would have the president with a large pair of scissors cutting through the red tape. A leader scours the private sector for the most knowledgeable folks he can find and asks for their help. He gets on the phone with our allies and says, “Yes! Please send me your experts!” He says to the governors of the Gulf States, “Tell me what you need.” Leadership is putting aside political agendas and mobilizing the power of the executive office in order to solve an immediate crisis. Leadership doesn’t always need big speeches or street corner bravado. Leadership can be quiet; it can be cool and determined. But if it isn’t focused and it isn’t active, it ain’t worth the price of admission to a “Spike Lee Joint.”

Link:
Obama’s Leadership Deficit

M.I.A. Calls Reaction To ‘Born Free’ Video ‘Interesting’

People react more to ‘tomato ketchup and fake blood’ than to clips of real violence, M.I.A. points out. By James Montgomery, with reporting by Akshay Bhansali M.I.A. Photo: MTV News In the days following its release in April, practically everyone weighed in on M.I.A.’s “Born Free” video , calling it everything from “unflinchingly, unapologetically real” to “exploitive and hollow.” It was polarizing, to be sure, but that was sort of the point: “Born Free” was clearly designed to elicit a response. But through it all, M.I.A. herself kept quiet about the video. Until Monday, when MTV News sat down with her to talk about a host of topics, including her new album, ///Y/ (due July 13), and the maelstrom of controversy created by “Born Free.” To hear her tell it, the reaction to the video wasn’t as much hurtful as it was fascinating. “It was just interesting at the time, for me, to see how the Internet works. Because I tweeted [a video purportedly showing the execution of Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka] a couple months before, and nobody really gave a sh–,” M.I.A. said. “And when there’s tomato ketchup and fake blood, people are like, ‘Oh my God, this is shocking!’ And it’s like, ‘It’s ketchup!’ [So] I think it’s interesting how we react to fiction and how we react to realism on the Internet.” Though her critics may have slammed the “Born Free” video, M.I.A. said that in the two months since it was released, the clip has only become more important. In fact, with its scenes of violence against ethnic minorities (in the video’s case, redheads) and its dark, paranoid tone, one might argue that it’s downright prescient. “Thinking about ‘Born Free,’ what, a month on, is interesting because, last week, I guess in [Texas,] they shot the Mexican kid,” she said, referring to the 15-year-old shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent earlier this month. “Or, think about the boat that went into [Gaza] with all the activists. … Since the video came out, there’s been events. “Or even yesterday, the story about the president being able to shut the Internet down with one button, the ‘kill switch,’ or whatever, which is all really interesting,” she added, talking about a bill being proposed that would allow the U.S. government greater control in the face of a major cyber-attack. (Bill co-sponsor Sen. Joseph Lieberman has said the term “kill switch” is an exaggeration.) “This is not some weird, crazy conspiracy theory, this is mainstream media,” M.I.A. argued. “I wish I was talking about way more underground theories, but [I’m] not, this is just me digesting what I see in the mainstream.” Has a video or song ever opened your eyes about real-world events? Share your thoughts in the comments. Related Artists M.I.A.

See more here:
M.I.A. Calls Reaction To ‘Born Free’ Video ‘Interesting’