Obama lectures The Supremes

Obama: Size of majority means health care is constitutional


By Stephen DinanApril 2, 2012, 04:02PM WASHINGTON TIMES


NBC News starts probe of edited Zimmerman 911 callObama: Size of majority means health care is constitutionalPoll shows Hatch with big lead among Utah delegatesDanger signs for Romney in new general election pollWhite House downplays flap over Biden comments


In his press conference on Monday, President Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law because it was passed by "a strong majority" in Congress.


Mr. Obama defended the law, saying it was helping average Americans, and then said it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn it.


"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he said.


The health-care law passed the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, 60-39, powered by Democrats' overwhelming majority in the chamber. No Republicans supported the legislation. Then, in March 2010, Democratic leaders pushed the bill through the House by a more narrow margin, 219-212, again not winning any Republican votes.


The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he expects the court to defer to the will of elected officials in this case — and said that's the same argument conservatives usually make.


"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and — and passed law. Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this — this court will recognize that and not take that step," Mr. Obama said.

Good News Day - Bad News Day

The Good News for the Democrats is that the Republicans are stuck with Romney.

The Bad News for the Republicans is that they are stuck with Romney.

Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

AND IF YOU NEED ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY…

Good Morning Stupid

Thinking about waffels? "Ugh ugh ugh em, I havn't had lunch."  

Obama won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 2008. Johnny, Pretty Boy, Edwards, who is currently fighting a losing battle to stay out of prison, came in second and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finished third.

Obama wants to get back to the people in Iowa, so he flies out in Air Force One, which costs $181,757 an hour to operate, and then gets on a custom-made $1.1 million bus, followed by another custom-made $1.1 million bus and a convoy of everything funded by you. All this is about Mr. Meathead's coming views about creating American jobs. In reality, it is cover for He-Who-Never-Rests and the Movingonup's to rest and play in Martha's Vineyard.
______________________

Even Left is Abandoning Obama as His Poll Numbers Continue to Decline

Barack Obama’s poll numbers in heavily Democratic New York have gone negative, with 49 percent disapproving of his job performance compared to only 45 percent who approve. The Quinnipiac University poll last showed the President with a 57 percent approval rating in late June, a drop of 9 points in six weeks. Among Republicans, the poll showed disapproval ratings of 86 percent, up from 74 percent in June, while among Democrats his approval rating dropped from 82 percent to 75 percent. Among independents 58 percent expressed their disapproval, up from 45 percent in June. “The evidence continues to mount,” writes Dan Weil at Newsmax.com, “that President Barack Obama’s re-election bid is in trouble.”

The latest daily Presidential Tracking Poll by Rasmussen Reports confirms those results, with their Presidential Approval Index rating at -22 approval index rating, the lowest of Obama's presidency, and down from a +22 approval index rating at the start of his presidency in 2009. Gallup tracks his job approval on a daily basis where 48 percent disapprove of his job performance, his weakest standing since December of 2009. NEW AMERICAN

The Fight Over the Euro and the Increasing Deficit in Washington

I think I am with Rufus, somewhat bewildered by what happened in Washington in the last two days. Boiled down we have a new stimulus plan that will add at least another $1 trillion to the deficit, the same deficit that was ending the world two weeks ago.

The stock market loved it till about lunch time and then took another look at Europe and lost its courage. Obama gave one of his bizarre talks and may have helped the downturn. Oil keeps going up as Obama keeps shutting oil wells down. No surprise there. What is also no surprise is the depth of their stupidity. Let me see if I have this straight.

WE have added another trillion to the deficit in a coordinated effort to create employment. At the same time we are shutting down high paying energy jobs in the gulf area by restricting oil drilling. The restriction is driving up the cost of imported oil which adds to the trade deficit. The higher price of oil is in fact a foreign tax on the American consumer and is another net job killer. This is being done for environmental reasons but foreign drilling in the same waters off Cuba continues.

rufus said...

Well, the votes are in. It's Overwhelming. A Landslide. I'm an idiot. The dumbest asshole in America. The Dumbest Asshole in the world!

I haven't a clue what's going on in DC. This is like a trip to "The Twilight Zone."

I'm not "sad." I'm not "glad." I'm bemused. I feel like I've gone to sleep, and awoke in the middle of a "Chinese Metaphysics" class.

Either I'm having a nervous breakdown, or the rest of the world is.

I feel like I'm watching that goofy Kenny Rodgers flick where the guy folds a Royal Flush (and, the rest of the world is standing around going, "that's all he could do." Huh?

Maybe I'll think about it in the morning. And, maybe not.

Mensa Ain't Us.

Dummer'n Doornails is Us.

Tue Dec 07, 10:05:00 PM EST

Meanwhile the fight between international financiers and the European Central Bank continues. The Euro goes down, the dollar goes up and the market gets depressed. Where this leads is very clear to someone, I hope.

_______________________________


Central Bank and Financiers Fight Over Fate of the Euro
By GRAHAM BOWLEY and JACK EWING
Published: December 7, 2010
NY Times

On one side is the European Central Bank, which is spending billions to prop up Europe’s weak-kneed bond markets and safeguard the common currency.

On the other side are hedge funds and big financial institutions that are betting against those same bonds and, by extension, against the central bank, that mighty symbol of Europe’s monetary union.

The war keeps escalating as traders position themselves for what some believe is inevitable: a default by Greece, Ireland or perhaps even Portugal.

The strains grew Tuesday, when European finance ministers made no pledge to increase the emergency fund that the European Union has put in place to help protect the euro. The head of the International Monetary Fund, meantime, urged Europe to take broader action to fend off speculators.

“The game now is one now of cat and mouse,” said Mohamed A. El-Erian, chief executive of the bond giant Pimco.

Since May, when the Greek debt crisis exploded, the European Central Bank has bought an estimated $69 billion of Greek and other government bonds. It has also indirectly injected hundreds of billions dollars into weak banking systems in Greece and Ireland.

But the speculators keep coming back. After the bond purchases fell to zero in October, the central bank waded back into the market aggressively last week, buying about $2 billion of debt securities, mostly Irish and Portuguese securities, traders said. The bank, based in Frankfurt, has yet to disclose the size and scope of the purchases late last week, when its intervention was the most intense.

While the bank appears to have backed off this week, traders are waiting for the official accounting of its latest purchases. The data are due Monday — and will provide some idea of just how aggressive the central bank has been.

Already, the central bank owns about 17 percent of the combined debt of Greece, Ireland and Portugal, Goldman Sachs estimates. Yet in the bank’s mano a mano with the bond market, psychology could be more important than money. No single hedge fund, after all, can hope to outgun the central bank.

The bank also has the element of surprise. By emphasizing that the central bank is “permanently alert,” Jean-Claude Trichet, its president, has raised the risk for speculators who might try to profit by selling short Greek, Portuguese or Irish bonds.

But the amount of intervention so far is far smaller than many investors and economists think is necessary to calm markets. These people assert that the central bank, its assurances aide, is concerned about taking on so many bonds of peripheral European countries — and being forced into what would be a de facto bailout of overextended government borrowers and the banks that bought their bonds.

And the markets continue to probe that discomfort. Pimco, for example, sold the vast majority of its holdings of Greek, Irish, Portuguese and Spanish government bonds late last year and early this year, although it continues to hold German bonds, considered Europe’s safest.

Pavan Wadhwa, head of European rates strategy at JPMorgan Chase, one of the main dealers in European government debt, said many clients had been eager to sell bonds of peripheral European nations to the central bank and would do more if the bank continued to buy, reflecting a belief that one or more countries were headed for insolvency.

“If the E.C.B. wants to buy, I would still be recommending to sell into the demand,” he said.

Mr. Wadhwa said in its latest operations the central bank had hoped investors would hold onto their bonds, encouraged by its presence in the markets. Instead, many had taken the opportunity to sell.

The chief investment officer of a large New York-based hedge fund, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly, said his fund and others had shorted Portuguese and Irish government bonds during the summer. They had done so by selling bonds in the cash market directly but mainly by buying protection against default in the market for credit-default swaps, a type of derivative.

“That trade was profitable,” this money manager said. But he said the fund had closed its position because the trade had no further to run — the market was now discounting a strong likelihood that Ireland would be forced to restructure its debt in four or five years.

Even after the central bank’s intervention last week, speculators have been maintaining large positions in credit-default swaps on Spanish bonds and on the debt of Spanish banks.

According to JPMorgan’s calculations, the credit-default swaps market implies around a 15 percent probability in any year of a Spanish default for the next five years.

Still, traders and analysts say the central bank is a sophisticated market actor. It conducts many trades via the Bundesbank and other national central banks, which in turn act through a circle of commercial dealer banks.

Mr. Trichet is known to keep a data terminal on his desk and speak frequently with the bank’s 20 in-house bond traders. He also occasionally visits them on a lower floor of the bank’s headquarters.

For the central bank, the timing of the latest flare-up was, in a way, convenient. Bond trading typically tapers off at the end of the year as fund managers close out their positions. So trading was thin and the bank was able to move the market with relatively small sums, traders said.

“It may be that the E.C.B. could have moved spreads a long way without buying that many bonds,” said Steven J. Major, global head of fixed income research at HSBC in London.

By placing a lot of orders with numerous banks, the central bank also created buzz in the market, which helped exaggerate the effect of its bond buying.

But according to many traders, the bank has so far not intervened in the markets for Spanish or Italian debt, which would be harder to influence because of their relatively large size.

Stephen Castle contributed reporting.

Obama on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Extension

The India Visit: Obama and India

The US is now looking to India. Why?

US trade policies with China have been a disaster for US manufacturing and have resulted in a huge transfer of wealth and power to China. There are very few Americans that will argue otherwise. China is increasingly becoming a hostile competitor to US interests and certainly not the partner envisioned by the naive proponents and architects of the Chinese and American relationship.

Now we arrive in India, tarnished and weakened, with a president that is also tarnished and weakened. Our strategic objectives are our concern with Afghanistan and Pakistan and of course China. The naive and optimistic expect that we can gain much from a renewed and strengthened relationship with India.

India has placed high trade barriers to much that the US could sell to India. India has sold much in the way of outsourcing to US corporations, but outsourcing is a job killing machine and hugely unpopular with Obama's core constituency.

India resents the past high handed moralizing made by the US towards India when they were developing their own nuclear defense. The Indians are aware that Obama and the US recognize the need for a closer relationship with India. They will negotiate hard for what they want and expect a lot in return for what they concede. This is an opportunity that comes with strategic risk. A politically weakened Obama, dealing with India, does not give me a sense of security that we will come out the winner with India.

_________________________________

Several Teleprompters had to take early retirement from sheer exhaustion

We are probably not worthy of having Obama as our president.

Blindsided by their own blindness
By Kathleen Parker

The Washington Post
Thursday, November 4, 2010;

Two words: Narrative, schmarrative.

Democrats have talked endlessly about the importance of narrative - missing in President Obama's case. We've heard over and over about the lack of smart messaging and the president's failure to communicate. If only Obama could better express himself, all would be well.

Seriously? This is the same president whose soaring rhetoric once sent his ratings into the heavenly realm and who, after assuming office, never stopped expressing himself.

For months, he was everywhere. Talking, talking, talking. Admit it. How many times did you flip on the tube and say, "Omigod, he's talking again"? Several Teleprompters had to take early retirement from sheer exhaustion.

Here's a narrative: You can't sell people what they don't want, no matter how mellifluous your pitch. This is the clear message of the midterm elections, and who didn't know?

Only Democrats, apparently.

They - the imperial "they" - say that the people weren't voting against the president. Check. Most Americans don't dislike the president, as in the person. Obama didn't create this dismal economy, and most acknowledge that fact. But voters were clearly casting a ballot against his policies.

And no, the Tea Partyers weren't voting against his pigmentation, as my colleague Eugene Robinson suggested in a recent column. "Take back the country," the popular Tea Party refrain, doesn't mean reclaim it from "the black man." It means reclaim it from a rogue government.

There were so many clues, even the clueless should have seen what was coming.

In February 2009, Obama had an approval rating of 76 percent. Let me repeat that: 76 percent! Few but God poll better. Obviously, one can go only downhill from there, but you can't pin the slide on racism. All those people didn't suddenly realize their president was African American and become racists.

Are there racists in America? Sure. And some of them show up at Tea Party rallies. Say what you will about the Tea Party, and there's plenty to say, but it is fundamentally unfair to label the Tea Partyers overall as racist. It is also just plain incorrect to say that opposition to Obama is anti-black. The election was a referendum on policies that are widely viewed as too overreaching and, ultimately, threatening to individual freedom. It's that simple.

The essential question that voters were answering was whether government or the private sector is better suited to create jobs. This is a question on which historians and economists disagree, but it was the crux of Tuesday's election. At the risk of oversimplifying, the midterm bloodbath was a fight over capitalism.

Whether candidates could properly articulate market arguments was less important than whether they understood that expanded government means less individual freedom. You don't need a doctorate in Keynesian theory to get them apples.

Obama's declining popularity since his planet-realigning ascendancy is easy enough to graph. The dipping points in his approval ratings correspond to specific agenda items, such as the stimulus bill and health-care reform. Interspersed among those major initiatives were red flags the size of Chile.

In November 2009, New Jersey and Virginia both elected Republican governors - Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, respectively. These two elections were referendums on Obama's agenda, specifically tied to health care. Then in January came Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, another Democratic state, thundering into the Senate to fill the slot left vacant by Ted Kennedy's death.

That's narrative for you. Yet somehow Democrats couldn't see it. They turned a blind eye and did the very thing Americans loathe: telegraphed disdain for the misinformed masses and insisted that people would like what their government was doing for them once they understood it. Translation: Shut up and take your medicine.

It was less than reassuring to hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tell a gathering of county officials: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Instead of hearing the people's voices, Democrats and the White House doubled down and began to demonize the opposition. It was Rush Limbaugh's fault. Fox News was the problem. John Boehner, today the presumptive speaker of the House, became a target du jour. In an echo of some of the Tea Party's worst moments, the White House advanced the them-vs.-us mantra.

They're the problem. Except, alas, "they" were The People. And their voices were being ignored. For better or worse, our system of governance doesn't include a monarchy.

Obama didn't need to be a better communicator. He needed to be a better listener. End of story.

kathleenparker@washpost.com

Obama's desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution

Is Washington capable of getting anything right?

Do not expect anything different after this election regardless of the outcome. The existing federal system, the one we are stuck with, will only change if things get far worse.

The American Middle Class is at greater risk than they were ten years ago and they know it. Why do I say that? Because ten tears ago, financial damage could have been repaired far more easily than it can be today.

Today, the consequences of wealth destruction will fall on the middle class. They will not be able to repair the damage done to them by the government because their money and wealth will be dragooned and redistributed to the recipients of federal largesse.

Local and state governments, mainly driven by federal laws, will compound the misery.

In a column posted by Pat Buchanan, he says:

..."Consider the critical issue facing America today – the budget and trade deficits, the soaring national debt, an unemployment near 10 percent for 14 straight months – and how neither party seems to have the cure.

While George Bush's tax cuts did not cause this, they did not prevent it. And if Republicans believe that his deficits did cause it, why have those Republicans not addressed the causes of those deficits – Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's social spending on No Child Left Behind and Medicare drug benefits?

Yet, if liberal Democrats are right and deficits are the correct Keynesian cure for recession, why have Obama deficits of $1.4 and $1.3 trillion failed so dismally? Paul Krugman says they are not large enough. Perhaps, but the country is about to end the experiment.

The Federal Reserve, having used and broken every tool in its toolbox, including doubling the money supply and setting interest rates at near zero, will now bet the farm on inflation, starting Nov. 3.

Both parties have lost the mandate of heaven, and neither knows if its economic philosophy even works anymore.

We are in uncharted waters. The country is up for grabs."

I cannot find much optimism in any of it.

_________________________________


The great campaign of 2010

By Charles Krauthammer
Thursday, October 28, 2010; 9:45 PM
Washington Post

In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' " Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.

This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.

This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.

Yet press secretary Robert Gibbs's dismay is reserved for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and the "disappointing" negativity of his admission that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

McConnell, you see, is supposed to say that he will try very hard to work with the president after the election. But it is blindingly clear that nothing of significance will be enacted. Over the next two years, Republicans will not be able to pass anything of importance to them - such as repealing Obamacare - because of the presidential veto. And the Democrats will be too politically weakened to advance, let alone complete, Obama's broad transformational agenda.

That would have to await victory in 2012. Every president gets two bites at the apple: the first 18 months when he is riding the good-will honeymoon, and a second shot in the first 18 months of a second term before lame-duckness sets in.

Over the next two years, the real action will be not in Congress but in the bowels of the federal bureaucracy. Democrats will advance their agenda on Obamacare, financial reform and energy by means of administrative regulation, such as carbon-emission limits imposed unilaterally by the Environmental Protection Agency.

But major congressional legislation to complete Obama's social-democratic agenda? Not a chance. That's why McConnell has it right. The direction of the country will be determined in November 2012 when either Obama gets a mandate to finish building his "New Foundation" or the Republicans elect one of their own to repeal it, or what (by then) remains repealable.

Gibbs's disapproving reaction to this obvious political truth is in keeping with the convention that all things partisan or ideological are to be frowned upon as "divisive." This is pious nonsense. What is the point of a two-party democracy if not to present clear, alternative views of the role of government and, more fundamentally, the balance between liberty and equality - the central issue for any democracy?

The beauty of this year's campaign, and the coming one in 2012, is that they actually have a point. Despite the noise, the nonsense, the distractions, the amusements - who will not miss New York's seven-person gubernatorial circus act? - this is a deeply serious campaign about a profoundly serious political question.

Obama, to his credit, did not get elected to do midnight basketball or school uniforms. No Bill Clinton he. Obama thinks large. He wants to be a consequential president on the order of Ronald Reagan. His forthright attempt to undo the Reagan revolution with a burst of expansive liberal governance is the theme animating this entire election.

Democratic apologists would prefer to pretend otherwise - that it's all about the economy and the electorate's anger over its parlous condition. Nice try. The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that only one in 12 Americans blames the economy on Obama, and seven in 10 think the downturn is temporary. And yet, the Democratic Party is falling apart. Democrats are four points behind among women, a constituency Democrats had owned for decades; a staggering 20 points behind among independents (a 28-point swing since 2008); and 20 points behind among college graduates, giving lie to the ubiquitous liberal conceit that the Republican surge is the revenge of lumpen know-nothings.

On Nov. 2, a punishing there will surely be. But not quite the kind Obama is encouraging.

My prediction: The Dems lose 60 House seats, eight in the Senate. Rangers in seven.

Long Term Ecological Impacts of Marine Oil Spills

It has been apparent that the Obama Administration misread the consequences to the BP oil spill. Obama will use any excuse to cover up his poor judgement and reaction to the calamity. The consequences to marine oil spills has been well documented and known for some time.

We will see where we go from here.

_______________________________________

Long Term Impacts of Marine Oil Spills

Torrey Canyon, 1967 - The impacts of the clean-up of rocky shores following the Torrey Canyon spill are now legendary. The large volumes of highly toxic first generation dispersants caused massive mortality of the shore life and tainted (pun intended!) the name of dispersants to this day. Rapid recovery from the oil was recorded from the un-treated shores, but disruption of the treated shore communities was reported to last at least 10 years and possibly as much as 15 years (Hawkins
and Southward1992).

This is all the more remarkable because the disruptions continued in the absence of oil and without any physical clean-up damage to the shore – i.e. only through the natural recovery processes. This is far longer than any other example found, although at least some of the disruptions described were in the form of unusually large fluctuations in abundance of the dominant species. Reductions in biodiversity of the affected shores is only apparent by the very protracted return of one limpet species (Patella depressa), which took 10 years. This limpet was at the edge of its geographical range, which will have limited its recruitment potential. Abundances of the other species documented all rose rapidly and many then fluctuated even more than typical natural variability.
Florida, 1969 - Although relatively small, this fuel oil spillage caused heavy oiling of significant areas of saltmarsh. After 7 years, oil remaining in the sediment was still having notable effects (poor recruitment, survival and abundance and abnormal behaviour) on populations of burrowing fiddler crabs. Signs of recovery were correlated with sediment naphthalene removal (Krebs and Burns 1978). High concentrations of oil still remain in sub-surface sediments (below 6 cm) at the monitoring sites (Reddy et al. 2002) and studies after twenty years (Teal et al. 1992) showed that crabs from the heavily oiled sites had much higher oil concentrations in their tissues and that detoxification enzyme indicators (EROD activity) were significantly higher in marsh fish from those sites. Continued ecological effects do not appear to have been studied beyond the first 7 years.

Arrow, 1970 - Thomas (1978) describes effects on sediment infauna from a spill of heavy fuel oil into a very sheltered bay. Six years after the spill, toxic levels of oil still remained in the sediment and analysis of clam (Mya arenaria) growth rates (from length and weight frequency data) from oiled and unoiled sites showed significant reduction at oiled sites. Lee et al. (1999) have carried out bioassay studies in more recent years (last in 1999) on sediments from the same area. They showed that sediments from the oiled sites (which were still conspicuously contaminated by oil) had low toxicity, as measured by bioassays using amphipods.

Metula, 1974 - thick and extensive deposits of tar and asphalt pavement still remain on areas of saltmarsh and upper intertidal mixed-sediment beaches at this classic oil spill site (Owens et al. 1999). Recovery of the marsh vegetation is likely to take many more decades, but chemical composition of the oil’s toxicity is now low and breaking up the deposits would accelerate recolonisation (Wang et al. 2001).

Amoco Cadiz, 1978 – this very large spill severely affected a wide variety of coastal resources around Brittany, but its ecological impact is now best known for the erosion and slow re-growth of trampled saltmarsh areas; while similarly oiled but uncleaned marsh returned to natural vegetation in less than 5 years (Baca et al. 1987). The physical alteration of the marsh was therefore the primary cause of long term effects in this case.

The Amoco Cadiz spill also impacted subtidal sediments in the Bay of Morlaix and Dauvin (1998) has suggested that impacts to the benthos lasted for up to 12 years (and in the absence of any oil). He has shown that densities of tubiculous amphipods (primarily Ampelisca - which are well known to be extremely sensitive to oil in water) in a fine sand seabed habitat (17m depth) were much reduced for that period, even though they have a high fecundity. He suggests that Ampelisca populations in this habitat and location are naturally at a stable ‘climax’ state but that
this state was severely disturbed and that recovery was slow because the population was geographically isolated.
Esso Bernicia, 1978 - fuel oil from this spill contaminated shores within Sullom Voe and outside and is still present as patches of tar and asphalt pavement on some very sheltered rocky and mixed sediment shores. Annual monitoring showed rapid return of the communities of epibiota at most of the affected sites except some boulder/shingle shores where aggressive physical clean-up (with bulldozers) caused long-term instability of the substrata (Moore et al. 1995). This instability resulted in continued depression of both species richness and abundance of some algae and molluscs on those shores for at least nine years, presumably by reducing recruitment and survival. By 1989 species richness had returned and abundances had also returned to normal levels, but substratum levels were still surprisingly changeable for many more years and abundances still fluctuated greatly (annual reports and personal observations).

The Esso Bernicia spill also killed large numbers of wintering birds. Frequent monitoring showed that most of the local populations affected quickly returned to pre-spill numbers except for the great northern diver (Gavia immer). Heubeck (1997 and pers. comm.) showed that abundances in Yell Sound were still much reduced from their pre-spill levels. He suggests that the Yell Sound wintering population may also all breed in the same location (somewhere in the Nearctic) and that the cause of the poor recruitment may be due to environmental factors affecting that location.

TROPICS experiment, 1984 - Baca et al. 2005 review 20 years of results from this study on the effects of chemically dispersed crude oil on mangroves. They show that the oil did not persist and no long term impacts were detected at the dispersed oil and reference sites; while the undispersed oil site was still characterised by persistent oil residues, significantly reduced mangrove condition (smaller tree size) and substratum erosion.

Vivita, 1986 - A tropical example of the long term impacts of tar residues has been shown by Nagelkerken and Debrot (1995). They found that substantial tar cover in rubble shores of Curacao, still present more than 7 years after oiling despite moderate wave exposure, was causing a 35% reduction in species richness of molluscs (snails, limpet and chitons). They suggested that this reduction was in large part due to the loss of micro-habitats (under, between and within the rubble) caused by the cementation of rubble by the tar deposits.

Galeta, 1986 - Five years after this crude oil spill there were still severe impacts on biodiversity and productivity of red mangroves (Garrity et al.1994, Levings et al. 1994) and the structure of the mangrove had been so badly altered that recovery would clearly take a long time, even if oil had not still been present. Relatively undegraded oil was present in the anoxic muds and were expected to remain toxic for at least 20 years (Burns et al. 1994). Unfortunately no follow up studies appear to have been published. Recovery of corals on reef edge and reef flat habitats was also very slow (Cubit and Connor 1993), although complicated by natural stresses.

Exxon Valdez, 1989 - there is still a lack of consensus between researchers with different perspectives on the impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill of crude oil (Shigenaka 2005). Appreciable quantities of oil still persist on and beneath the surface of some sheltered boulder/cobble and coarse gravel shores (Short et al. 2004) and elevated tissue concentrations in some bivalves is correlated with oiled shores, but the long-term effect that it is having on ecology, beyond some localised
smothering, is confused by conflicting claims. The very limited pre-spill data and many confounding factors has made it difficult to detect impacts in populations of mobile species (fish, birds, mammals), and many studies that link sublethal effects (e.g. biomarkers) to heavily oiled sites may not have taken sufficient account of background oil. Page et al. (2004) have shown that substantial background levels of hydrocarbons from a variety of sources, including Exxon Valdez oil, are present in seabed sediments. Detoxification enzyme indicators (EROD activity) in coastal rock fish were induced by those background levels but were no more elevated at Exxon Valdez contaminated sites than at other sites. There are many ecological studies that suggest that biodiversity and productivity of the majority of affected communities and populations quickly returned to normal levels (e.g. Gilfillan, 1995, Wiens et al., 1999).

Effects of aggressive clean-up activity (hot water washing) on sheltered shore epibiota were described by Houghton et al. (1997). They showed that large fluctuations in abundance of the community dominants were still occurring at the cleaned sites (but were not so great at unoiled sites and oiled uncleaned sites) seven years after the spill. These population fluctuations were therefore similar to those described from the Torrey Canyon spill; but it also seems that the period when species richness and species abundances were continuously reduced was much shorter (apparently only 2 or 3 years).

Gulf War, 1991 - Tar and asphalt pavement still smothers extensive areas of the intertidal sand flats, halophyte zones and mangrove of the Saudi Arabian coast (Michel et al. 2005 and personal observations). Ecological impacts (particularly to halophytes and burrowing crab populations) in the upper intertidal and supratidal are severe and there are few signs of recovery (Getter et al. 2005 and personal observations).

Haven, 1991 - Considerable deposits of soft tar and hard burnt residues from the Haven spill are still present on the seabed off Genoa. Studies on sublethal effects in fish (genotoxic and hepatic tissue damage, Pietrapiana et al. 2002) and PAH concentrations in some sediment samples (Amato et al. 2002) have been linked to the contamination, but no effects were detected in the macrobenthos (Guidetti et al. 2000). Without better evidence of ecological effects (i.e. reduced species richness, population abundance or growth rates) it is not yet possible to show a long term impact, although some small smothering effects are likely just from the presence of the deposits.

Braer, 1993 - even acute impacts of the Braer spill were much less than might have been expected from the size of this spill in coastal waters; but the rapid natural dispersal of the oil and strong downward currents did result in unusually high seabed deposition. Very high concentrations (>1000ppm) of oil were found in muddy sediment sinks south of Shetland in deep water (Kingston et al. 1997) but impacts were mostly limited to reduced abundance and species richness of amphipods. Follow-up studies did not go beyond 1 year.

Sea Empress, 1996 – no significant residues of Sea Empress oil remain and a recent review of all available information, on its ten year anniversary, (Moore 2006) found very little evidence of long term impacts. This is not due to a paucity of data, as the local environment of the oil port and extremely rich coastal habitats were already very well described and monitored. However, the review did identify a few notable impacts:
While no significant long-term impacts on local seabird populations were detected, some localised long-term effects did occur, as can be shown from detailed inspection of seabird monitoring data. For example, one small breeding colony of guillemots was apparently wiped out and the site not reoccupied in 10 years – probably because first time breeders are not attracted to empty cliff sites and older birds habitually return to the same nests (Haycock pers. comm.). Of greater significance, Votier et al. (2005) have shown that the spill did kill many individual guillemots that they were monitoring in breeding colonies on Skomer Island, and that this had a notable effect on the demographics of the population. The long-term effects of this are unclear. Their results also suggested that available nest sites were reoccupied by a pool of birds that might otherwise not have been able to breed. Productivity and population numbers were therefore buffered by the substantial number of non-breeders in the population.

The spill also threatened the survival of a well studied population of the rarely recorded cushion starfish (Asterina phylactica) in shallow rockpools that were severely oiled. Mortality of the cushion stars, which brood their young in situ (therefore no recruitment from planktonic larvae), was very high (>95%) and recovery of the population seemed unlikely. However, a return to pre-spill densities was faster than expected (within 6 years, Crump, pers. comm.) due primarily to self fertilisation by the five remaining isolated animals. This is therefore an example of a species that had a greater recovery potential than might have been expected. Although moderately well studied compared to many benthic species, the spill created a situation that highlighted important gaps in our knowledge of its population ecology. It also appears that Asterina phylactica is not as rare as it was once considered to be, as many more records have been reported.

Finally, splash zone lichens of rocky shores are very slow growing and long term impacts to some well developed colonies were identified following the spill. Impacts are still evident, with abundance of dominant species and hence productivity (such as it is) is greatly reduced at some sites, but reductions in species richness were not found (Crump, pers. comm.).

Estrella Pampeana, 1999 – severe trampling during operations to remove oiled vegetation from brackish water marshes, resulted in substantial oil being pressed down into marsh sediments and extensive damage to root systems (personal observations). Ecological monitoring showed a rapid recovery of unoiled and oiled-but-not-cleaned sites, but delayed recovery of the ‘cleaned’ marsh (Moreno et al. 2004 and personal observations). The worst affected of the ‘cleaned’ marshes were still not fully recovered in 2003.

Just What is Obama's Expertise?

Two crises: Where's Obama?

If the White House doesn't step up soon on both the gulf oil spill and Arizona's anti-immigrant law, it risks economic woes in the gulf and loss of control of the immigration issue.

May 26, 2010|Tim Rutten LA Times

President Obama and his administration currently face two pollution problems — a physical one in the Gulf of Mexico, where oil continues to spew unchecked from a damaged well, and a political one involving immigration policy and originating in Arizona.

In both instances an exaggerated deference to process bordering on passivity risks creating an impression that the White House is running behind critical domestic events and, worse, detached — even indifferent — to the human toll of inaction.

With regard to the gulf oil well blowout, it's true that Obama inherited from previous administrations a vestigial regulatory system and an utter lack of contingency planning for such an emergency. It's also true that the federal government has to rely on the oil industry for technical expertise in these cases. At the same time, the White House has been exceptionally slow about demonstrating that it's using its legal authority to effectively monitor the pace and intensity of that technology's application. Occasional outbursts of tough talk in the Cabinet have been contradicted by Coast Guard officials, who insist British Petroleum is doing all it can.

Maybe, but there's a kind of slow-motion Hurricane Katrina washing up on the gulf shoreline, and the White House needs to show that it's actively assisting state officials on the ground and that it's already preparing to ameliorate the terrible environmental and economic losses that are about to pile up. Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honore, who directed the most effective post-Katrina relief efforts, has suggested declaring a national disaster in the area and using the authority that comes with such a declaration to start hitting BP with daily fines. The money, he suggests, should go into a trust fund to pay compensation to those injured. Inaction on this front risks further public disenchantment; two weeks ago, polls showed that only a third disapproved of the administration's approach to the gulf spill; this week, more than half did. If Wednesday's effort by BP to cap the well fails and the company has to fall back on drilling relief wells, we could be looking at something worse than the 1979 explosion and blowout in Mexico's Bay of Campeche, which took nine months to halt with that technique.

Obama has Learned Nothing. He is a Disaster for the Democrats and the Country

He's Done Everything Wrong
by Mort Zuckerman

The Daily Beast

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

_________________________

trish said...

Could be the Battle of Agincourt. In slo-mo.

I have some doubt, if only because my skepticism kicks in at that moment when everybody seems to be anticipating the same thing.

And to refresh your memory and mine as well, I added this visual metaphor for your viewing pleasure. Thank Trish.

"The SUSPECT is in custody"- Ahem, Barack, Bro, he set his balls on fire and flames hit the ceiling of the plane.

Obama comes out fighting. We will bring a lawyer to a gun fight.

"This was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland," says Barack.

A reminder?

"We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will do more than simply strengthen our defenses."

Barack, check this, the black Muslim admitted to the passengers that he was part of AQ. AQ has already taken their bows.

In its communique, an Al Qaeda affiliate said Abdulmutallab had coordinated the plot with members of its group, using explosives they manufactured. The website posting was titled "The Brother Mujahid Omar Farooq al-Nigeri's Operation," and it included a photograph of a smiling Abdulmutallab in front of an Al Qaeda banner.

Abdulmutallab has told authorities that the terrorist organization trained him and provided the explosives.

Abdulmutallab not smiling

"We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us -- whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks."

Barack, I suppose that means the black Muslim is being interrogated as we speak..Oh, you mentioned he is a suspect, uh does that mean he has a lawyer? His lawyer is allowing an interrogation?

"We will not rest," Obama said, "until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."

Who is we? After that Barack went back to shooting hoops and playing golf.

The Yemeni foreign ministry confirmed Monday that Abdulmutallab visited several times -- ostensibly to study Arabic at a school in Sana, the capital -- including one trip from early August until early December of this year.

"Authorities are currently investigating who he was in contact with," the ministry said. But one Yemeni official said it might be hard to trace Abdulmutallab's steps, given how many students come from all over the world to study Arabic and Islam in the country.

After, (one would hope, but not necessarily) a major ass-chewing from the White House, Napolitano took to the airwaves to try to minimize criticism over remarks Sunday in which she said the security system had worked!

Without going into details Janet sort of mentioned a little failure to keep Abdulmutallab off the plane.

When asked Monday on NBC's "Today" show whether the system had "failed miserably," Napolitano answered: "It did."

No shit?

"No one is happy. . . . An extensive review is underway," Napolitano said.

In Amsterdam on Monday, authorities said they were investigating whether an accomplice had helped Abdulmutallab board Flight 253 without a passport -- possibly by claiming he was a Sudanese refugee.

We are taking in African Muslim refugees who do not have passports?

No shit? Say again?

We are sending thirty thousand more good American soldiers to fight in Afghanistan to keep AQ out of Omaha and at the same time we are taking in African Muslims into the US who have no identity cards.

? Who da guessed.

In Detroit, it is reported that a scheduled hearing in Abdulmutallab's case was canceled without explanation and that prosecutors continued their efforts to get a DNA sample from him to match against evidence taken from the plane.

Efforts to get his DNA? His balls were on fire. Here is a hint to get some DNA. Check his undies or snatch some of his hair from his head.

Prosecutors? They bring a gun to a gun fight and Obama brings a lawyer. Damn, I feel better.

______________________________________

Detroit terror attack: 'There are many more like me,' bomber warns

Security agencies in Britain and the US are under increasing pressure to explain how the Detroit bomber was able to board an aircraft carrying explosives despite being on intelligence “watch lists” in both countries.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent Telegraph
Published: 9:25PM GMT 28 Dec 2009

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, had been banned from entering the UK after he applied for a student visa in May to study at a bogus college, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has confirmed.

Then, six weeks ago, his family in Nigeria contacted US security officials to express “concerns” that he had become radicalised after he “disappeared” to the al-Qaeda stronghold of Yemen, resulting in him being put on a US anti-terror database.

But because the two countries failed to share their intelligence, neither was aware of the full picture about Abdulmutallab, who hid a potentially devastating explosive device under his clothes and tried to detonate it as an Airbus with 289 people on board approached Detroit on Christmas Day.

Abdulmutallab has given a defiant warning to US investigators, telling them: “There are more just like me who will strike soon.”

Dozens of Islamic militants from Britain are thought to have travelled to Yemen in recent months, where the security services fear they are being trained by al-Qaeda bomb-makers to launch further attacks against Western targets.

Last night a group calling itself al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the attempted suicide bombing on Northwest Airlines flight 253.

In a separate statement, AQAP had earlier vowed revenge for military operations carried out by the Yemeni government earlier this month, which were backed by the US, in which the group claims 50 people died. It said: “We will not let Muslim women and children’s blood be spilled without taking revenge.”

Abdulmutallab, the privately-educated son of one of Nigeria’s most prominent bankers, managed to smuggle his bomb aboard the aircraft by strapping a condom filled with the high explosive PETN to the inside of his leg and then attempting to detonate it using a syringe filled with a liquid chemical. The PETN powder caught fire but did not explode, sparing the lives of all those on board.

Investigators are worried that AQAP has developed what is effectively an “undetectable bomb” involving PETN that can only be found by using expensive and intrusive full body scanners at airports, with huge implications for airport security.

As US agents continued to question him at a prison in Michigan, his father, Alhaji Umaru Abdulmutallab, said he had told Nigerian security officials two months ago of his concerns about his son’s behaviour, then made direct contact with US agents two weeks after that.

Janet Napolitano, the US Homeland Security Chief, admitted that America’s counter-terrorist system had failed, as Abdulmutallab, who had been placed on an intelligence database, should not have been allowed to board the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, having flown to the Netherlands from Lagos.

She said: “Our system did not work in this instance. No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.”

Meanwhile Alan Johnson suggested Britain’s information about Abdulmutallab - which included his fingerprints - would have been shared with America, only for the Home Office to admit later that the intelligence was not passed on to any foreign law enforcement agencies.

Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons counterterrorism subcommittee, said: “The relationship between British and US intelligence agencies is absolutely vital and it doesn’t seem to have done its job on this occasion.

“The relationship has been strained recently, particularly after the early release of the Lockerbie bomber, which caused a huge amount of tension, and this latest episode points to the fact that the relationship is not as well developed as it has been in the past.”

Sources have also told The Daily Telegraph that the intelligence-sharing relationship with the US has come under additional strain as a result of legal action taken by lawyers acting for the former Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed.

They say that US counter-terrorism officials are having to consider the legal ramifications of sharing information with the British that could then be released by the British courts.

Abdulmutallab’s family said in a statement that they sought assistance from the Americans a month and a half ago, asking them to find their son and return him home.

They added: “We provided them with all the information required of us to enable them do this.”
The student has allegedly told the FBI that he was put in contact with al-Qaeda after getting in touch with a radical Yemeni preacher through the internet.

Sources also said that during his time at University College London he attended the East London Mosque in Whitechapel, where the radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, now hiding in Yemen, was invited to speak by satellite link earlier this year.

The government’s COBRA emergency committee met yesterday morning to discuss the case but ministers did not attend.

Questions have also been asked about why further checks were not carried out after he bought his ticket in Ghana, West Africa with nearly $3,000 in cash and did not check in any hold luggage when he boarded in Lagos.

One passenger has even claimed Abdulmutallab initially tried to board the aircraft without a passport, claiming he was from Sudan, in what may have been a further bid to avoid detection.

President Obama has ordered investigations into the screening of passengers at airports and the use of watch lists.

Obama's Afghanistan Mission Impossible

Obama says 30,000 troops are vital to our national interest. That national interest has an announced shelf life. It expires in 18 months.

The plan calls for a rapid building of an Afghanistan army and police force. This stated goal has not happened over the last 8 years, but we are asked to believe it will happen over the next 18 months.

Assume you are a new recruit, prepared to grab a paycheck as a future Afghan soldier. Your local Taliban representative shows up and reminds you that in 18 months the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban is not.

I don't care if they get 250,000 in uniforms, the week the Americans pull out, that army will evaporate.

Obama also says that he can reduce corruption which is in the Afghani DNA. That is absurd. Anyone on the take today, will grab as much as he can as fast as he can and do so before the money train leaves town. Corruption will go up not down.

Obama knows he has painted himself into a corner. This is not about winning. It is all about leaving. It is the political cover for a politician that has been trying to be all things to all people.

The future of Afghanistan will not be much different from its past. The best we can hope for is that will be the distant past not the recent past.

Is there a sensible alternative? Probably not. Obama didn't create this mess. George Bush tested the limits of US military power and Obama is charged with facing the consequences of the overreach.

Remember the highlight of Obama's Russian Triumph?

I confess to utter contempt for the Russians. It is personal with me, but I try and temper my judgement, barely successful at times. I was stupefied by the inanities of GWB and his man-love for Vladimir Putin, KGB vavasour.

Had it not been done to the President of the United States, I would have been amused at the amateur hour performance of Obama when he was in Russia and his utter misunderstanding and naivete in dealing with them.

This was highlighted by the deal with the Russians to overfly Russia to support the Afghanistan debacle.

You will recall that we stabbed Poland in the ass on the sixtieth anniversary of the Nazi and Russian attack on Poland. Russia, you will recall, invaded Poland’s eastern front in 1939, two weeks after Nazi Germany overran Poland’s western border. Stalin and his thugs then murdered the entire elite Polish officer corps.

In a ceremony described as “moving” by Russian diplomats, President Obama officially canceled a Bush-era deal that would have placed a missile-defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Obama must have been wearing George Bush's presidential knee pads when he met Putin.

Never mind.

Back to Obama's diplomatic coup on the Russian overflights to Afghanistan. Let's check it out and see how it is going.

______________________________________________


Russian Deal on Afghan Supply Route Not a Deal Yet

By PETER BAKER NY Times
Published: November 13, 2009

WASHINGTON — When he met President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia in April, President Obama sought to open an important new supply corridor for Afghanistan by flying American troops and weapons through Russian airspace. Visiting Moscow in July, he sealed a deal for as many as 4,500 flights a year, in what he called a “substantial contribution” to the war and a sign of improving relations with Russia.


Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog »
Seven months after the idea was raised and four months after the agreement was signed, the number of American flights that have actually traversed Russian airspace?

One. And that was for show.

The failure so far to translate words into reality amid bureaucratic delays, including one involving a Russian agency insisting on charging air navigation fees that the Kremlin had said would be waived, underscores the challenges of Mr. Obama’s effort to transform ties between Washington and Moscow. For all of the lofty sentiments expressed at high-profile summit meetings, actual change has never been easy to deliver.

The need to break through the logjam will soon take on fresh urgency if Mr. Obama decides to deploy tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. For eight years, the American military has struggled to find and maintain reliable supply routes into Afghanistan, but Mr. Obama may send more troops in a single order than at any point in the war, straining the system.

Because of the difficulties in getting supplies to Afghanistan through Pakistan, the new Russian air corridor “would be fairly important,” said Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan and now president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. “This doesn’t answer the question of how much we’ll be able to rely on the Russian connection, and that will be a big part of how much of a difference it can make.”

Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington who has advised Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, said the United States “needs as many options as it can get” to send troops and equipment.

“There is no way to predict how reliable any given route will be during a war that seems nearly certain to last for three to four more years,” he said. “There is no way to guarantee Pakistani stability, and almost any major base could be the subject of a large-scale Taliban bombing. The U.S. can live without a Russian option, but it would be much better off with one.”

The uncertainty comes at a tenuous moment in Russian-American relations, as Mr. Obama seeks more support from the Kremlin in pressing Iran to scale back its nuclear program, and as the United States and Russia race to agree on a new nuclear arms treaty before the current one expires Dec. 5.

The problems with opening the air corridor as part of a so-called northern distribution network stem from a variety of technical issues that American officials are working to resolve, among them a dispute over who will pay. Under the pact that Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev sealed in July, the Russians agreed to waive air navigation fees typically charged for right of passage and air traffic control.

American officials said the new route would save $133 million a year in fuel, maintenance and other costs. But the Russian agency that collects the navigation fees has so far refused to exempt the Americans.

The Obama administration is sending a technical team to Moscow to try to work out what standards should apply to the flights, and spokesmen for the two governments played down the problem.

“We are working through procedural delays on the Russian side and hope to begin regular flights soon,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

Aleksei Pavlov, a spokesman for Mr. Medvedev, said the Kremlin had every intention of fulfilling the agreement. “We are eager to resolve this issue in the nearest future,” he said.

But such seemingly minor complications have bollixed Russian-American agreements before. President Bill Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin agreed in 1998 to open a joint early warning center in Moscow, where Russian and American personnel would work side by side to detect missile launches and avoid misunderstandings that could lead to accidental war.

Their successors renewed the agreement, but the center has been delayed for 11 years amid disputes over issues like construction liability. Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev vowed to try again last summer, but in the latest holdup, the Russians have delayed allowing American inspectors into the country to examine the still unopened facility.

The idea of sending American forces through Russia to a war zone is fraught with a complicated history and mutual suspicion. For years, the idea was out of the question. Then in 2008, Russia agreed to open a land corridor, but only for nonlethal supplies.

The agreement to allow American troops and weapons to fly over the territory of Russia, its onetime cold war enemy, was seen as a symbolic breakthrough as much as a logistical one, and administration officials argued that it was a triumph even if no planes actually ever used the route. Still, just as some people in Moscow appear apprehensive about American forces in their airspace, some American officials are wary of putting too much faith in the Russians, who could easily close down the corridor if political tension rises again.

The latest transit agreement formally went into effect Sept. 4. A week later, the Pentagon sent Moscow a general description of cargo and personnel that would be shipped under the agreement, as well as the regular destinations of the planes, according to an administration official. The Russians accepted the request, and the two sides arranged for a single test flight on Oct. 8, just before Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Moscow.

But the dispute over the air transit fees has yet to be solved, complicated by whether the planes used will be American military craft or contracted civilian planes. Moreover, the American side is still working to amend its overflight agreements with Poland and Kazakhstan so the flights can traverse those countries as well.

Administration officials said that they remained confident these issues could be worked out, and that they had requested a second test flight to try to advance the program. They said that they did not expect Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev to talk about the issue when the presidents meet in Singapore on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting, but that they hoped to resolve it at lower levels.

Clifford J. Levy contributed reporting from Moscow.

Obama to win Cy Young Award

What does North Korea want? Wrong Question. What does China want?

Obama and and his party apparatchiks are busy trying not to waste the crisis/opportunity in North Korea. First we get the blather about the "international community."

The "international community" if it really were a community, would call in the police. I assume that they would be the"international police" but we all should know that is absurd. The last time that happened, American pilots were bombing hapless civilians in Belgrade and we aced the Chinese Embassy. So we can forget precision targeting of the Norks. There is no international community that will approve that and there are no international cops. I suppose we could form a posse of the willing, but why bother?

The question that needs to be asked is not what North Korea wants, but what does China want? The Norks have already exchanged missile technology for nuclear technology with our good friends the Pakis. I have no doubt that was not the full extent of their trading. The criminal family business of North Korea Inc. exists because the Chinese tolerate it. North Korea collapses without Chinese tolerance.

China wants a new world order, here is their chance.

____________

Diplomats have lost the plot over North Korea
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 26, 2009 Telegraph

Am I missing something, or has a mood of complacency settled on the international diplomatic community regarding North Korea's latest nuclear test?

Despite the fact the latest nuclear device tested by the highly secretive regime in Pyongyang is said to be equivalent in size to the atom bomb the Americans dropped on Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War, the general message emanating from international diplomats is that there is no need to worry because North Korea has no intention of using the device, and that the North Koreans are too isolated to constitute a threat to the outside world.

What nonsense. Irrespective of what the North Koreans intend to do with their nuclear arsenal once they have mastered the technology, the very fact that an unstable regime like Pyongyang has access to weapons of mass destruction constitutes a major threat to world peace.

North Korea is one of the world's key proliferators. It attempted to provide Syria - another rogue regime - with nuclear technology, and works closely with Tehran to develop ballistic missile systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

To my mind, the more progress North Korea makes on its nuclear programme, the more afraid the world should be. So my message to the diplomatic corps is: snap out of it. There are many reasons to be worried by the latest developments in North Korea, and rather than taking the sanguine attitude that it doesn't really matter, let's see some robust action that will bring the North Koreans to their senses.

How did Obama come to be President of The United States?

Obama in 2003

Doug said...

"Obama wisely changed his mind about releasing them. That in itself differentiated himself from the inflexible and sometime stubbornness of George Bush. Obama has been persuaded by argument and logic. That is hopeful. Next."----
Panetta, the Military, CIA, and etc no doubt forcefully expressed their opinion.

I find it bizarre to credit him for taking a position that only a hateful, self-centered, immature and inexperienced jerk would take to start with, because he then reversed himself when he became convinced it would be harmful to his popularity ratings.

Like crediting someone who planned on raping a 14 year old child, but then thought better of it when he noticed a police car down the block, for acting like an upstanding moral agent.

Thu May 14, 07:31:00 AM EDT

Obama will not cede a strong defense to the Republicans

General George B. McClellan, fired by a previous President from Illinois.

Brits beware: Obama means business in Afghanistan
Posted By: Con Coughlin at May 12, 2009 telegraph

Con Coughlin opines about the firing of General David McKiernan as a warning to the Western Alliance. It is also a warning to the Republican party that Obama will not be seen as weak on defense. We live in interesting times.

_______________________________

The summary dismissal of General David McKiernan, the American commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, by American President Barack Obama will send shock waves throughout the entire Western alliance.

Gen McKiernan was removed from his post after Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, concluded that American forces based in the country "can and must do better".

Mr Obama's decision to dismiss Gen McKiernan is a bold move, and suggests that the new American president is determined to make a success of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

If Iraq was President George W. Bush's war, Afghanistan is Obama's war, and the U.S. president is clearly determined that this military campaign does not suffer the same setbacks as American forces experienced in Iraq.

By the time next year's mid-term elections are held Mr Obama wants to be in a position to demonstrate that tangible progress is being made.

The timing of Gen McKiernan's removal is also significant, for a number of reasons. Mr Obama has already given his approval to a mini-surge strategy aimed at finally destroying the threat posed by the Taliban to Afghanistan's slow and painful transition to democratic government.

It will also send a warning to Downing Street, which has just refused to approve a request by British commanders to send extra combat troops to bolster the British force in Helmand province. Gordon Brown's failure to provide British commanders with the forces they need to do the job properly in Helmand means that they will now have to rely on the Americans to help them out, which will not exactly help to improve the transatlantic alliance.

There's no point Downing Street making a song and dance about being Washington's closest ally in the global campaign against Islamist terrorism if it does not deliver on its commitments, which now appears to be the case in Afghanistan.

MoveOn.org moves on the attack. Americans love it.

Poll: Public thinks highly of Obama

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — His opening months in the Oval Office have fortified Barack Obama's standing with the American public, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, giving him political capital for battles ahead.
As his 100th day as president approaches next Wednesday, the survey shows Obama has not only maintained robust approval ratings but also bolstered the sense that he is a strong and decisive leader who can manage the government effectively during a time of economic crisis.

"A lot of things were ignored over the last eight years, and I think it's all coming home to roost," says Benjamin Bleadon, 51, an insurance broker from Skokie, Ill., who was among those surveyed. "He has given the perception that he understands the issues and that he has taken control … and we'll just have to wait and see if it works."