Shedding some light on what is going on at the WH

[MessiahRp]

I didn't see this posted here but I found it quite eye opening about exactly who Obama was listening to and how easily he appears to be swayed to the arguments of the Hawks. Seems like pertinent information considering today's announcement.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1940537,00.html

The Fall of Greg Craig
By Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf

-snip-

Interviews with two dozen current and former officials show that Obama's public decision to reverse himself and fight the release of the photographs signaled a behind-the-scenes turning point in his young presidency. Beginning in the first two weeks of May, Obama took harder lines on government secrecy, on the fate of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and on the prosecution of terrorists worldwide. The President was moving away from some promises he had made during the campaign and toward more moderate positions, some favored by George W. Bush. At the same time, he quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right.

The unseen struggle took place in the spring, but the results are emerging now. On Nov. 13, Attorney General Eric Holder unveiled plans to try Guantánamo Bay detainees in federal courts, as preferred by liberals, but he also announced he would try other suspected terrorists using extrajudicial proceedings out of Bush's playbook. The Administration is preparing to unveil its blueprint for closing the prison, but Obama will do so using some of the same Bush-era legal tools he once deplored.

-snip-

But inside the White House, the mood had changed amid the furor over the release of the torture memos in April. McDonough and other NSC advisers assembled in the Oval Office to discuss it. Obama raised questions about security — were the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security on board? Separately, his legislative-affairs staff warned of stiff congressional resistance — and Republicans responded on cue. Word of the plan leaked on April 24, and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell launched three weeks of near daily attacks on the idea of letting the Uighurs loose in the U.S. Dick Durbin, Obama's mentor and the Democrats' No. 2 in the Senate, called the White House asking for ammunition to fight back against McConnell and the Republicans. "What's our plan?" Durbin asked.

Unwilling to execute Craig's plan, the White House had no backup. Though Durbin thought it could win the fight, Obama's political team worried about antagonizing lawmakers at a time when the President was seeking more money for Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a host of economic concerns. "The precincts were reporting that there was going to be stiff opposition" to Craig's Guantánamo plan, says a top official. It became "a question of what is achievable," he adds.

Obama quietly killed the Gitmo plan in the second week of May; Craig never got a chance to argue the case to the President. "It was a political decision, to put it bluntly," says an aide. The stumble had long-term consequences: later that month, Congress blocked the release of Guantánamo detainees in the U.S. and restricted their transfer there for trial. The White House realized it had to start over on a signature issue.

--------------

Obviously there are battles to be had in the White House over policy but my concern is that Rahm Emanuel, ever so willing to bend to the will of the right wing hawks, will continuously allow Dick Cheney and others push their policy right back into pro-Bush Administration positions. They already practically are running the Bush era Pro-Corporation playbook. It just saddens me to know that we're going to do it on Gitmo, Afghanistan and likely torture as well.

Rp

[babylonsister]

1. Eikenberry memos echo Obama's own concerns about Afghanistan

Obama is listening to this guy; how do you explain that?


Eikenberry memos echo Obama's own concerns about Afghanistan
The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, has cautioned Obama against sending more troops to the country, saying the government of President Hamid Karzai is too corrupt.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


Washington - Two classified cables sent to the White House by US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry last week are bringing a new wrinkle to the already protracted debate over how the US should proceed in Afghanistan.

The missives, first reported by The Washington Post, express Ambassador Eikenberry's serious reservations about deploying more troops to Afghanistan in the face of widespread corruption in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.

On one hand, they reinforce the doubts that many in the administration and at the Pentagon have had for some time. Moreover, they threaten to undermine the already limited options that the White House has to force the Karzai government to mend its ways.

snip//

Eikenberry's fears appear to play into Obama's own.

Pentagon officials have expressed similar concerns. But they don't seem to see the problem as one that should prevent the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan.

more...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1113/p02s09-usmi.html

[floridablue]

2. Not to mention the Patriot Act. And where are we on spying now?

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. And where are we on spying now?

RIGHT on schedule.