Not1b4me’s Blog

WeRtheVoices

New York Times Forgets Sen. Dodd Is a Democrat

Times Forgets Sen. Dodd Is a Democrat
There was only one thing missing from the paper’s front-page story on the backlash against Sen. Chris Dodd’s A.I.G. bonus-guarantees: His Democratic party affiliation.

Posted by: Clay Waters
3/20/2009 3:11:54 PM

Two stories in the lead story box Friday, both related to the populist fury over the bonuses granted to employees of the American International Group (A.I.G.) — $165 million in bonuses granted to 463 employees, on top of the $170 billion of tax money already given to prop up the stricken insurance firm.

One story noted the 90% tax on bonuses paid to the employees. The other, “Connecticut Senator Draws Voters’ Ire for Payout Role,” targeted an unusual suspect for the liberal paper — prominent liberal Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. A change Dodd made to legislation meant to limit executive compensation exempted bonuses like those granted by A.I.G., and as the story shakes out, the spotlight is beginning to burn hotter on the old-line liberal Democrat from Connecticut.

There was just one thing missing from Raymond Hernandez and Thomas Kaplan’s story — Dodd’s Democratic party affiliation. The Times shielded the Democrats from the Dodd controversy in its print edition. One had to infer Dodd was a Democrat from statements like “the firestorm has encouraged Republicans.” (The online version belatedly identifies Dodd as a Democrat in the fourth paragraph.)

The Times also failed to identify Dodd as a Democrat in a June 2008 story about Dodd receiving a sweetheart mortgage interest rate from mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. By contrast, when Republican Rep. Vito Fossella of New York was charged with drunken driving in early May 2008, the Times worked his party affiliation into the second paragraph and invariably mentioned his Republican standing in its follow-up stories.

Still, Friday’s story on Dodd marked a sea change in the paper’s attitude. On Thursday, the Times was completely dismissive of the controversy, devoting only two paragraphs to Dodd’s involvement and concluding of his legislative machination: “But it is far from clear that the change mattered in the case of A.I.G.” But the worm turned in just one day, with the Times catching up on the public fury in Friday’s story:

Clarence Randolph, a 50-year-old dump truck driver from New Haven, has been out of work for two months.

He is not happy that financial firms bailed out by the government are paying bonuses to their executives. And he does not understand why one of his senators, Christopher Dodd, allowed it to happen.

“Why would he do it?” he said as he was about to enter the New Haven Free Public Library to search online for jobs. “Why are they going to take taxpayers’ money — my money — and give all these people bonuses? I think that’s terrible.”

Across Connecticut, anger is erupting against Mr. Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, whose stature in Washington once reflected the state’s beneficial ties with the financial industry. Now, he finds himself a symbol of the political establishment’s coziness with tainted corporations and a target of populist wrath over their excesses.

On Thursday, the senator sought to defuse the furor over the latest revelation, holding a conference call with reporters to explain how legislation meant to limit executive compensation was changed at the last minute. That change exempted bonuses protected by contracts, like those at American International Group, a big campaign contributor to Mr. Dodd that received billions in federal bailout money.

Mr. Dodd said that his staff revised the bill at the urging of Treasury officials, who he said were concerned that the compensation limits, which he had written in the original legislation, went too far and might invite lawsuits.

While he knew the language was being rewritten, the senator said he had no idea the revision would allow for the bonuses at A.I.G.

In a reasonably harsh treatment, the Times detailed the heat Dodd is getting from the local press and the fact that Republicans have hope of a possible pickup when Dodd stands for reelection next year. But the paper misleadingly called the 1993 Family Leave Act (guaranteeing 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of a child or to care for a sick family member) as a “populist,” not a liberal, initiative.

The backlash is a remarkable development for a senator once known for championing populist initiatives like the 1993 Family Leave Act. Elected to the Senate in 1980, Mr. Dodd is the longest-serving senator in the state’s history and has won all his re-elections by sizable margins.

In Dodd’s 34 years in the Senate he’s carved out a very liberal voting record, earning a score of 8 out of 100 in the American Conservative Union’s rating system.

Advertisements

March 20, 2009 Posted by | Assinine, Obvious | | Leave a comment

Foreign ties of nominee questioned

Foreign ties of nominee questioned

An independent inspector general will look into the foreign financial ties of Chas W. Freeman Jr., the Obama administration’s pick to serve as chairman of the group that prepares the U.S. intelligence community’s most sensitive assessments, according to three congressional aides.

The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, last Thursday named Mr. Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will have access to some of America’s most closely guarded secrets and be charged with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

His selection was praised by some who noted his articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior envoy to China and other nations. But it sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s inspector general, Edward McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman’s potential conflicts of interest.

Mr. Freeman has not submitted the financial disclosure forms required of all candidates for senior public positions, according to the general counsel’s office of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Nor did Mr. Blair seek the White House’s approval before he announced the appointment of Mr. Freeman, said Mr. Blair’s spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi.

“The director did not seek the White House’s approval,” Ms. Morigi said. “In addition to his formal background security investigation, we expect that the White House will undertake the typical vetting associated with senior administration assignments.”

Among the areas likely to be scrutinized in the vetting process are Mr. Freeman’s position on the international advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC). The Chinese government and other state-owned companies own a majority stake in the concern, which has invested in Sudan and other countries sometimes at odds with the United States, including Iran.

Mr. Freeman is also president of the nonprofit educational organization Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), which paid him $87,000 in 2006, and received at least $1 million from a Saudi prince. He also has chaired Projects International, a consulting firm that has worked with foreign companies and governments.

Lindsay Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York who sits on the House Appropriations Committee’s select intelligence oversight panel that funds the classified budgets for the intelligence community, said her boss had been in touch with Mr. McGuire, who was appointed by the first director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte.

“Congressman Israel spoke with DNI inspector McGuire. The inspector said he would look into the matter. And the congressman is pleased with his response.” Two other congressional aides also said the inspector general would start his inquiries soon.

Ms. Morigi said only that Mr. McGuire was “reviewing the letter.”

The ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, said the questions arising from Mr. Freeman’s past associations and business relationships should disqualify him from the NIC post.

“What kind of vetting process did Blair go through on this?” he asked. He added that the disclosures about Mr. Freeman’s relationships “may give Blair an out now. If he is on the board of these kinds of companies, it may provide a rather easy out to disqualify him.”

Chinese connection

Topping the list of concerns will be Mr. Freeman’s links to CNOOC. He joined the board of international advisers for the Chinese concern in March 2004, one year before the company made an unsuccessful bid to purchase the American energy company Unocal. Since then, CNOOC has been a source of worry for lawmakers from both parties as well as the Treasury Department as it looks to discourage oil field investment in Iran.

The State Department looked into whether CNOOC violated the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act at the end of 2007 when the company announced a deal to help develop the North Pars gas field.

President Obama has supported sanctions against businesses investing in Iran. In August, his campaign put out a press release titled: “What McCain Won’t Tell You About Iran,” highlighting the lobbying work for CNOOC by Charlie Black, a strategist for Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

“CNOOC is among those companies that appears to be capitalizing on the U.S.-led effort to isolate Iran economically, particularly in the energy sector,” said Roger Robinson, the president and chief executive officer of Conflict Securities Advisory Group, a Washington-based risk management company that specializes in identifying and profiling public companies with business ties to states accused of sponsoring terrorism.

Mr. Freeman’s connection to CNOOC could oblige him to recuse himself from some matters regarding China as well as Myanmar. In October 2007, CNOOC’s chief financial officer publicly refused to divest from that country a month after army soldiers opened fire on a crowd protesting the ruling junta, suggesting instead that CNOOC would increase its investments.

The incident prompted the United States to toughen sanctions on the junta, according to statements at the time from the State Department.

Mideast money

Mr. Freeman’s ties with Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) also have come under scrutiny. According to the 2006 tax returns for the organization – considered a nonprofit by the Internal Revenue Service – 11 donors contributed a total of more than $2.7 million that year.

MEPC’s acting director, Jon Roth, said the organization would not disclose the names of the donors, but added, “If the government needs something, we will cooperate with them.”

In 2007, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud announced that he had provided a gift of $1 million to the MEPC for its endowment. Prince Alwaleed’s attempt to give New York money after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was refused by New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Buck Revell, the FBI’s associate deputy director responsible for investigations and intelligence from 1980 to 1991, said the receipt of Saudi money alone is not a reason to disqualify Mr. Freeman.

“Saudi money is everywhere. It is in the George Bush library, it is in the Clinton library, it’s everywhere. So that in and of itself is not disqualifying,” Mr. Revell said. “But how that money was used – was it used for the correct purposes, was it diverted to other entities or other organizations – that would raise issues of security. If it is going to organizations that say Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth and other stuff, that would raise issues.”

Another issue of concern is the client base for Projects International. On its Web site, the company lists among its clients Gulf Catering Co., a subsidiary of Agility Defense & Government Services, which prepares the meals for the dining facilities that serve U.S. troops in Iraq.

In 2005, Gulf Catering Co. was accused of offering a $50,000 bribe to an Army chief warrant officer in Iraq to win a bid to provide the U.S. military in Iraq with napkins and cutlery, according to an investigation by the Army Criminal Investigation Command first reported by USA Today in 2007.

Voice of experience

Three former NIC chairmen and one former vice chairman told The Washington Times that Mr. Freeman’s business ties to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations should be vetted before Mr. Freeman takes his post.

Fritz W. Ermarth, who served as chairman of the NIC between 1988 and 1993, said, “Mr. Freeman’s political and business associations will be or should be vetted and then reviewed in a polygraph examination for potential hazards to security.”

He said the “political correctness” of Mr. Freeman’s past associations “will not be and should not be at issue from a security point of view. But they are legitimate issues for argument and discussion from a political point of view, where the question is not just the orientation of Mr. Freeman, but the orientation of the administration.”

Henry Rowen, who chaired the council from 1981 to 1983, said, “There are all kinds of perception issues here.”

He added, “He is on the board of CNOOC. I don’t think it should matter or that alone disqualifies him. Of course this is legitimate to look at, you have to look at the whole record. It has to be looked at, but I don’t see anything to disqualify him.”

Robert Hutchings, who headed the NIC from 2003 to 2005, said the same criteria that apply to other senior U.S. administration officials should apply to Mr. Freeman. “If he recuses himself [on issues where there might be a conflict of interest] or places his assets in a blind trust, so there is no question of him benefiting – so long as he can play by these rules, it should be a fine choice,” Mr. Hutchings said.

Currently diplomat-in-residence at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Mr. Hutchings said Mr. Freeman’s business expertise could be an asset in his new post. As NIC chairman, Mr. Hutchings said, he hired two national intelligence officers, dealing with international real estate and software, who had business backgrounds.

Talking points

Herb Meyer, a deputy chairman of the NIC during the Reagan administration, said business connections with China and Saudi Arabia were a concern, but he was more worried about Mr. Freeman’s views.

“What concerns me more is what he has said and written. What matters here is his judgment and that seems to be the point that everyone is skating away from,” Mr. Meyer said. “Can you imagine if I had stood up and explained away Tiananmen Square? He does not have the intellectual fire power to sort through the intelligence and reach a plausible conclusion.”

Mr. Meyer was referring to a 2006 e-mail attributed to Mr. Freeman saying China was justified in cracking down on students protesting at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and should have acted sooner to suppress the civil disobedience.

The Washington Times could not corroborate that the e-mail that was reportedly sent by Mr. Freeman to members of the China Security Listserv, a private group of policy analysts. But it tracks with other public statements from Mr. Freeman, such as his characterization in an April 25 speech to the National War College Alumni Association that described Tibetan protests last year as a “race riot.” Mr. Freeman did not respond to requests for comment.

Other China analysts praised Mr. Freeman, who is said to speak Mandarin Chinese better than almost anyone else in the Foreign Service and who interpreted for President Nixon on his groundbreaking trip to China in 1972.

David Lampton, director of the China Studies Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, said, “We’re lucky to have a person of this caliber. He’s an excellent mind in general and has long experience in the area of the world I know best.”

The Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch said, however, that Mr. Freeman’s nomination sends the wrong message.

“A capacity to make moral distinctions may not be a prerequisite for being a good intelligence analyst,” Tom Malinowski said. “But for such a high-profile appointment, it would still be wise for President Obama to weigh the message sent by choosing someone who has so consistently defended and worked for the clenched fists the president so eloquently challenged in his inaugural address.”

March 10, 2009 Posted by | Government Sucks, Obama Crap, Traitor List | , , | Leave a comment

Carlos the Jackal to Obama:Help me find terrorist pal

Carlos the Jackal to Obama:Help me find terrorist pal

Submitted by Good Ole Boy | 3 hours ago

World Net Daily – Emboldened by President Barack Obama’s announcement he will close the Guantanamo facility housing suspected terrorists, one of the most notorious leftist terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s has written the president, asking him for help in finding a “former comrade-in-arms” missing for 14 years, and closing his letter with “Allahu akbar! … yours in revolution.”

March 1, 2009 Posted by | Obama Crap, Traitor List | , , | Leave a comment

OBAMA GRANTS EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS TO AMERICAN LAND TO CHINA

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/obama-grants-eminent-domain-rights-to-american-land-to-china.html

March 1, 2009 Posted by | DumbAss Democrats, Government Sucks, Obama Crap, Traitor List | , , , | Leave a comment

China Needs U.S. Guarantees for Treasuries, Yu Says

By Belinda Cao and Judy Chen

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) — China should seek guarantees that its $682 billion holdings of U.S. government debt won’t be eroded by “reckless policies,” said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to the central bank.

The U.S. “should make the Chinese feel confident that the value of the assets at least will not be eroded in a significant way,” Yu, who now heads the World Economics and Politics Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in response to e-mailed questions yesterday from Beijing. He declined to elaborate on the assurances needed by China, the biggest foreign holder of U.S. government debt.

Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields climbed above 3 percent this week on speculation the government will increase borrowing as President Barack Obama pushes his $838 billion stimulus package through Congress. Premier Wen Jiabao said last month his government’s strategy for investing would focus on safeguarding the value of China’s $1.95 trillion foreign reserves.

China may voice its concerns over U.S. government finances and the potential for a weaker dollar when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China on Feb. 20, according to He Zhicheng, an economist at Agricultural Bank of China, the nation’s third-largest lender by assets. A People’s Bank of China official, who didn’t wish to be identified, declined to comment on the telephone.

Clinton Talks

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,” said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said yesterday that talks with Clinton would cover bilateral relations, the financial crisis and international affairs, according to the Xinhua news agency.

The dollar fell 0.6 percent to 89.96 yen today on concern that the U.S. government’s bank-rescue plan will fail to revive lending. Treasuries declined as investors prepared to bid for a record $21 billion sale of 10-year notes today. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note rose three basis points to 2.83 percent.

Currency Reserves

“These comments are some sort of a threat but of course China can never get such a guarantee,” said Thomas Harr, a currency strategist at Standard Chartered Plc in Singapore. The U.S. may assure China that it will clean up the financial system and that it “won’t push for a weaker dollar but they can’t promise not to increase the fiscal deficit,” he said.

U.S. government bonds returned 14 percent last year including price gains and reinvested interest, the most since rallying 18.5 percent in 1995, according to indexes compiled by Merrill Lynch & Co. Concern that the flood of bonds would overwhelm demand caused Treasuries to lose 3.08 percent in January, the steepest drop in almost five years, Merrill data show.

China’s loss of more than $5 billion from investing $10.5 billion of its reserves in New York-based Blackstone Group LP, Morgan Stanley and TPG Inc. since mid-2007 may increase its demand for the relative safety of Treasuries.

“The government will be a net buyer of Treasuries in the short term because there’s no sign they have changed their strategy,” said Zhang Ming, secretary general of the international finance research center at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. “But personally, I don’t think we should increase holdings because the medium- and long-term risks are quite high.”

Fed Buying

Bill Gross, co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said on Feb. 5 the Federal Reserve will have to buy Treasuries to curb yields as debt sales increase. Fed officials said Jan. 28 they were “prepared” to buy longer-term Treasuries.

“The biggest concern for China to continue buying U.S. Treasuries is that if Obama’s stimulus doesn’t work out as expected, the Fed may have to print money to cover the deficit,” said Shen Jianguang, a Hong Kong-based economist at China International Capital Corp., partly owned by Morgan Stanley. “That will cause a dollar slump.”

China’s foreign-exchange reserves grew about $40 billion in the fourth quarter, the least since mid-2004, as an end to yuan appreciation since July prompted investors to pull money out.

The world’s third-biggest economy grew 6.8 percent in the fourth quarter, the slowest pace in seven years. Policy makers announced a 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) economic stimulus plan in November to spur domestic demand.

Linking Disputes

Yu said China has no plans to channel its reserves toward stimulating its own economy because its trade surplus is sufficient to fund any import needs. China’s trade surplus was $39 billion in January.

China “should diversify its reserves away from U.S. Treasuries if the value of China’s foreign-exchange reserves is in danger of being inflated away by the U.S. government’s pump- priming,” he said.

China may try to link trade and currency policy disputes to its future investment in Treasuries, said Lu Zhengwei, an economist in Shanghai at Industrial Bank Co., a Chinese lender partly owned by a unit of HSBC Holdings Plc.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner accused China on Jan. 22 of “manipulating” the yuan to give an unfair advantage to its exporters. The currency has dropped 0.16 percent this year to 6.8342 per dollar, following a 21 percent gain since a peg against the dollar was abandoned in July 2005.

“China can also use this opportunity to get a promise from the U.S. not to make inappropriate requests on bilateral trade and the Chinese yuan,” Lu said. “We can’t afford more yuan appreciation as the economy is facing a serious slowdown.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Belinda Cao in Beijing at lcao4@bloomberg.net; Judy Chen in Shanghai at xchen45@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 11, 2009 04:04 EST

March 1, 2009 Posted by | DumbAss Democrats, Obama Crap, Traitor List, Uncategorized | , | Leave a comment

FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!

February 26, 2009

FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!

Beijing, China — The United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People’s Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China’s continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

On February 11, Bloomberg Business News reported that China was seeking “guarantees” for its US Government debt (Story Here), and it now appears they got it. Well placed senior sources at the US Embassy in Beijing CONFIRM the formal written agreement was delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take — inside the USA — land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities – to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to “take” all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.

Eminent Domain is the power of government to TAKE private property for public use without the consent of the property owner. Under our Constitution, the government can only “take” when providing “just compensation” for what they’ve taken.

Who decides what constitutes “just compensation?” The government!

in past “takings” homeowners who felt the government was not paying them enough for property have filed lawsuits. In absolutely every such case, the value placed upon the property by the government was upheld by the courts.

Our federal government has now granted to China, this power to “take” our homes and businesses in the event the US Gov’t defaults on its debts.

Let’s play this out as a worst case scenario. . . . . .

The US Gov’t goes belly-up and China comes in and says, “they owed us $700 Billion in Treasury Notes and another $2 Trillion in actual cash money which is now worthless. We are taking the entire state of Hawaii and the entire state of California in lieu of this bad debt. “

With the stroke of a Chinese chop stick, Hawaii and California — all the land and buildings in those states — are now owned by China.

The “taking” would be a “valid public use” because it was “taken” in payment of the public debt!!!!

China could then turn around and declare the value of all that land to be worth. . . . . I dunno, ten cents on a dollar?

If you own a $200,000 house in either state, you get a Chinese check for $20,000.

Needless to say, the property owners would go ballistic and demand “just compensation” for what was taken. Who gets to decide what is “just?” China!

Don’t think you got a fair price for what they took? No problem, sue China. You’ll lose.

People who live in those states and own their land outright, might be able to negotiate with China to “rent” back what used to be their own property, as long as they continue to pay all their taxes (to China) ; but the land and buildings would belong to China!

This is what our own Government has just done to us and it is the single most vile act of betrayal in the history of human existence.

State Governments Knew This Was Coming

In early February nine U.S. States began the process of re-asserting their Sovereignty pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution; declaring null and void any actions by Congress that violated the Constitution.

At the time, I wrote about those state efforts (Here) and wondered why so many states were taking-up such an arcane issue in such a seemingly urgent fashion. I guess now, we know why.

The states were obviously privy to what the feds were planning to do with granting Eminent Domain to China. The states took action to make certain the feds couldn’t give away cities or the states themselves!

This situation is going to get VERY ugly, VERY fast as one sovereign power (the feds) tries to literally give away the land of other sovereign powers, (the states). This is the type of thing that starts Civil War.

Our present federal government makes the treachery and betrayal of Benedict Arnold look like child’s play.

March 1, 2009 Posted by | DumbAss Democrats, Government Sucks, Obama Crap, Traitor List | , , | Leave a comment

Senator Dianne Feinstein blows our Pakistani cover

 Smooth move DumbAss…clap22  I wonder who side these people are on?

 

Until now, most people assumed that the US conducted its Predator strikes on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets from bases in Afghanistan.  Now, however, Senator Dianne Feinstein has exposed a Pakistani partnership on Predator launches that the previous administration tried to keep quiet.  Her offhand remark may put the entire program in jeopardy:

A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an airbase inside that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counterterrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan’s northwest border.

“As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base,” she said of the planes.

Until now, that was a closely guarded secret.  The drone attacks are incredibly unpopular among the Pakistani public, and the US didn’t want to undermine the current, democratically-elected government in Islamabad.  They wanted to give the Yousef Gilani government deniability on their cooperation with the American military in order to keep our options for attack open.

This isn’t the first time Feinstein has blown a sensitive operation by opening her mouth, either.  Californians will recall that Mayor Feinstein called a press conference to discuss the Night Stalker case, a string of violent rapes and murders that terrified the entire state.  She divulged previously-confidential information about Richard Ramirez’ shoes and gun — and on hearing it, Ramirez promptly dumped them into the bay on his way out of town, eliminating key evidence in the case.

This exposure will cause much greater damage.  The Pakistani public will almost certainly demand an end to these Predator flights, which have been highly successful at decimating terrorist leadership in inaccessible areas of the Pakistani frontier.  Without that kind of tactic available, we will have to fall back to more intrusive and potentially less effective overflights from Afghanistan.  This could allow our enemies breathing room to rebuild their networks in the region, and put us on a collision course with Islamabad on our efforts to fight them.  At the very least, Feinstein has just complicated the diplomatic situation for Barack Obama by an order of magnitude.

February 15, 2009 Posted by | DumbAss Democrats | | Leave a comment