White House won't say whether Egypt was a coup

From: Politico

The White House is taking its time to determine whether the overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a coup because of the potential fallout from calling it one, press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

"I'm being very clear with you ... this is a complex and difficult issue with significant consequences," Carney said during his daily briefing, the first since Egypt's military ousted Morsi nearly a week ago. Calling the action a coup could cut off more than $1.5 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid for Egypt.

But the Obama administration is reluctant to cut off aid. "We think it would not be in the best interests of the United States" to change its aid program at this time, Carney said. Asked if that would mean the administration would be cutting off aid in the near-term, Carney repeated his response: "we think that would not be in our best interests."

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called for the U.S. government to cut off its aid. "I do not want to suspend our critical assistance to Egypt, but I believe that is the right thing to do at this time," he said in a statement Monday. “This is an incredibly difficult decision, but we have to learn the lessons of history and remain true to our values. If millions of Egyptians come to believe that democracy offers them no opportunity to advance their goals peacefully, it will only fuel violence and extremism. That is a path to civil conflict." Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has also said that Egypt is in danger of losing its eligibility for foreign aid.

Carney said the White House is taking its time, though he wouldn't specify whether that meant a decision would come in a matter of days or longer.

"It is not in our interest in moving particularly quickly" in determining what last week's actions mean, he said, and it is an issue that is "charged" for tens of millions of  Egyptians who have differing views on what happened. At this point, he stressed, "the U.S. is not aligned with -- nor is it supporting -- any particular political party or group."

"Our objective is to promote efforts at reconciliation and inclusion" and progress toward democratic governance, Carney said, repeating: "we will take the time necessary to do that in a way that is responsible and that will serve our longer term policy objectives."

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made similar statements during her Monday press briefing.

Darrell Issa slams IRS watchdog

From: POLITICO.com

IRS inspector general J. Russell George is one of the few people to emerge from the agency’s scandal looking good thanks to his just-the-facts report on the controversial practice of targeting conservative groups.

Until now.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa slammed George on Wednesday for not alerting Congress to the targeting of conservative groups earlier. It’s the toughest swing anyone has taken at George over the course of three congressional hearings probing the IRS scandal.

“Despite numerous requests from the committee for information and updates, including an Aug. 3 letter, the request for the inspector general to inform Congress about serious problem … the inspector general failed to do that,” the California Republican said at the hearing today.


Issa called his failure to inform lawmakers the “greatest failing of an otherwise well regarded inspector” and implied that he didn’t live up to what is expected of such watchdogs in the law.

“You have a responsibility to keep us continually, and according to statue, equally informed,” Issa said. “In this case, it appears you did not. Would you agree with that?”

“No actually,” George answered, explaining that he should not brief Congress until all the information had been analyzed and a solid, correct conclusion has been made. “There are established procedures for conducting an audit. … It would be impractical to give you partial information which might not be accurate. It would be counterproductive, sir, if we were to do that.”

But Issa said, “That is not the statute.”


Issa is referring to part of the Inspector General Act that requires watchdogs to report serious problems to Congress through the head of an agency within seven days. It’s known as the “seven-day rule” — but it’s often used sparingly.

The Oversight Committee asked the inspector general about conservative group targeting a number of times, and Issa read some of the emails in the hearing Wednesday.

George also raised concerns that incremental information provided to lawmakers would ultimately leak to the public.

“That is not fair to the people we are investigating,” George said.


Issa responded that the White House is the source of plenty of leaks as well.

Meanwhile, Rep. Stephen Lynch warned IRS officials that a special prosecutor might be named if the IRS keeps “stonewalling” investigations.

“There will be hell to pay,” he said.

New Hampshire Union Leader Editorial on Ayotte's gun vote

From: New Hampshire Union Leader

A senator's job is to study the issues that come before the Senate, to engage thoughtfully in debate and to cast a considered vote. On the Senate's voluminous gun control legislation, Sen. Kelly Ayotte did that job incredibly well. And for that she has been attacked by partisans on both sides whose emotional outbursts demonstrate why we need a Senate in the first place.

When the Manchin-Toomey amendment to Sen. Barbara Boxer's gun control bill emerged as the best hope for getting any gun legislation passed this year, many conservative activists pressed Republicans to kill it by filibuster. Ayotte voted to bring it to the floor for debate. Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, among others, urged the Tea Party to remember that vote, suggesting that Ayotte deserved to be primaried out of her Senate seat simply for allowing a bill with questionable support to be debated.

Ayotte wound up voting against the bill, which failed on a 54-46 vote (both sides had agreed to a 60-vote threshold for passage). She reasoned that it would impose a hefty burden on gun dealers without producing a justifiable increase in public safety. For that the left has accused her of not caring about the deaths of children.

At a town hall meeting in Warren on Tuesday, Erica Lafferty, daughter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School principal killed last November, asked Ayotte about her vote. "You had mentioned that the burden to owners of gun stores that these expanded background checks would cause. I'm just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the hall of her elementary school isn't as important as that?"

Ayotte explained her vote and explained that the background check bill would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown shootings. That fact has been pointed out by numerous news organizations. Lafferty was unmoved.

"It's disappointing and disgusting that she can pretty much look me in the eye and try to justify my mother's murder and the murder of five other educators and the murders of 6- and 7-year-olds," Lafferty told Politico afterwards. "It's disgusting."

No, what is disgusting is deliberately mischaracterizing someone's position for the purpose of portraying that person as a willing accomplice to murder. That has been the left's strategy since Newtown. It is a testament to the Senate that a majority of its members, including Ayotte, did not cave to such bullying.

Biden, Pelosi take communion despite threatened backlash

From: Politico

Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both strong pro-choice advocates, took communion during the papal mass Tuesday in Rome, according to a pool report.

The move could potentially reignite a passionate debate about the propriety of participating in the ritual without fully abiding the Catholic Church's teachings.

Pope Francis has said he is clearly against the practice, particularly by pro-choice politicians.
"We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged," he wrote in 2007. "This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals."

Priests for Life, a U.S.-based Catholic anti-abortion organization, told the Huffington Post on Monday that there would be a "public uproar" if Biden and Pelosi took communion.

"Vice President Biden and Nancy Pelosi should certainly not receive Communion, either at the papal installation or anywhere else. Communion means ‘union,’ and they are not in union with the Church on the most fundamental moral issue of the right to life,” founder the Rev. Frank Pavone said. "Should they receive at this ceremony, there will be a public uproar, and rightly so."

A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment. A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

UPDATE (Wednesday 2 p.m.): Pavone emails this statement to POLITICO: “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.

“Some Church leaders mistakenly think we are advocating the use of the Eucharist as a ‘weapon.’ In fact, we are defending the Eucharist from being used as a political tool. These politicians have no respect for what the Eucharist means: an integral, consistent union with Christ and with all our brothers and sisters. To receive Christ while rejecting the unborn is a slap in the face to both.”

Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success

Politico, among other websites is relating Barack Obama's latest outrageous commentaries. So, now we should bailout the entire manufacturing sector. Hell, why not have the FEDS manage all industry? Isn't this gaffe really just an honest assessment by Obama of private enterprise?

Israel rift roils Democratic ranks

From: Politico


Two of the Democratic Party’s core institutions are challenging a bipartisan consensus on Israel and Palestine that has dominated American foreign policy for more than a decade.

The Center for American Progress, the party’s key hub of ideas and strategy, and Media Matters, a central messaging organization, have emerged as vocal critics of their party’s staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership and have been at odds, at times, with Barack Obama’s White House, which has acted as a reluctant ally to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government.

The differences are ones of tone – but also of bright lines of principle – and while they have haven’t yet made any visible impact on Democratic policy, they’ve shaken up the Washington foreign policy conversation and broadened the space for discussing a heretical and often critical stance on Israel heretofore confined to the political margins.

The daily battle is waged in Media Matters’ emails, on CAP’s blogs, Middle East Progress and ThinkProgress and most of all on Twitter, where a Media Mattters official, MJ Rosenberg, regularly heaps vitriol on those who disagree as “Iraq war neocon liar” (the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg) or having “dual loyalties” to the U.S. and Israel (the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin). And while the Center for American Progress tends to walk a more careful line, warm words for Israel can be hard to find on its blogs.

Events of recent years such as GOP attacks on Obama as insufficiently loyal to Israel, Israel’s controversial raid on a Turkish ship bound for Gaza and debates over the Iranian nuclear program have deepened the divide between some on the Democratic left and the party’s mainstream foreign policy apparatus.

“Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values,” wrote Matt Duss, a CAP policy analyst and the director of Middle East Progress, last year, after an Israeli raid on a flotilla challenging the blockade of Gaza turned violent.

The two groups’ push is part of a larger revival of the liberal American Israel lobby, though one that has yet to make a policy impact. Stalwarts of the anti-settlement movement like Peace Now have new, more politically engaged counterparts like J Street and see their views reflected increasingly in the party’s central institutions. They represent – they hope – the Democratic Party’s future, if not its present, and have taken heart from recent criticism of Israel by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The shift is vividly reflected in the current debate over how the U.S. should handle the fledgling Iranian nuclear program. With both Obama and congressional Democrats working to increase pressure on what they view as alarming Iranian nuclear efforts, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters have made the case that both Iran’s belligerence and its level nuclear sophistication have been overstated – in some cases attacking hawkish hyperbole or Republican rhetoric, in others going after claims by the administration.

In one recent item, for instance, ThinkProgress National Security reporter Eli Clifton took issue with a Quinnipiac University poll that made reference to Iran’s “nuclear program.” The belief that such a program exists undergirds the Obama administration’s drive for sanctions, and was recently bolstered by a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which wrote of “increasing” concerns, though not definitive evidence.

“Such assertions, and the resulting polling statistics, serve to tilt public opinion toward preemptive military action when intelligence reports paint a far more complex picture of Iran’s nuclear program and the extremely risky outcomes of an Israeli and/or U.S. airstrike,” Clifton wrote.
Another recent column on the CAP website, one of several to prompt behind-the-scenes outrage from the powerful pro-Israel group AIPAC, featured Eric Alterman accusing AIPAC of campaigning for war in Iran, which Alterman described as its “big prize.”

Over at Media Matters, Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staffer turned apostate, labels American Israel hawks “Israel-firsters” and recently blasted Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, for pushing a sanctions on Iranian civilian aviation that would be “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” (Sherman spokesman Ben Fishel, a former Media Matters staffer, said the organization “would agree with” Sherman if it understood how civilian planes were being used to ferry arms to the Syrian government.)

ThinkProgress also scrambled to call into question an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi diplomats in the United States, though the charges were leveled by Attorney General Eric Holder, a longtime Democratic Party stalwart. “With analysts and the media still scratching their heads over what to make of a convoluted plot alleged to have been hatched by an Iranian American in collusion with Mexican drug cartels,” Clifton wrote, “[conservative think tanks] – along with their friends in Congress — are quickly declaring the end of diplomatic strategies to curb Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions.”

The villain: AIPAC. “It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq,” Clifton wrote in August.

Clifton’s post and others like it, two sources said, drew a furious reaction from the pro-Israel group, whose executives called CAP chairman John Podesta and other senior officials at the organization to complain.

“There’s two explanations here – either the inmates are running the asylum or the Center for American Progress has made a decision to be anti-Israel,” said Josh Block, a former spokesman for AIPAC who is now a fellow at the center-left Progressive Policy Institute. “Either they can allow people to say borderline anti-Semitic stuff” – a reference to what he described as conspiracy theorizing in the Alterman column – “and to say things that are antithetical to the fundamental values of the Democratic party, or they can fire them and stop it.” (Alterman called the charge "ludicrous" and "character assassination," noted that he writes for Jewish publications, and described himself as a "proud, pro-Zionist Jew.")

An AIPAC spokesman, Ari Goldberg, declined to comment on CAP’s views. But the suggestion that AIPAC is leading an Iraq-style drive for war with Iran also angered leading Jewish Democrats, many of whom are close to AIPAC.

“There’s a great difference between the widespread concern for Iran within the Democratic and Jewish communities versus the far right. Some extreme right-wingers may be beating the drums for war, but the vast mainstream — certainly including AIPAC — is most definitely not,” said David Harris, the CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council, when asked about the AIPAC’s statements. He noted that even liberal, pro-Israel groups like Peace Now and J Street shy away from putting AIPAC at the heart of a pro-war cabal.

CAP officials have told angry allies that the bloggers don’t speak for the organization, and senior fellow Brian Katulis – whose work is more standard Clinton-Democrat fare – stressed that in an email.

“I think there are different voices on the Think Progress blog and some individual analysts - and some of that work, especially the blog, is I think aimed at reporting on and reflecting one aspect of the diversity of the views among the broad progressive community,” he said. “But what one blogger or analyst may write isn’t necessarily indicative of what our policy recommendations are for the administration or Congress when I’m doing meetings with our friends in government.”

The director of CAP’s national security program, Ken Gude, also drew a distinction between the blog, which is CAP’s loudest megaphone, and its less confrontational policy work.

“There’s a distinction here that we have between the policy work that we do and the blogging work that we do,” he said. Middle East Progress “is clearly a progressive blog and it does respond to arguments that are made most forcefully by conservatives and it responds in that way.”

Gude also said the Center’s experts view the allegations of an Iranian assassination plot as credible, despite initial doubts, and said he wasn’t sure whether that perspective had been reflected on its blogs, or why not.

In interviews, several ThinkProgress officials described the Center’s goals differently. Two of them suggested that criticizing the Israeli government and raising doubts about allegations against Iran serve a useful political purpose: They open political space on Obama’s left, and give the president room to maneuver.

Gude denied that motive.

“There is no decision on the part of the Center for American Progress to push any line that would be to the left of [the Administration],” he said.

AIPAC and its allies have not been satisfied by those explanations. “To suggest that the organization is not responsible for people who are ‘just bloggers’ is ludicrous and insulting to people’s intelligence,” Block said. But CAP has refused to give ground, and while CAP’s top officials didn’t respond directly to POLITICO, Gude said he was unaware of Jewish Democrats’ concerns.

The seams sometimes show in the organization, however. Podesta, who recently stepped down from his longtime position as CAP’s president, “always wanted to stay out of Israel stuff from the beginning, because it’s a no-win issue for them,” a liberal Israel policy thinker and CAP ally said. “They’re obviously a progressive place, but if you want to attract a mainstream Clinton, New Democrat milieu, you can’t really do real progressive Israel stuff.”