New York Times — Democrats Say C.I.A. Deceived Congress for Years
It’s on now. In an effort to placate the Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee after his refusal to provide cover for Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s tall tales about her post 9/11 CIA briefings, agency director Leon Panetta tried to make common cause by bashing the Bush administration. Now the Democrats are publicizing his remarks and saying that they validate the speaker’s claim that she not only didn’t know about “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding, but that her assertion that the CIA “routinely misleads” Congress is true.
Writer Scott Shane explains that Democratic lawmakers have released two letters – one to Panetta recapping his testimony that “mis[leading] members” and “deceptions” were common under Bush” and another to the committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra saying that the intelligence committee “has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to.”
It’s unlikely that the Democrat’s move will help the speaker’s case since the letters provide new pressure on current and past CIA officials to defend their own professional honor. And if Panetta doesn’t publicly embrace the notion of systematic deception of Congress in the past, it will only spur new calls for investigations into intelligence gathering.
“In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.
A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine ‘a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.’ Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.”
Wall Street Journal — G-8 Climate-Change Agreement Falls Short
The White House says that the reason President Obama’s proposals on climate change flopped was the sudden departure of Chinese President Hu Jintao to return home to address growing ethnic violence in the western part of his country. But it’s clear none of the developing nations including China, India and Brazil are too keen on the idea of curtailing industrial output in the name of fighting climate change.
The impact of Hu’s departure, even though his country is not an official member of the Group of 8, shows how dependent the West has become on Peking. Aside from climate, talks on currency, debt, and the world economy all amount to little without China’s involvement.
But Obama had hoped to get a broad accord on climate issues while in Italy so that the goals could be reprised and affirmed at the looming global climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
We have little worry about the economic competition of a graying western Europe, but Brazil, Russia, India, and most of all China will be the keys to any climate plan if the president expects to have a treaty ratified in the Senate. But even without the growing economies, Obama went ahead and entered into some non-binding agreements with the other seven members, which also include non-Euros Japan and Canada.
Writer Jonathan Weisman explains:
“Still, the G-8 declaration did move the developed world toward stricter regulations on the emissions of climate-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. The developed nations agreed a year ago to a 50% reduction by 2050, but European negotiators argued a more aggressive target was needed ultimately to convince the developing nations. This year, they got 80%… In another breakthrough, the G-8 agreed on Wednesday that global temperatures shouldn’t rise more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. The U.S. has long resisted setting a temperature ceiling. Translating that ceiling into action will entail dramatic changes that will affect every corner of the global economy, especially as temperatures already have risen nearly one degree.”
Washington Post — Discord on Health Care Dulls Luster Of New Pacts
Just two days ago, writers Ceci Connolly and Michael Shear were so enthusiastic and credulous about the Obama administrations’ negotiated “savings” from the hospital industry. But the thrill and apparently the luster are gone, since the value of the savings has been debunked in other papers and the legislation needed to put the deals into effect looks to be in serious doubt.
One sign is that while he may have been willing to sell out on cap and trade, Henry Waxman is finding is old obstinacy on the question of the sweetheart deals the White House is negotiating with the health care industry. Waxman now says the deals won’t have any bearing on what he bill that comes out of his committee.
“Waxman’s comments came amid several other warning signs for the administration, including a slipping timetable in the Senate, internal division in the hospital industry and mounting tensions between AARP and the pharmaceutical industry that threaten a temporary detente between the two negotiated last month by the White House.
And a day earlier, President Obama took the unusual step of issuing a statement from Moscow correcting comments by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that creation of a government-sponsored insurance program is “negotiable.”
No single development appeared likely to kill Obama’s signature domestic agenda item, but the relentless barrage of challenges that seemed to hit hourly served to demonstrate why no president since Lyndon B. Johnson has been able to enact large-scale health legislation.”
USA Today — Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in ’08
USA Today continues to do the best overall reporting on the stimulus, and writer Brad Heath’s look at how the first wave of stimulus shook out disproportionately on counties that voted for President Obama in 2008. Counties that need and use federal programs are more likely to be Democratic anyway, but what is usually a 50 percent higher rate of consuming federal spending in those counties has doubled for stimulus dollars.
While it’s unlikely that projects are being sorted on the basis of their county of origin’s presidential votes, the study reveals how the huge stimulus bill was devised – as relief for the needy and a payoff for Democratic constituencies, not something to spur capital investment or economic growth.
As unemployment climbs and investors get scared about how deep the second valley of the recession could be, $250 checks to those on federal disability don’t seem so stimulative now.
While smart economists agree that there was likely no politically viable stimulus that could have turned back the recession, the failure, waste and size of the one Democrats did pass is a huge part of the party’s current political headaches. When info like the $18 million being spent to redesign the stimulus Web site comes out, it just deepens voter frustration with the lingering malaise.
“The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34… The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.
Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person.”
New York Times — Infighting Distracts Unions at Crucial Time
A fascinating look at why labor hasn’t been able to capitalize on having Democrats domiate Washington after working so hard and so long to make it happen.
Writer Steven Greenhouse explains that power struggles between rival unions have prevented the movement on card check and other issues that all the organizations actually agree on.
“‘When you go up to lobby on the Hill,” said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, “some people there are asking, ‘What are these unions fighting about, and if you can’t get your own house in order, why are you asking us to go out on a limb and support card check?’ ”
And on health care, unions fear that a provision they deplore — taxing employer-provided health benefits — will be enacted to help finance universal coverage.
The feuding has taken many forms: intraunion, between unions and by several unions joining forces against another union.”
