Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The first fight of 2011

The federal debt clock in April 2008.  It is now over $14 trillion. (Jesper Rautell Balle)

Georgia’s congressional delegation became more Republican this year, partly on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.  Now, as the new congressional term begins, one of the first actions taken will likely be a vote in the House of Representatives for repeal.  This vote, however, will not mark the first real fight of 2011. 

The vote for repeal is likely to pass the Republican-held House, but its chances are far less certain in the Senate, which still has a Democratic majority.  Even if the bill passes the Senate, it would face an almost certain veto from President Obama.  Chances of convincing enough of the surviving Senate Democrats to vote for repeal can be found somewhere between slim and none.

Instead, the first real political fight of 2011 in which the Republicans have a chance to make a real difference and not just take a symbolic stance will likely come when the Democrats try to increase the federal debt limit.  The debt limit is the legal amount that the government is permitted to borrow.  It was most recently increased in May 2010 to a $14.3 trillion.

If the debt limit is not raised, often as part of a budget bill, the Democratic spending train will be stuck in the station.  The government will soon reach a point at which it can no longer legally borrow money.  In practical terms, this means that the government will be forced to cut spending.  Ironically, this is precisely what the Republicans were sent to Congress to do.

Failure to raise the debt limit would put the Obama Administration, and by extension the entire federal government, in a bind.  President Obama’s prescription for the economy has so far been to spend money.  So far, this has resulted in a stagnant economy with high unemployment and very slow growth.  Without being able to borrow to finance his programs, from implementing the new health care bureaucracies to stimulus spending, Republicans would be able to “starve the beast” and reverse the government growth of the last two years.

Keeping the current federal debt limit would also tie in with the Republican promise to enact “cut-go.”  The Democrats had enacted a “pay-go rule when they took Congress in 2006 that required new spending programs to be paid for, rather than financed through debt.  In reality, pay-go was waived so often as to be meaningless.  Pay-go also allowed programs to be financed through increased taxes, where cut-go will require new spending to be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.  If the Republicans hold to this promise, it will start to reverse the federal habit of deficit spending.

There are political risks to not raising the debt ceiling.  Most obvious is that the Democrats will attempt to finance new programs through raising taxes rather than through spending cuts.  Given the broad public support for the extension of the low Bush-era tax rates, this would likely be an unpopular move with most voters that would ultimately hurt the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton faced a similar situation.
More likely is that the Republicans would provoke a confrontation with President Obama, in which the Democrats would seek to deduce deficit spending by cutting popular programs such as Medicare and Social Security.  They might also threaten a government shut-down of the sort that cost Republicans support in the Clinton era.  Whether it would play out the same, given the voter anger at Democratic policies and spending, is an open question.

Republicans have the advantage in this looming battle.  A strong showing at the polls last November that sent additional Republicans, including Georgia’s new Representative Austin Scott, to Congress is fresh in Democratic minds.  This gives the Republicans a momentum that they have already used to block December’s omnibus spending bill and pass the compromise that extended the Bush-era tax cuts until 2012 and reduced the revived death tax.

Closely related to this fact is that Senate Democrats are very vulnerable in 2012.  In the next election, 23 Democratic senators will be up for re-election compared to only 10 Republicans.  Many of these Democrats will face tough re-election battles.  Given the current climate of voter anger at federal spending and the growth of government, many Democratic incumbents will not want to go on record with votes supporting more federal debt and spending, let alone tax increases.

More importantly, the house of Congress that is now controlled by the Republicans is the House of Representatives.  According to the Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House.  This means that Republicans will have control over the federal budget.  Of course, the GOP budgets will still have to pass the Democratic Senate and survive an Obama veto.

In the final tally, an important part of the battle will be played by the Tea Party and other citizen activists.  If voters remain engaged and angry, it will place pressure on both parties to change the status quo in Washington.  In particular, it will keep the pressure on Republicans who campaigned and won on promises to reduce wasteful deficit spending and stop the rampant intrusion of government power into private life.

Monday, July 5, 2010

How to save Obama's presidency

In a couple of words: vote Republican.

President Obama’s first year-and-a-half has disappointed almost everyone. Domestically, his economic policy has led to chronically high unemployment and a sluggish economy. In spite of his best hopes, the stimulus package has flopped, a fact that even leftwing economists are now realizing as it becomes more evident that the recession is entering a second dip (http://huff.to/aTShWi).

More recently, it was revealed that Obama’s program to modify mortgages has been a failure (http://yhoo.it/bwpYck) with more applicants dropping out of the program than successfully having their mortgages modified. Other programs, such as those to extend unemployment benefits and Cash for Clunkers, have similarly failed to revive the economy. The main effect of Obama’s many stimulus programs has been to increase the federal debt to unprecedented levels.

His signature accomplishment, the Obamacare health insurance reform bill, is reviled by a majority of the population. A recent poll indicates that most Americans support a repeal of the bill by almost a two-to-one margin (http://bit.ly/9hRyc5) including 49% who strongly favor repeal. The unpopularity of the law has not been helped by reports that, in contradiction to President Obama’s claims, the reform is actually increasing health care costs for most Americans (http://bit.ly/99Nhat).

On foreign policy, Obama has largely followed George W. Bush’s lead. He has remained somewhat committed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. His Afghanistan strategy is a yo-yo troop deployment that mimics President Bush’s Iraq surge and then a pre-announced withdrawal that has angered both liberals and conservatives. Thanks to the surge, Iraq has stabilized to the point where the Iraqi forces can stand on their own and US forces can begin returning home.

With respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the largest foreign policy threat that the US presently faces, President Obama has done… nothing of substance. He has called for sanctions to isolate the rogue dictatorship, but in reality Iran has become less isolated with new agreements with Russia, China, Turkey and Brazil. The failure of the carrot would be bad enough, but Obama has also removed the stick. Marvin Cetron of Forecasting International recently reported in his column in Professional Pilot magazine that bunker buster bombs sent to Diego Garcia to intimidate Iran have now been returned to the US (June 2010 issue, p. 11). The only hope to prevent an Iranian nuclear device that would at best completely change the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and at worst precipitate nuclear terrorism is Israel.

In other foreign policy debacles, one of Obama’s first acts was to announce $900 million in aid to Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza and regularly fires missiles at civilian targets in Israel (http://nyti.ms/diznMj). Conversely, he had the audacity to make the unprecedented demand that Israel halt all expansion of settlements – neighborhoods in reality – in areas that the Arabs consider occupied (http://bit.ly/dmXGDw). Obama’s State Department has also pushed Honduras to allow the return of Manuel Zelaya, a former president who was removed in accordance with the constitution as he tried to become a dictator in the mold Hugo Chavez. Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall St. Journal writes that Obama seems intent on imposing his will regardless of the facts of the situation (http://bit.ly/b7jmdH).

A vote for Republicans in the Georgia primary on July 21 and the general election this November would not solve all of these problems, but getting more Republicans into congress would make it more difficult for Obama to stay on his current course. It would force him to seek bipartisan solutions and compromise.

The Republicans have already had limited success in stopping some new spending programs. With greater numbers, they might be able to cut spending and prevent onerous new regulations that will further impede the economic recovery. If the Democrats retain control of congress, their financial reform bill, which does nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even though they are widely believed to be a prime cause of the mortgage crisis, is likely to pass. Similarly, Democratic control will mean passage of the cap-and-trade bill which is essential a huge new tax on carbon-based energy, the lifeblood of our economy.

It is unlikely that the GOP would gain enough seats to fully repeal Obamacare. While Obama is still in office, a repeal would probably be vetoed. An override of the veto would almost certainly require some Democratic votes. Nevertheless, they could reform some of the worst aspects of the law. They could also starve the beast by not appropriating money to fund the new health care bureaucracy.

On foreign policy, there is little chance that the GOP would be able to force Obama to take military action to stop Iran, but they could pass laws limiting his support for dictatorial regimes and encouraging him to stand by our allies. The Senate must ratify any treaties signed by Obama, which would limit his ability to put the US under international rather than constitutional law (such as through the UN small arms treaty: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015).

Equally important, the Senate also confirms Obama’s picks for many executive branch officials and judges. With more GOP senators, Obama would be more pressured to find mainstream candidates to fill these offices. Currently, with a large Democratic majority, virtually any nominee who is not filibustered (as Democrats were wont to do to President Bush’s appointments) is assured of confirmation.

This might be an example of history repeating itself. When the GOP took control of congress during Bill Clinton’s administration, Clinton was forced to abandon much of his radical agenda and become more centrist. Together with the Republicans, Clinton had notable accomplishments including passage of welfare reform and NAFTA. He also came tantalizing close to achieving a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO. On the other hand, Clinton’s foreign policy led to North Korean nuclear weapons and put us on the road to 9/11.

This year anger over Obamacare and the deficit have led to many competitive races around the country. Incumbents, particularly those of the Democratic variety, will be dropping like flies. Many prominent Democrats have already announced their intention not to seek re-election. Others are facing strong challengers.

In Georgia, there are at least two very competitive house races. In Georgia’s 12th district between Augusta and Savannah, Rep. John Barrow is likely to face strong opposition from Iraq veteran Lt. Col. Wayne Mosley. Barrow voted for the stimulus package, but against Obamacare.

Closer to Atlanta, in the 13th district, which forms a half-moon around the southwest side of Atlanta from Smyrna to Forest Park, several Republican candidates are vying for the chance to unseat Rep. David Scott, who not only voted for the stimulus package and Obamacare, but voted along Democratic party lines more than 98% of the time (http://bit.ly/9wp26b). Scott was named one of the 25 most corrupt members of congress (http://bit.ly/cMEfXf) and gained notoriety for yelling at his constituents during an angry town meeting over health care in August 2009 (http://bit.ly/ak8UMe).


Republican control of congress may be the only thing that can save Barack Obama from himself. If the GOP wins enough seats in November to bring President Obama back to the centrist platform of Candidate Obama, it may prevent a depression or long recession as well stave off upcoming foreign policy disasters.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/02/unemployment-rate-june-jo_n_633535.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Borrowers-exit-troubled-Obama-apf-887634101.html?x=0
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2010/04/19/nyt_obamacare_increases_costs_burdens_healthy_232835.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6315072.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004110.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303737704575147622272424344.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Scott_%28Georgia%29#Blue_Dog_Coalition_membership_and_voting_record
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2007/09/18/group_rep_scott_one_of_most_co.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/aug/08/georgia-democrat-rages-against-local-doctor-over-h/
Villa Rica GA
July 5, 2010

Monday, April 20, 2009

Arabs and Israelis V: The Intifadas

In 1987, twenty years after the Israeli conquests of the Six-Day War, violence again broke out in Gaza and the West Bank. After violence increased slowly in previous months, on December 7, 1987, an Israeli truck crashed into a station wagon in Gaza, killing four Arabs and injuring several others. The Arabs believed the accident was in retaliation for the murder of a Jew in Gaza several days before. On December 9, mass protests began, signaling the beginning the first Intifada. The Intifada, which means, "shaking off," began with a Molotov cocktail attack on an Israeli patrol. Israeli troops fired back, killing a seventeen-year-old Arab boy.

The violence soon spread to the West Bank and Jerusalem. The PLO soon took control of what had originally been a grass roots uprising. In refugee camps, Arab youths threw rocks at Israeli soldiers and affluent Arabs joined in strikes and boycotts with the goal of winning self-rule.

In 1988, Jordan, which had ruled the West Bank prior to 1967, renounced its claim to the occupied territory. The PLO seized the opportunity to step in and claim the creation of a Palestinian state.

In the first year of the Intifada, approximately 300 Arabs were killed, 11,000 injured, and countless thousands arrested. Not all of the casualties were at the hands of the Israelis. The PLO also killed numerous Arabs who were thought to be collaborating with Israel as well as women who were accused of acting immorally.

In November 1988, Yasir Arafat, head of the PLO, accepted Israel's right to exist and UN resolution 242. He also championed the idea of a land-for-peace deal with Israel. With the Intifada raging, it was several years before Arafat's proposals would be explored.

The First Intifada continued until 1992 when the election of Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister led Israel to freeze new Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. As the peace process began, the PLO called off the Intifada.

Peace talks began in Oslo following the first Persian Gulf War and the breakup of the Soviet Union. In order to participate in the talks, Arafat and the PLO renounced terrorism, although attacks never completely stopped.

The Oslo Declaration of Principles and the Oslo Interim Agreement (called the Oslo Accords) were signed on September 13, 1993. The agreements provided for limited Arab self-rule in Gaza and Jericho under the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) with Israeli forces providing security for an interim period. Arafat, Rabin, and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the agreement. In 1994, Israel also signed a peace treaty with Jordan.

Extremists on both sides opposed the plan. On February 25, 1994, an Israeli settler killed 30 Arabs in a mosque in Hebron before being killed himself. In retaliation, Hamas launched several suicide attacks. On November 5, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by another Israeli extremist at a peace rally. Shimon Peres succeeded him as prime minister, but lost the next election to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, in part due to another string of Hamas attacks.

The peace process continued for the next few years with sporadic terror attacks and riots, such as those in 1996 prompted by rumors that Israeli tunnels threatened the foundation of the al-Aqsa mosque. Israeli troops were withdrawn from much of the occupied territories. Negotiations continued at Camp David and the Israelis offered approximately 97% of the West Bank to the PNA, as well as withdrawal from Gaza.

On September 28, 2000, violence erupted again, however. The visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem spurred rumors that Sharon had entered the al-Aqsa mosque, which is located on the same site. The ensuing violence became known as the Second Intifada.

Arafat and the PLO ultimately rejected the peace agreement. In spite of attempts by President Bill Clinton and Saudi Arabia to bring the two sides together, the peace process was permanently derailed.

Terror attacks increased in frequency in spite of calls by both Arafat and the UN for an end to the violence. In March 2002, 27 Israelis were killed as the celebrated Passover at a hotel in Nethanya. This attack led to Operation Defensive Shield, an incursion into the West Bank to root out terrorist infrastructure in the refugee camps there.

Israeli forces reported killing about 50 people in the camp at Jenin, but the Arabs claimed the massacre of 500 people by Israeli troops. The charge was repeated by the media around the world. Human rights groups later confirmed that the death toll was near to the Israeli claims. The Israelis also staged assassinations and arrests of Arab terror leaders.

By 2003, the situation had deteriorated to the point where Israel began construction of a security fence along its borders with the occupied territories to staunch the flow of terrorists and weapons.

By the end of 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a unilateral plan for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah-PLO was fighting among itself, as well as struggling for power with Hamas. On November 11, 2004, Yasir Arafat died and was succeeded a few months later by Mahmoud Abbas as president of the Palestinian National Authority. Abbas took steps to attempt to reduce violence in the territories.

Ariel Sharon and Abbas met at Sharm el Sheikh in a series of meetings with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan in February 2005. The meetings led both leaders to announce and end to the violence and the Second Intifada.

Meanwhile, Sharon's unilateral disengagement continued. Throughout 2005, the Israelis forcibly removed Jewish settlers from Gaza and four West Bank settlements. On September 11, 2005, the last Israeli soldier left Gaza.

Sources:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=7106
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intifada.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~pss/yasser_arafat.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory-oslo.htm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php
http://mideastweb.org/second_intifada_timeline-2005.htm

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

What Does Hillary Want?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been running virtually neck-in-neck through much of the Democratic primary season. I say “virtually” because, at this point, Barack Obama has enough of an edge to almost mathematically eliminate Hillary from contention. Because of the peculiar rules of the Democratic Party, neither candidate has been able to score a full victory over the other. The existence of superdelegates that can overrule the popular vote is Hillary’s only chance to win the nomination at this point.

So Hillary cannot be counted completely out, but her chances of winning the nomination are currently nestled somewhere between slim and none, with slim rapidly leaving town. The big question is why Ms. Clinton continues to stay in the race, and spend millions of dollars on the campaign, when the odds are so heavily against her. The most likely possibility is that Mrs. Clinton is positioning herself for an Independent Democratic campaign for the presidency.

An independent campaign is not without precedent. In 2006, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to radical leftist, Ned Lamont. Lieberman continued his re-election campaign as an Independent Democrat and eventually won the election with 50% of the vote.

Like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton is losing the Democratic primary to a much more radical leftist. Obama’s radical connections and far-left platform, which help him in the Democratic primary, are likely to make him unpopular with moderate American voters in the general election. His inexperience and foreign policy gaffes will make him vulnerable to Republican nominee John McCain, especially as the war in Iraq winds down toward an American victory.

Hillary began preparing for her presidential campaign as shortly after leaving the White House in 2001, if not before. Her successful Senate campaigns in 2000 and 2006 were dress rehearsals for her run for the presidency. She did not expect serious opposition in the primary, especially from a political unknown. Her lack of preparation is the reason for her early losses and Obama’s early momentum. Recent primaries have been closely contested as Hillary fights for political survival.

Hillary realizes that her time is now. She knows that if Barack Obama is elected, it will be eight years before she has another chance at the presidency. Obama would be certain to run for re-election in 2012 and it is unheard of for a sitting president to lose the nomination. She also realizes that after eight years of Obama’s neophyte foreign policy and economic socialism, the country would be unlikely to elect another Democrat. If Obama loses the nomination, she stands to take a large share of the blame from Democrats because of her persistence in the divisive primary campaign. Therefore, she would be an unlikely choice for the nomination in 2012.

Mrs. Clinton’s continued participation in the primary is an attempt to build justification for her attempt to mount an independent campaign. She is attempting to show that she, and not Obama, offers the Democratic Party the best opportunity to win the swing states that are necessary for a successful White House run. Any Democratic candidate will win states like California, Massachusetts, and New York, but Hillary’s point is that she is more likely to win states that might fall into either column, such as West Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.

On this point, Mrs. Clinton is correct, and not for racial reasons. Swing state voters like moderate candidates and Barack Obama is no moderate. Obama was ranked the most liberal member of the US Senate by National Journal. Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th on the list. In 2006, her rank was a very moderate 32, while Obama never got higher than 16th on the list.

Additionally, Obama has just started to feel the effects of his associates. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which had little effect in the primary, is likely to hurt him in the general election. Michelle Obama, Barack’s wife, has also made statements that many interpret to be, if not anti-American, definitely out of the American mainstream. His association with Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers, Weather Underground terrorists and bombers, has not been widely reported, but may become and issue later. Similarly, the fact that his mentor and father figure was Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis, has also not been widely discussed yet.

Finally, Obama has his own ideas and statements to overcome. His statements about “bitter” people clinging to guns and Bibles offended many of the voters that he needs to win the presidency. His comment that “I won’t wear that [American flag] pin on my chest” likewise offends many moderate Americans. Obama’s anti-war views may also be an increasing liability as an American victory draws nearer. His plans to talk directly with Iranian and North Korean leaders seem naïve to many in light of the continued work on nuclear weapons by both countries in spite of years of negotiations.

In spite of his success in the primary, Barack Obama faces an uphill battle in the general election. Hillary Clinton is a more moderate candidate who would be more likely to win the swing states so important in a close election. By running an Independent Democrat campaign, she would offer an alternative to moderate voters who are uncomfortable with Obama’s radicalism on the left and John McCain on the right. She would be able to draw a significant amount of Obama’s leftist base as well as moderates from the center. If her bid is successful, she would be able to position herself as the person who rescued the Democrats from another presidential defeat.

Remember: You heard it here first.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

The Origins of Al Qaeda

Osama bin Laden is born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He is the son of a rich construction company owner and his least favorite wife. Osama becomes a zealous Salafist Muslim in a sect that forbids all music, dancing, television, movies, smoking and singing in addition to normal Islamic prohibitions against alcohol and unveiled women. Osama also learns to enjoy family camping trips to the desert without electricity or running water for weeks at a time.

In 1978, Osama meets Abdullah Azam, a speaker on the subject of jihad. Azzam says that “The jihad, the fighting, is obligatory wherever you can perform it. And just as when you are in America, you must fast – unless you are ill or on a voyage – so, too, you must wage jihad. The word jihad means fighting only, fighting with the sword.” Jihad is not a spiritual struggle. By this time, Osama has joined the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical organization banned in most Arab countries. The Brotherhood wants to topple Islamic dictatorships and return to the seventh-century values of Mohammed.

In November 1979 revolution in Iran teaches Osama two things: Islamic theocracy is possible, and Carter’s inaction teaches him not to fear the US.

On December 25, 1979 the Soviets invade Afghanistan. Osama joins Muslim radicals in Pakistan resisting them. The group is known as the “Arab Afghans.” Osama spends much of the war in Peshawar, Pakistan at the “bureau of services” (renamed al-Qaeda in 1989, which means “the base” in Arabic). In his role as quartermaster, Osama registers Arab recruits from around the world. He uses these contacts to terror cells in 55 countries in the 1990s. The Arab Afghans are supported by Saudi Arabia and other rich Arab nations. They are extremely anti-western. The Arab Afghans mainly fight amongst themselves and contribute little to the war effort. The US CIA supports native Afghans fighting the Soviets, but does not fund Arab groups like Bin Ladin’s. At this point, the US does not even know that OBL exists.

In February 1989, the Soviets exit Afghanistan. OBL continues fighting to transform Afghanistan into an Islamic state. He constructs many vast training camps that graduate classes of terrorists every six months. On November 24, 1989,OBL’s former mentor, Azam, is assassinated with his two sons. Osama now has total control over the global terror network.
Osama also becomes a hero in Saudi Arabia for his actions, many fictional, in Afghanistan.

In 1990, El Said Nosair kills Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League, in New York. Documents in Nosair’s apartment, when translated years later, reveal that Ali Mohammed, an Egyptian soldier who teaches US army soldiers about terrorists and is a source for the CIA and FBI, is a double agent. In 1993, he helped survey several US embassies in east Africa.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait. OBL contacts Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan to propose that his family’s construction firm build border defenses around Saudi Arabia and that he supply thousands of Afghan War veterans to defend SA. In return, the Saudis will keep US troops out of Arabia. The Saudis reject his offer and Osama’s hatred of the US and the Saudi royal family deepen. By February 1991, Coalition forces are victorious in Kuwait, but many non-Muslim forces stay behind to administer the Iraqi no-fly zones and preserve the peace. Osama views this as a violation of a Koran passage that reads “there shall be no two religions in Arabia.” In April 1991, after criticizing the Saudi royal family repeatedly and being placed under house arrest, Osama flees to Khartoum, Sudan. He is treated as a VIP at the annual meeting of terrorists, the Popular Arab and Islamic Conference. He expands his network through these new contacts.

December 29, 1992 is OBL’s first attack on the US. Bombings of the Goldmore and Aden Hotels in Aden, Yemen, which are temporary home to almost 100 US Marines supporting operations in Somalia, are thwarted by security guards and local police. Two civilians are killed and US personnel are withdrawn from Yemen, a moral victory for OBL.

In early 1990s, US Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL) and his staffer Yossef Bodansky, of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, learn from Afghan sources that OBL wants to impose Iranian-style rule in Afghanistan and that he is targeting Americans. President Clinton takes no action against the threat.

On February 26, 1993, OBL’s men carry out the first Islamic terrorist attack on US soil when they detonate a van of explosives in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They intend to kill thousands, but instead kill only a handful. The FBI determines that the explosion is caused by a bomb within hours, but Clinton does not treat it like an act of war, and only addresses it directly in one radio address. The attack is treated as a criminal matter, not as a threat to national security. Clinton continues with cuts to defense budget.

Because the attack is treated as a law enforcement matter, the FBI does not share intelligence with other agencies through the Counter Terrorism Center (CTC). Rule 6E of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure discourage information sharing because a judge could require the information then would have to be shared with accused terrorists or rule it inadmissible. The CIA does not learn the full story of the bombing until after the first trial ends in 1996. FBI agents had known for years that a network of Islamic terrorists was growing in the NY-NJ area, but cannot investigate unless they have evidence that a crime has been committed or is under way, according to law and DOJ guidelines. They are not allowed to investigate CT and PA gun ranges where radicals train or mosques where they meet.

In early 1993, Mohammed Atef, OBL’s chief deputy, goes to Somalia. OBL soon begins supplying Mohammed Farah Aidid, a Somali warlord, with weapons and training. Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, linked to al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad is one of the instructors who teach Aidid’s men techniques to use RPGs against helicopters. US intelligence intercepts Arabic radio transmissions directing mortar fire against UN troops. Somalis do not speak Arabic.

Ayman Zawahiri, leader of Islamic Jihad and OBL’s personal doctor, lists enemies of Islam in his book Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet. These are:
(a) The United States
(b) Russia
(c) The United Nations
(d) Muslim rulers friendly to the west
(e) Multi-national corporations
(f) International communications and data-exchange systems
(g) International news agencies and media, and
(h) International relief agencies

In the spring of 1993, Clinton places US troops in Somalia under UN command. This is the first time that US troops have been under foreign command. Typically, US commanders lead UN Peacekeeping Forces. Additionally, UN rules of engagement are stricter than those of the US military. Weapons that would have been seized under US rules now show up again since the UN cannot stop the militias.

On June 5, 1993, Aidid’s men ambush and kill 24 Pakistani Peacekeepers. The UN puts a price on Aidid’s head. On June 26, 1993, Clinton orders cruise missile strikes against an empty headquarters building of Iraqi intelligence as a reprisal for the attempted assassination of former President Bush. The missiles strike in the middle of the night. This is likely viewed as a show of weakness by both OBL and Saddam. On August 8, 1993, four US Army MPs are ambushed and killed by a bomb. Clinton does not respond. On August 22, 1993, six more US troops are injured by a bomb. Clinton orders the Delta Force and US Army Rangers to Somalia as part of Task Force Ranger to capture Aidid. On September 23, 1993, Les Aspin, Secretary of Defense, denies a request for armored vehicles to be sent to Somalia. He believes that they would represent a politically unpopular “escalation.” September 25, 1993 – A US Army UH-60 Blackhawk, “Courage 53,” is shot down in Somalia by an RPG. All aboard are killed.

On October 3-4, 1993 – Task Force Ranger is ambushed. Two Blackhawks are shot down by RPGs. Rescue efforts are hampered by the lack of US armored vehicles, and ultimately Malaysian and Pakistani tanks help relieve the US troops. This mission is the basis for Blackhawk Down. 18 Americans are killed and 84 wounded. Two days later, Clinton announces the decision to withdraw all US troops from Somalia. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake argues, “You’d be painting a bulls-eye on every American soldier everywhere in the world.”

In a 1998 interview with ABC News, Osama says, “Our boys went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war…. Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier, and they realized that the American soldier was a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging.”

In 1994, Osama is cut off by his family and stripped of his Saudi citizenship. The Saudis allegedly order his execution and an attempt is made on his life. In October, Ramzi Youssef begins planning for terrorist strikes using aircraft in the Philippines. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is the operation’s commander. The money trail leads to OBL.

Between January 6 and February 8, 1995 Ramzi Youssef and Abdul Hakim Murad, a US-trained Kuwaiti Airlines pilot, are arrested. Youssef has pictures of OBL in his baggage and a business card from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a relative of OBL, in his wallet. The Filipino police have disrupted a plot to kill Pope John Paul II with a suicide bomb as he visited the Philippines. Youssef had also been testing a bomb designed to get past airport security. This type of bomb was tested with an explosion in a Filipino movie theater. It was also tested with a detonation aboard a Philippine Airlines flight, which ripped a hole in the airplane’s fuselage, killing one passenger. The plan was to set bombs in several US airliners stopping in the Philippines. The project was called “Project Bojinka” (Serbo-Croatian for “loud bang,” a reference to al Qaeda’s activities in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s). Furthermore, President Clinton was also to have been a target when he made a trip to the Philippines. Ramzi Youssef is later convicted of the WTC bombings and sentenced to 240 years in prison. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is tracked to Qatar after stopping in Sudan. FBI agents get an extradition order, but Khalid is tipped off by a Qatari government official and escapes to Prague.

On November 13, 1995, Al Qaeda car bomb at the Saudi National Guard office building in Riyadh kills six Americans and wounds more than 60. The same day, intelligence satellites intercept a wireless phone call in which a caller gives OBL a code word, then Osama becomes emotional, blesses the caller and says “This is not the first or the last. The rain starts with one drop and it soon becomes a downpour.”

In January 1996, the interagency Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) establishes a Bin Ladin Unit. Forty terrorists are captured and turned over to Arab nations (mainly Egypt) where they are tortured, tried, and executed. In February, Sudan offers Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis turn down the offer. The Clinton Administration tries to get the Saudis to take Bin Ladin. The Saudis want him neutralized, but do not want to take custody. Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Taha tells the US Ambassador, Tim Carny, “If you want Bin Ladin, we will give you Bin Ladin.”

On March 3, 1996, at a clandestine meeting, the CIA and State Department ask Sudanese Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa for information on Bin Ladin. Five days later, Erwa offers to arrest Bin Ladin. The CIA representative tells Erwa that the US has “nothing we can hold him on.” Erwa offers to watch Bin Ladin and pass along surveillance files, but is repeatedly turned down by the Clinton Administration, both formally and informally. (Anthony Lake, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke either don’t remember or deny the offers.)

On May 18, 1996 – OBL is expelled from Sudan and relocates to Afghanistan via Pakistan. By switching planes at the last minute, he eludes tracking devices. A CIA memo later discovered by the Washington Times says that “We have no unilateral sources close to Bin Ladin, nor any reliable way of intercepting his communications. We must rely on foreign intelligence services to confirm his movements and activities.”

On October 12, 1996, Osama says “It is the duty of every tribe in the Arabian peninsula to fight jihad and cleanse the land from these Crusader occupiers. Their wealth is booty to those who kill them.”

In February 1997, a paid lobbyist for the Sudan, meets Interior Minister Bakri Hassan Salih, who offers to share Sudan’s Bin Ladin files over the next few months. The lobbyist passes several warnings about al Qaeda attacks on Americans in Africa to the FBI.

In February 1997, Osama says, “If someone wants to kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters.”

On April 5, 1997, Sudan President Bashir unconditionally invites the US to share their intelligence files on OBL. There is no response. On May 21, 1997, Clinton fundraiser and unofficial emissary Mansoor Ijaz personally tells Clinton about the offer from Sudan. There is still no response.

In May 1997, CIA Director George Tenet says that he “think[s] we are already at war. We have been on a war footing for a number of years now.”

On September 24, 1997, Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State, announces a plan to re-engage Sudan by sending a diplomatic team, which would have included intelligence officers. The plan is scrapped because of bureaucratic infighting (reportedly involving Susan Rice of the State Department and Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor).

On February 23, 1998, Osama issues a fatwa against the US. “The ruling to kill Americans and their allies – civilian and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it.” One of his reasons for the fatwa is the "Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people." Osama mentions aggression against Iraq four times in the fatwa. Later, Osama says on al Jazeera, “Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes.”

In May 1998, Osama speaks at an al Qaeda press conference in Afghanistan:
By God’s grace, we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front, called the International Islamic Front, to do jihad against the Crusaders and Jews. "And by God’s grace, the men reacted to this call and they are going on this path and they are doing a good job. By God’s will, their actions are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

On May 22, 1998 – Richard Clarke becomes America’s first Anti-Terrorism Czar. Clinton signs finding that allows the CIA to go after OBL, but not intentionally kill him. Several plans are discussed but not acted upon.

On August 7, 1998, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are attacked simultaneously by suicide bombers. Hundreds are killed. A surviving terrorist, al Owhali, is captured. Two days later, Sudan arrests two al Qaeda operatives planning a second round of embassy bombings. The US never takes custody of the men and they are eventually returned to Pakistan, where they disappear.

On August 20, 1998, Bill Clinton responds to the embassy bombings with a cruise missile attack on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa chemical factory in Sudan believed to be owned by Osama and making poison gas. Furthermore, the Clinton Administration noted that al Shifa allegedly had ties with Iraq. Unfortunately, Pakistan tips off OBL about the attacks and he escapes. The factory turns out to be an aspirin factory owned by an innocent businessman. Bill Richardson, now US Ambassador to the UN, meets with the Taliban. They refuse to expel OBL because of Islamic duties to guests and because one of Osama’s daughters is now married to a son of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader.

On November 4, 1998, the U.S Department of Justice files an indictment against Osama Bin Laden. This indictment repeats the disputed claim that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

In 1999, Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance finds an al Qaeda training manual but no one at the CIA is interested. The CIA does set up communications surveillance equipment in Afghanistan, but little use is made of the intercepts. Also in 1999, the Northern Alliance unsuccessfully attempts to assassinate OBL. The Americans tell them not to try again. Nevertheless, two more unsuccessful attempts are carried out in 2000. The Northern Alliance takes over 1000 al Qaeda prisoners, but only one Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst ever interrogates them. Later, the analyst is ordered by the Administration to cease all travel to Afghanistan, even during vacation.

On July 5, 1999, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif offers to form a commando unit to be trained by the US for the mission of killing OBL. The US agrees, but Sharif is toppled by a coup before the mission can take place.

On December 2, 1999, Jordanian intelligence raids an al Qaeda cell in Amman. They arrest 13 men and uncover a plan for multiple attacks on Americans on the Millennium Eve. This includes plans for a small arms attack on the Jordan River site of Jesus’ baptism.

On December 14, 1999 alert US Customs agents in Port Angeles, Washington find a large bomb in the trunk of a car driven by Ahmed Ressam, a member of a Vancouver sleeper cell. His mission was apparently to destroy Los Angeles International Airport.

US submarines are on station to launch cruise missiles to kill OBL, but George Tenet overrules the launch order repeatedly saying that the intelligence on OBL’s whereabouts is not good enough.

In 2000, Ottilie English, sister of Rep. Phil English and Washington representative of the Northern Alliance, obtains seven hours of videotaped conversations with al Qaeda prisoners. A CIA officer tells her that “I’ve been writing that in reports for years now and nothing happens. Maybe you can get them (the Clinton Administration) to listen. Attempts are made by the United Arab Emirates to negotiate a deal with the Taliban to deliver OBL.

On January 3, 2000, OBL’s men attempt to attack the American destroyer, USS the Sullivans in Aden, Yemen harbor. Instead, the terrorists’ boat begins to sink under the weight of the bomb. The US does not learn about this attempt for nearly a year. January 3 is traditionally known as the “night of power” in Islam.

In July 2000, CIA informant reveals that a Lebanese group affiliated with OBL is planning to attack a US Navy ship in the eastern Mediterranean. On August 8, 2000, Al Qaeda bombers attack the USS Cole in the Aden, Yemen harbor. 17 sailors are killed and 39 wounded. Clinton Administration officials decide against a military response.

In September 2000, armed Predator drone aircraft are sent hunting for OBL in Afghanistan. Administration support for the program evaporates when a Predator crashes in October, in large part because of CIA and USAF resentment towards Richard Clarke.

In January 2001, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is photographed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia with leaders of the 9-11 attacks. He is also linked to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, who funneled thousands of dollars from a bank in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to the 9-11 hijackers.

On September 9, 2001, Al Qaeda members assassinate Northern Alliance military chief Ahmed Shah Massoud. This prepares Afghanistan for the US response to the coming al Qaeda attacks.

September 11, 2001. The Pentagon and World Trade Center are attacked killing 2,998 innocent people as well as 19 terrorist hijackers. The War on Terror begins.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

My Healthcare Reform Plan

Healthcare reform will be a major issue in the 2008 elections. Both Democratic presidential candidates have proposed major government programs to subsidize health insurance premiums as well as sweeping new regulations to improve coverage and lower costs. These plans ignore several key aspects of the healthcare crisis and would substitute government regulation for market pressures. Ultimately, these flaws would mean that government healthcare plans would be costly and ineffective.

One of the major flaws in the Democratic plans is that they do not address tort reform. Currently, malpractice insurance premiums resulting from civil liability suits are a major source of increasing healthcare costs. Since 1994, the average award in a medical malpractice case has risen to $3.5 million. Over 70% of cases are without merit, but defending against them costs doctors and insurance companies millions of dollars, even if they win.

The high cost of malpractice insurance is influencing many doctors to leave the profession. OB/GYNs have been particularly hard hit. In several states, finding a doctor who will deliver babies is difficult due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. Many insurance companies are exiting the malpractice insurance business because of losses. As fewer companies write these policies, premium costs rise for the remaining insurers.

Rising insurance costs are not the only problem stemming from the legal liability crisis. In order to protect themselves from lawsuits, most doctors order tests that are medically unnecessary and refer patients to specialists that they really do not need to see. These unnecessary tests and doctor visits contribute as much as $108 billion in unneeded medical costs. 92% of doctors report that they engage in defensive medicine that, in the end, costs patients and insurance companies more money.

Legal reforms to the tort system, such as limiting awards for punitive damages, “could reduce health care costs by 5-9% without adversely affecting quality of care.” This could save from $60 to $108 billion annually. These savings would lower the cost of health insurance and make it more affordable for Americans.

Another way to help make health insurance affordable for Americans is to offer financial incentives. HSAs allow individuals to deposit pre-tax money into an account to pay for medical expenses and purchase high-deductible health insurance plans. Similarly, Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) allow individuals to use pre-tax money to pay for medical expenses. Because individuals spend their own money in HSAs and FSAs, they are encouraged to shop around for the best prices when they buy healthcare.

There are several problems with HSAs and FSAs. Contributions must be elected in advance. If the money in your account is not used before the end of the year, it is forfeited. This eliminates the some of the incentive to shop around for competitive prices.

These accounts could be improved in several ways. First, a tax credit should be given for premiums paid for health insurance policies. A credit on taxes for premiums paid would encourage more people to buy their own insurance. Second, the accounts should be changed to allow the balances to accrue from year to year. This would eliminate the rush to spend unused money at the end of the year and allow people to save for anticipated medical expenditures, such as a pregnancy.

Current health insurance plans have insulated consumers from market pressures. Insurance co-payments have eliminated the need to shop for the best deal on medical care because the consumer pays the same price for any doctor and the insurance company pays the balance. In most cases, the consumer does not even know the actual cost of their doctor visit. If health insurance plans were modified to require that consumers pay a percentage of the total cost instead of a set fee, consumers would be encouraged to shop for the most cost effective care. Reintroducing competition would begin to put a downward pressure on healthcare costs.

There are other areas in which competition is already reducing healthcare costs. In 2006, Wal-mart introduced a program to offer certain generic prescriptions for $4. The program has since been expanded to more drugs and matched by several other pharmacies. This has made Wal-mart much more effective at reducing the cost of medicine than the federal government.

Similarly, private chains, such as Wal-mart and Target, are introducing medical clinics into many of their stores. These clinics are often staffed by nurses and offer simple treatments that do not require a doctor’s care. Costs are kept down by keeping overhead low. There are no facilities for extensive testing. Serious illnesses would require referral to a traditional doctor’s office or hospital. Many even require patients to process their own claim if they have health insurance.

These in-store clinics expand access to affordable health care. Many patients who visit these clinics would have normally gone to an emergency room and incurred a bill of hundreds of dollars. Many treatments at in-store clinics cost less than $50, even without insurance. Additionally, they are quick and convenient. An emergency room or doctor’s office visit would have taken several hours. A clinic visit can take less than an hour, even including wait time. Clinics also frequently have longer hours of operation than traditional doctor’s offices.

These private companies are not bringing low prices to healthcare solely out of altruism. There is a profit to be made. When a consumer visits an in-store clinic or buys a $4 prescription, they are more likely to bring other business to the store as well. For instance, people might shop for groceries while waiting for their prescriptions to be filled. This creates a win-win situation for both parties without any government subsidies.

Another method of reducing healthcare costs would be to decrease government regulation. Currently, each state regulates health insurance within its borders. Therefore, there are fifty different sets of rules and regulations for insurance companies to follow. In many cases, these regulations add needlessly to insurance costs.

Coverages mandated by the government require increases in insurance premiums. For example, some states mandate that all health insurance must contain coverage for pregnancy. If a consumer does not want pregnancy coverage, if they do not want or cannot have children, they must still pay the increased premiums. Similar mandates for coverages such as co-payments, Viagra, elective surgery, mental health benefits, and chiropractic all serve to increase health insurance costs. It is increasingly difficult to obtain a no-frills, high deductible, major medical plan even though such a plan would provide an inexpensive source of health coverage in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident.

A simple solution to the problem of over-regulation is to allow policies to be sold across state lines. Consumers in highly regulated states who can currently only buy expensive policies would be allowed to purchase cheaper policies from states with less regulation. This would allow more Americans to buy health insurance that would protect them from a major illness, even if it did not pay for each and every doctor visit or prescription.

A secondary benefit of interstate policy sales would be pressure from insurance companies to simplify regulation in expensive states. If sales began decreasing as consumers shopped out of state, legislatures would be forced to make their insurance regulations more competitive. Without change, the insurance industries in their states would continue to decline and lose sales to more competitive states.

A new trend in health insurance is for employers to give their workers an allowance to pay for an individual health policy rather than purchasing a group plan. This is allows the employee to choose coverage that is important to them, while shopping for the most cost-effective plan. If this trend continues, prices would fall as more companies compete for more individual business rather than a monopoly for policies covering a company’s employee group.

An additional problem with the Democratic health plans is that they overstate the severity of the healthcare crisis. Many advocates of a government takeover of the healthcare industry claim that 40-50 million Americans are uninsured. In reality, those numbers are inaccurate because they include noncitizens, people who choose not to purchase insurance even though they can afford it, and people who qualify for government insurance, but have not signed up.

Government statistics indicate that 45% of the uninsured lack insurance because of job changes. These people will become covered again within a few months. Approximately ten million of the uninsured are not citizens of the US. According to a Census report, there are approximately 17 million Americans without insurance who earn more than $50,000 per year. These people can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase it. One prominent study places the true figure for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million.

In a free society, we must accept the fact that some people will make poor, even stupid, choices. Many of the people who elect not to purchase health insurance do so because they are in good health and do not feel that they need insurance. In many cases, they are correct, but sometimes a sudden illness or accident leaves them with large medical bills. This is the result of a deliberate choice that they must live with.

In other cases, health insurance becomes unaffordable or is canceled after a person suffers an illness. Health insurance plans should have renewals guaranteed as life insurance policies do now. A consumer would have the right to renew their health insurance policy regardless of changes in their health during the policy period. Rate increases would be spread over the entire pool of policyholders rather than targeted at those who had incurred large claims.

Some people would remain uninsurable. People with illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, and diabetes should have access to insurance coverage even if they are too high risk for the private insurance market. This is where the government can have a role. In some states, the government currently operates a high-risk insurance pool for people who cannot qualify for private insurance, such as those who have bankruptcies or who own homes in hurricane areas. A similar program for those who cannot qualify for private health insurance would solve the uninsured crisis. The pool could be funded by a small tax added to private health insurance policies sold in the state.

Price controls and increased regulation are ideas that would ultimately be unsuccessful at controlling rising healthcare costs. Price controls would lead to shortages as people and companies leave healthcare for more profitable businesses. Increased regulation would add to the cost of treatments and health insurance.

The government has proven its inability to efficiently manage healthcare in several areas. VA hospitals are notoriously inefficient and often poorly run. Medicare recently announced that it will pay out more than it takes in 2011 and be bankrupt by 2019. Bureaucratic red tape prevents people from getting the care that they are entitled to, while fraud runs rampant. A national government health insurance bureaucracy would likely bring the efficiency and customer service of the Post Office and Department of Motor Vehicles to the healthcare industry. As Americans, we should expect better.

Sources:
http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/speakers/healthcare/healthcare.html
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/faq_basics.shtml
http://www.afadvantage.com/flex-faq.asp#1
http://www.walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/5950.aspx
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11148598/
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/8/765
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx
http://www.alec.org/2/4/talking-points/1.html