Obama's First 100 Days Are a Bogus Metric, Axelrod Says

The mystique of the first 100 days of a president's first term in office is certainly one of Washington's odd creatures. A rather arbitrary partition of time, the 100-day mark has, nevertheless, become a ritualistic measurement of White House success for D.C. punditry, and a burden for a young administration.

Cognizant of this, the Obama White House has begun the first in a series of framing exercises to, on the one hand, downplay the significance of the 100-days mark and, simultaneously, make the case that the president has wildly exceeded expectations. During his address before the Religious Action Center on Monday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod offered the following take on how Obama has measured up 2,400 hours into office.

You come to Washington at a propitious time. There is a custom, an odd custom, the journalistic equivalent of the Hallmark holiday, called the 100-day review. I know it came about in the Roosevelt era and it stuck, but the truth is it is very hard to evaluate any presidency after one hundred days. Our work has just begun. But having said that, it is almost impossible not to yield to the temptation to look back at this juncture.


I don't think a president has ever confronted a more difficult set of circumstances maybe since FDR in entering the presidency. We face an economic crisis of, as you know, proportions we haven't seen since that time. We have challenges in foreign policy, two wars and significant challenges around the world that few presidents have faced coming into office... But I think we have made tremendous progress. The president passed an economic recovery package of historic size and scope and ambition in order to get our economy moving again. But he did it according to a set of principles, not just things to get the economy moving in the short run, but investing in things that will make us a stronger economy in the long run.

Mythologized from the early and prominent successes of Franklin Roosevelt's quick start, the first 100 days has become, ever since, a metric for presidential acumen. It is, as Stu Rothernberg of the Rothenberg Political Report notes, a "silly" measurement. "But we did it for Bush, Clinton, Bush etc., so how can we NOT do it for Obama without looking as if we are giving him a break?"

Every administration, Rothenberg adds, makes Axelrod's argument. But "reporters look for deadlines [and] time frames to evaluate things." Indeed, the LA Times is doing its series on Obama's first 100 days currently, despite the fact that we have a week to go. "You want to use the first 137 days?" Rothenberg asked. "Go right ahead."

Filed by Sam Stein from the HuffingtonPost.com

I smell a special prosecutor

Obama Says Prosecuting Lawyers for Memos Up to Holder
By Roger Runningen and James Rowley

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama left open the possibility of taking action against Bush administration officials for authorizing the CIA’s use of aggressive interrogation techniques and said any congressional inquiry into the matter should avoid “politicizing” the issue.

The decision on whether to charge former officials who provided the legal advice justifying the use of tactics such as waterboarding will be up to the Justice Department and “I don’t want to pre-judge that,” Obama said today at the White House.

He reaffirmed his stance that Central Intelligence Agency operatives who acted based on that guidance shouldn’t be prosecuted.

The authorization of those interrogation measures reflected the U.S. “losing our moral bearings,” Obama said in response to questions after a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah. “That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.”

The president’s decision last week to release classified memos written during the administration of former President George W. Bush that guided the CIA’s interrogations of suspected terrorists has fanned a debate over U.S. policies put in place after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Authorized Techniques

The memos show that Justice Department lawyers authorized the CIA to use such techniques as sleep deprivation, slapping, nudity and waterboarding, which simulates drowning. The memos, written in 2002 and 2005, were released in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement the agency’s professional ethics office is reviewing whether the legal advice in the memos by Office of Legal Counsel officials was “consistent with the professional standards that apply to department attorneys.”

She declined to comment on “the outcome of that review or on other possible investigations.”

The agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility has authority to recommend disbarment of lawyers and can refer cases for possible criminal prosecution.

Democrats in the House and Senate have proposed creating independent commissions to investigate Bush administration policies on terrorism, including detention and interrogation methods and warrantless eavesdropping.

Policy Review

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said “the consensus to review these policies is growing” even though “Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review.”

Obama, who previously rebuffed suggestions for a commission to investigate detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists, said that if Congress proceeds with its own probe it should be done in a “bipartisan fashion.”

“I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively” carrying out intelligence operations, Obama said. “It’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage.”

The ACLU is calling for criminal investigations of “officials who authorized torture, lawyers who justified it and interrogators who broke the law,” the group’s executive director, Anthony Romero, said in a statement.

Differing Guidance

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said former government lawyers can’t be prosecuted for giving legal guidance simply because “that advice is going to be disagreed with in some future administration.”

The debate over the legality of interrogation techniques “are policy differences not legal differences” he said.

Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have assailed the Obama administration for releasing the memos, saying the action would damage U.S. security.

Cheney, in an interview yesterday on the Fox News Channel, said he wants the administration to release information showing that the interrogations prevented another attack on the United States.

“The president made a big deal after coming to office about looking forward and not backward,” Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said. “And I wish there was as much focus in this administration on policies that will keep us safe.”

Leahy, who heads the Senate panel that reviews judicial nominations, called on the author of one of the memos to resign his judgeship.

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee would not have been confirmed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 had the existence of his 2002 memo to the CIA been known to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy told reporters. “The honorable and decent thing for him to do now would be to resign,” Leahy said.

Last Updated: April 21, 2009 18:01 EDT

War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields

The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine's gas reserves could be much larger.




Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza's gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza's offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine's sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that "Israel would never buy gas from Palestine" intimating that Gaza's offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza's offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas "was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt." (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority." The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

"Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government." (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza's offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

"Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror". (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza's Coastal Waters Threaten Israel's National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel's intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under "Operation Cast Lead" was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas."(Barak Ravid, Operation "Cast Lead": Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza's natural gas:

"Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel's wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel's request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials." (Globes online- Israel's Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new "post war" political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG's offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

"Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government's decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender." (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine's Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or "peacekeeping" troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza's maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel's offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel's energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport - pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. "What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

Porn industry seeks own stimulus ... package

Adult industry titans say economy has made Americans ‘go limp’
Jane Wells CNBC
-- updated Jan. 7, 2009

Seems everyone is lining up for a government handout, but in the case of the porn industry, you may wonder where the hands have been.

TMZ is reporting that Hustler's Larry Flynt and "Girls Gone Wild" creator Joe Francis are asking for a $5 billion federal bailout of adult entertainment because "the economy has made America's appetite for sex go limp."

The Web site claims adult DVD sales are down 22 percent in a year, numbers which are sure to deflate expectations at this weekend's AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas.

Porn may not be as recession-proof as originally thought. Not only are people spending less, but there's a lot of free competition available.

TMZ says Joe Francis, hounded by legal troubles, plans to go to Congress to ask for his own ... stimulus package. "Francis sees his industry like the big three automakers, only BIGGER" says TMZ. "Sounds like someone has a bone to pick."

Gee. Where to put that $5 billion? Subsidize silicone? Provide consumer incentives ("buy one, get one free")? Zero-percent financing to shoot the next installment of "Lex the Impaler"?

Times have apparently gotten so tough that Larry Flynt is now suing his nephews. Today's Los Angeles Times reports that Flynt has filed a trademark infringement suit against Dustin Flynt and Jimmy Flynt II, brothers who formed Flynt Media to release such adult films as "Positive Exposure" and "Sex at Your Service." The elder Flynt is concerned that "knock-off goods" will dilute the power of his brand. "To come into the adult entertainment business and use my name not only confuses people who buy my products, but if they're not maintaining a certain quality, it could also hurt my name," he tells the LA Times.

The nephews say they have every right to use their own name, and Dustin Flynt tells the Times he believes his uncle is dealing with "inferiority issues." Apparently growing up in the porn biz isn't as invigorating as it sounds. "I spent a lot of blood, flesh and tears working directly for my family," says Dustin Flynt, "and it wasn't easy."

stop

As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

Good thing I like the Chinese foods ....mmmm. Chinese Foodszzz

In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010
By ANDREW OSBORN

MOSCOW -- For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. Now he's found an eager audience: Russian state media.
[Prof. Panarin]

Igor Panarin

In recent weeks, he's been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. "It's a record," says Prof. Panarin. "But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger."

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin's ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country's top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

"When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise," he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.
[Igor Panarin]

Write to Andrew Osborn at andrew.osborn@wsj.com