We start with a speech by Trevor Phillips, who is paying homage to Obama only weeks after he slammed Obama in Prospect magazine! Anyway, it’s a day of celebration so I won’t get too bitchy. Harriet Harman was on a bit earlier and was short and sweet.
I have my Obama t-shirt on, woohoo!

Articles are invited about what you expect (or don't) from the new American President.

You may have even thought you were watching an episode of Saturday Night Live before reality kicked in and that yes, you had just seen breaking news on TV. And that yes, Bush, at 62, still has catlike reflexes and managed to avoid both shoes. The conference was held in Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki’s office to mark the signing of a security agreement.

Several news reports explained that in Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. “This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” Al Zeidi reportedly yelled at Bush in Arabic. In the Twittersphere, that sentiment may be shared by an even greater number – with thousands of ‘tweets’ expressing their desires to throw their very shoes – and other inanimate objects – at the outgoing 43rd US president.

David Hughes, from Glasgow, Scotland, said simply:

“If I had a shoe, I would throw it at Bush too.”

Rami Ismail, from the Netherlands, said:

“An Iraqi decided to throw a shoe at Bush during a conference. I can only imagine how sad fundamentalists are that the shoe wasn't a grenade.”

Several others commented on Bush’s reflexes and his shrugging the incident off, including Australian Kyle Buttress, who said:

“Bush had some good ducking and weaving action there during the Shoe toss… Good to see he didn't turn his back or anything.”

Erik Rasmussen, in Spain, said:

“This video of Bush & the shoe was the lead story on the news in Spain. Very telling, really, of his “accomplishments”. Needed a bloody nose.”

The Blogosphere is sure to come up with more reactions with each passing hour, but Englishman Georgie Hammerton was one of the quick ones to blog about the incident on My Bloggy Wog.

“I know this isn’t funny.. but, well it is isn’t it?

“On a side note; is this what passes for journalism in the US!? *shudder*. BBC, I salute you!”

Malaysian blogger Shamsul Yunos noted how the media covered the incident.

“If you watch CNN or BBC, they have put a fantastic spin on the story. It goes something like this: ‘Sure the image of someone throwing a shoe at Bush is bad but the fact that the man lived to tell the tale shows just how free Iraq is right now.’

“Great.

“The BBC interviewed people on the ground and the few Iraqis they met agreed with the shoe thrower in wanting Bush and the Americans out of their country.

“Apparently the white house doesn't think the image will seriously damage Bush's legacy.

“So what exactly is his legacy? Leaving a lot of mess behind? I'm sure that legacy is only being reinforced by the shoe throwing incident.”

Yunos was one of the few bloggers I came across that noted that Al Zeidi, the now well known shoe-attacker, had covered events in Sadr City extensively.

“(He) had lost several relatives in the conflict. He was also recently kidnapped and tortured in a three-day ordeal.”

Chicago-based Indian blogger Saqib Salman Shafi in his blog SaqibSaab questioned what Al Zeidi was really trying to accomplish.

“Now, based on the fact that he was using shoes, one may ask what exactly was he trying to accomplish? Best case scenario, Bush gets a black eye or a scoffed up nose. But you know what, I feel the disgruntled journalist, along with millions across the globe, could care less at the effectiveness of his weapons of choice. It was the statement that spoke loudest. Upset with the leader of the super powerful nation of the world? Take off your jutha(shoe) and chuck it at him. I can see the internet jokes of “epic shoe maneuver,” already.

“And check out how quickly he launches the first one and then removes his other shoe (reloads) and fires away. Maybe he had them untied and ready for deployment? Or rather, perhaps he wore slip-ons or loafers that day.”

Egyptian blogger, Zeinobia, was quite sorry Al Zeidi missed Bush’s head.

“This is the news of the day , sorry the news of the week or may be even the month and the end of the year.

“Bush was having a press conference today in his surprise visit to Baghdad with Al Maliki when Muntader Al-Zeidi , a reporter threw his shoes at him. Unfortunately he missed him :(”

She continued to blog about Al Zeidi, being a correspondent for Al Baghdadia Television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt, Zeinobia said she feared for his life.

“He has entered the history, already I wish that someone tells his news now in Baghdad because I fear on his life.

“Idiot Bush of course tried made fun from the incident and said these words : All I can report is a size 10.”

And in the Philippines, someone was up late enough - or way too early - to blog about it almost immediately as it broke. Dreamer4U asked why there was so much hatred in the hearts of Iraqis for Americans and other Westerners.

“It is for sure I thought an embarrassing time for America and Iraq, now I knew how mad is the Iraqi to the American, if you know why let me know here.

“Anyway the shoes of the Iraqi reporter is size 10, Bush should be glad it didn't hit him or else he would be injured before going home in the states. Now I know “W” is good on something, he could have been a good military guy, sadly he was a very ineffective President though.

“Why is it that there are hatred in the heart of the Islam/Iraqi for the American or western people?”

Bush arrived today in Baghdad on a surprise visit — his last to Iraq as commander-in-chief — to celebrate the agreement, thank U.S. troops and meet with Iraqi leaders.

It was Bush’s fourth visit to a nation transformed by the U.S.-led war he started in 2003. It follows three weeks after Iraq’s parliament approved an accord with the U.S. that provides for the withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011.

After mounting pressure from the United States and India, Pakistani authorities raided a camp run by the militant group suspected of carrying out the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani and American officials said Monday. The operation on Sunday appeared to be Pakistan's first concrete response to the demands from India and the United States to take action against the militants suspected in the attacks, which have raised tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors to their highest point in years.

A senior Pakistani security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said about a dozen people had been arrested in the raid, which took place in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The raid on Sunday appeared to be the first step by the Pakistanis that at least tacitly recognized the American and Indian claims. Counterterrorism experts familiar with the behavior of the Pakistani security services said there was a need by Pakistan to be seen to be doing something to alleviate the American and Indian pressure, as well as to avert the possibility of an Indian military strike.

To be honest, I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand she’s got a stellar resume and seems like the type of person who would be a natural fit in the Obama administration. Also after what Obama went through, it seems a bit hypocritical to be targeting someone based on her associations.

On the other hand she was a member of the governing council of the VHP America for three years. It doesn’t seem plausible that someone who is as upto date with current affairs doesn’t know about the VHP’s radical nature, which has manifested itself in anti-Christian pogroms as well as the Gujarat riots.

As Ruchira in the 3 quarks comments thread said, Rahm Emmanuel apologised for his father’s anti-arab remarks and ‘ perhaps Ms Shah too can do the same rather than just issue carefully worded statements about her “innocent” associations with the VHP.’

Greenwald:

"in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility."  And:  "’I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,’ she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures."

Diane Feinstein is a very liberal Democrat, so her reversal is telling.  Democrats, to their credit, will do what’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorists.  Good for them - it’s their responsibility now, one they desperately wanted to take on.  That Democrats’ over-the-top denouncements of the Bush administration’s policies on interrogation was mere politics is now obvious, as I predicted on many occasions.  They will do what they have to in order to meet their new responsibilities.  That will make many progressives angry but should help alleviate some of the fears the rest of the country has about the Democrats’ willingness face the real difficulties in the world.

Across the Pacific, India faces a similar challenge in regard to the recent terrorists attacks in Mumbai.  They are planning to "administer truth serum" to an alleged Pakistani national named Azam Amir Kasab. 

Police interrogators in Mumbai told The Times that they are poised to settle the matter of Kasab’s nationality through the use of "narcoanalysis" – a controversial technique, banned in most democracies, where the subject is injected with a truth serum.

The method was widely used by Western intelligence agencies during the Cold War, before it emerged that the drugs used – typically the barbiturate sodium pentothal – may induce hallucinations, delusions and psychotic manifestations

American anti-torture activists would probably consider truth serum treatments a form of torture in its own right.  Certainly it violates the spirit of America’s constitutional right to refuse to incriminate oneself.  India seems prepared to address the issue more directly than we can here in America.  In fact, a friend from India has doubts about whether the truth serum plan is real.  He says that Indian authorities are more likely to beat the fire out of the terrorist than to use finesse.

That’s fine by me.  Kasab and his fellow terrorists gave up the right to the protections of civilized society when they fired their first shots in Mumbai.  Whatever happens to him at the hands of the Indian government, Kasab himself justified his treatment by his own treacherous, murderous actions.  The bottom line is that facts about what others in his terrorist cadre might be planning must become known, through whatever means necessary.  Gentlemen’s debates about whether or not to torture - and how to define the term - come after the fact in the comfort of a secure environment, not in the heat of battle.

That’s a truth that the Democrats in Congress are beginning to come to terms with. 

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

A new national poll suggests that Americans think President-elect Barack Obama’s getting it right when it comes to his Cabinet picks, especially Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. A poll shows 71 percent of Americans approve of Barack Obama picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state.

Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey approve of Obama’s Cabinet choices, with 22 percent disapproving. That’s 16 points higher than those in favor of then President-elect Bush’s Cabinet picks eight years ago.

The poll indicates that 71 percent approve of Obama picking Sen. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans evenly split on the pick.

A few points here. I approve of the cabinet too. Hillary is excellent, as are most of the others. Gates is no doubt the most controversial, but I have a theory about this too and I have to admit Obama’s style makes me think twice about my own political ideas.

If you wanted to push wide-ranging and potentially controversial proposals through, then you need your opponents (Republicans) on side. These picks not only means Obama is pulling in more Republican support for when he unveils his agenda, but also that the big hitters who were initially involved with the mess (in Iraq - Gates) are used to sort out the mess. A new person would be tightly linked to Obama and if it messed up then Obama would be blamed. But Gates now has a more non-partisan aura around him - so if Iraq deteriorates then Americans are less likely to blame Obama. It’s bloody good politics, I have to admit, and it demonstrates that being non-partisan and willing to embrace ‘enemies’ also has strategic benefits.

In the absence of detailed reporting on India, three images of the country have tended to coexist (somewhat uneasily) in Westerners' imaginations.

The first image is that of an exotic tourist destination, described by my Lonely Planet guidebook as a land of swaying elephants, prowling tigers and Henna-tattooed locals. This image has taken a hit, and I can testify to this first hand from having spent the past few days talking to friends who were planning to attend a mutual friend's wedding in Delhi and visit Bombay along the way. 

The second stereotypical image is that of a major source of outsourced labour, with computer programmers and internet-enabled call centres looming large in the popular imagination. 

The third image comes from the countless television documentaries which highlight grinding poverty in the slums of cities like Calcutta, often featuring white saviours like Mother Teresa. 

The international media's accounts of the recent atrocities in Mumbai may yet add another stereotype or two to that list. Understandably, most reporters provide little context for what has happened, focussing on the immediate facts on the ground rather than India's complicated history of Hindu-Muslim relations. Less forgivably, some accounts have portrayed what has happened in Mumbai as just the latest example of militant Muslims targeting 'the West', ignoring not only India's history but also its geographical location. 

Of course, not every journalist has the time or knowledge to describe Britain's rushed partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and the persecution that has since been suffered by both Muslims and Hindus in some areas. That makes it important to read the few who do. Besides Kanishk Tharoor's recent article in openIndia, I would recommend taking a look at the recent Sachar Report on the status of Muslims in India (an English language summary is available here). This government-sponsored investigation found that Indian Muslims are in many ways more disadvantaged than even low caste Hindus. 

Notwithstanding these facts, it is true that the Islamist ideology that apparently lay behind Wednesday's attacks reaches beyond national borders. That is why it commands that attention of the world in a way that Hindu extremism, to take just one example, does not. If local grievances provided the fuel for the attacks on Mumbai then Islamism likely provided the oxygen. At any rate that is the interpretation adopted by Andy McCarthy. (If his name sounds familiar, it may be because he recently alleged that William Ayers secretly authored Barack Obama's putatively autobiographical first book.) He writes at the website of America's conservative National Review that: 

"The obsession over whether al Qaeda or its endless jumble of affiliates pulled off the operation is a misguided attempt to mimimize [sic] the challenge.  The bin Laden network is not unimportant, but it is tapping into something that is much bigger than itself.  It's become fashionable for pundits to confine the threat of radical Islam to a relative fringe of disgruntled takfiris and rationalize that if we could only eliminate them all would be well.  But that fringe represents only a strain of the virus ... local issues are fitted to an ideological framework that is global, hegemonic, and more about the ultimate triumph of fundamentalist Islam than, say, a Palestinian state, Kashmir, Danish cartoons, economic inequality, or whatever this week's complaint is." 

The other writers at National Review take similar lessons from the attacks in India. Several express the hope that they will make President-Elect Obama reconsider his promises to close Guantanamo and roll back some of President Bush's tougher (and more constitutionally dubious) anti-terror legislation. As Kanishk noted earlier, the ruling Congress Party had repealed India's equivalent of the Patriot Act. 

Unfortunately, the online sections of many of the American left's most prominent journals have had little to say about the attacks thus far. The front page of the American Prospect's website does feature one relevant story, confusingly titled ‘Attacks in Indiana'. Other than that, it is largely silent. The New Republic has had a bit more to say, but has mainly carried anecdotal reports from Indians. The ideologically heterogeneous writers at The Atlantic do have some interesting things to say, and I recommend that interested readers take a look at Robert Kaplan's dispatch in particular. 

I for one hope that prominent liberals work out a more detailed and historically informed response to what is happening in India. Only then can they counteract the cruder, more chest-thumping reactions of the American right, which - while they may contain some grains of truth - ultimately only serve to obscure the true story.

He said so in response to questions whether he would support India if it would use military force against terrorists in Pakistan.

During the election campaign, Obama said that the U.S. had the right to strike against terrorist training camps inside Pakistan if it deemed doing so necessary. Obama’s reaction to the terrorist attack in India shows that he does not merely believe that the U.S. but also others have the right to protect itself against terrorists.

Although Obama said that the U.S. should be willing to strike against terrorist targets in Pakistan, many left-wing columnists and bloggers thought he was ‘one of them,’ meaning a foreign policy dove. His reaction to the attack in India, however, shows that not progressives but moderates were right about the foreign policy Obama would pursue: it seems increasingly clear that Obama is a foreign policy pragmatist willing to use force when necessary.

Some left-wing blogs, Firedoglake for instance, are starting to understand the above as well. The blog’s Ian Welsh comments: “The American doctrine that it’s ok to bomb other countries if you invoke the word ‘terrorism’ is a very dangerous one.  Combined with the breaking up of Serbia, it is an assault on the over 350 year old idea of Westphalian internal sovereignty.  The consequences could be war between Pakistan and India, just as Georgia’s breakup by the Russians was justified by the example of Serbia.”

To be sure, Obama did say that India should only act unilaterally when the ‘international community’ and / or Pakistan do not act in a satisfying manner, but since ’satisfying’ probably means ‘wiping out entire terrorist camps, the caveat is reasonably useless.

Of course, the question is not whether India has the right to attack terrorists in Pakistan: it does. The main question is whether it would be wise for India to do so.

To this, I think the answer should be a resounding ‘no.’

India and Pakistan have been enemies for decades. The two governments hated each other and fought against each other, often via proxies, for years. India is Pakistan’s main enemy and vice versa. India counts quite some Hindu extremists, and Pakistan has a very serious Muslim extremist problem. If India would drop bombs in Pakistan, you can bet on it that the Pakistani people will demand revenge from their government. If Asif Ali Zardari remains silent and conciliatory, he risks being removed by either ‘the people’ or the army.

Considering the already existing tensions in Pakistan, a military or, worse, an Islamist coup would be utterly disastrous. It would jeopardize the security and stability of the entire region: lest we forget, Pakistan is a nuclear country.

On the other hand, if Zardari would fire back, the situation could escalate into a full scale war; never a pleasant experience, especially not when both sides have nuclear weapons.

As such, using force against India is not an option for Zardari, but remaining silent and doing nothing is not either.

Obama is right: India has the right to protect itself. But one can only hope that India will let Pakistan and the U.S. take care of the problem, for Indian involvement would escalate the crisis tremendously.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

In return, Citi would issue $7 billion of 8% preferred stock to the government and additional stock warrants of about $2.5 billion. It would also promise not to pay out more than 1 cent dividend on common stock for the next three years. Finally, and most notably, the government would have final approval over all executive compensation and bonuses.

This last point is perhaps the most far-reaching, and as we all know the adage about paid pipers and their tunes, Vikram Pandit is henceforth a Federal Government employee, with hopefully greater job security than he had before this weekend. This mechanism gives government regulators a greater say over banking operations, and potentially opens the door to similar measures being adopted for other banks, or even other industries.

President-elect Barack Obama might end up appointing an auto czar, a music supremo, and perhaps even look to employ Bill Gates as CIO. The corporatization of the state will have an impact on the way it is run, which could work positively, but states have been corporatized for a long time, and this will only accentuate the incestuous relationship between neo-liberalism, corporatism, and statism.

Unfortunately, the victim in this circle jerk will be liberalism. Friedrich Hayek put it well when he noted,

If we ever again are going to have a decent money, it will not come from government: it will be issued by private enterprise, because providing the public with good money which it can trust and use can not only be an extremely profitable business; it imposes on the issuer a discipline to which the government has never been and cannot be subject.... The monopoly of government of issuing money has not only deprived us of good money but has also deprived us of the only process by which we can find out what would be good money.

Consider a humble bank manager in the Midwest a year from today having to evaluate between a loan to a start-up promising to improve productivity by over 20% with more efficient outsourcing automation. He is about to sign on the dotted line when he gets a call or a buzz from his friendly neighborhood Congressman, suggesting it might be a better idea instead to fund the local chapter of the UAW.

Welcome to Citibank, the new State Bank of America.

The team of Barack (Grandpa Was a Muslim) Obama, Hillary (I’m a Clinton) Clinton, and Rahm (Israel) Emanuel (that’s his real middle name! and he was a volunteer with the I.D.F. during the 1991 Gulf War!), with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pitching in as necessary, would put the new Administration in an extremely powerful position to apply the kind of pressure that would give Israeli politicians the political cover they need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows what the deal would look like, including Ehud Olmert. It’s a question of having the political strength and exerting the will to make it happen.

It’s a good possibility. Over on BBC blogs, Robin Lustig has even created some scenarios, which look plausible. To be honest, I think all this is a bit optimistic, with too many variables all over the place.

Obama’s priorities will roughly be in this order: economy, environment and healthcare. And frankly, given how fast the US economy is diving, I don’t blame him. Obama has also appointed heavy-hitters to deal with healthcare and the environment, ensuring they will move fast through Congress. He’ll want to get work done.

The only way FP will come is if it forces its way onto the table. This may depend on how Iran behaves. If it wants to talk, and Obama is in a strong position, then tension may ease across the Middle East and Obama could bang Israeli and Palestinians heads together. Otherwise, all the time will be taken up trying to deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions and a hawkish Russia, with Israel/Palestine condemned to the backburner. Which is why I’m not expecting much from Obama on foreign policy. If I was his position I would do the same. The environment, to me, is a far bigger priority than the Middle East - over the long term it will kill more people and there’s a lot of damage Bush has done.

As speculation mounts that Hillary Clinton is to be offered the post of Secretary of State, there have been a slew of articles and opinions on whether Obama is making the right choice. Karen Tumulty and Massimo Calabresi at Time take the view that Hillary will make a good Secretary of State. As a example of her diplomacy and timing skills, they explain how in 1998 when Benazir Bhutto was out of favour with the US government, Hillary received her at the White House. Apparently Asif Zardari remembers this favour even now. They go on to say that Obama is making a brilliant move by co-opting a potential adversary who may otherwise want to make a stab at being President in 2012.  The biggest hurdle to Hillary doing a good job is that her job may conflict with her husband Bill Clinton’s various activities, making paid speeches, charity work etc. 

Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times gives two reasons for choosing Hillary for this job, one of them being that she might be good at it.

Thomas Friedman at the New York Times takes a contrary view. Friedman says that Hillary will not be able to do well if she is made the Secretary of State. This would be because, there cannot be the necessary amount of trust between Clinton and Obama, considering all that that passed between them. To be a successful Secretary of State, Hillary must be able to convince the world that speaking to her is the same as speaking with the President. Colin Powell was not successful since he did not have his President’s backing. James A. Baker III was a successful Secretary of State since he had the full backing of his President, Dubya’s father, the senior Bush.

Clive Crook, the Financial Times’ Washington correspondent agrees with Friedman. Crook also says that that Hillary will not make a good Secretary of State because of the lack of trust between Obama and her. ‘Will Hillary defer to Obama, and carry out his instructions to the best of her ability?’ Crook asks and answers in the negative. Crook adds that he does not think Hillary is a well-qualified candidate or a foreign-policy expert or a born diplomat.

I really liked the hint which Friedman drops in his article. Friedman asks “Or is it something to do with keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?” Obama is relatively new to the world stage. Though we have listened to his speeches and admired his elocution, we don’t know much about Obama the person, the human being. It’s obvious that one reason Obama would want Hillary to be his Secretary of State is to pre-empt the possibility of Hillary challenging him in 2012. What else could be Obama’s motive? I would like to play devil’s advocate and speculate. Will Obama back Hillary entirely and make it easy for her to do a good job? What if Obama wants to show Hillary to be an ineffective Secretary of State? Obama could do to Hillary what Bush did to Colin Powell, undermining him at every stage and finally forcing him to quit. Do you remember, there was a time when Colin Powell was considered President material? By the time he quit as Bush’s Secretary of State on 15 November 2004, there was not even a whisper of the possibility that he might run for President, his credibility had been so dented.  Are we likely to see Hillary quit as Secretary of State a couple of years after the Obama administration takes over and disappear from the world stage all together? Only time can tell. 

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, using a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader. In al-Qaida’s first response to Obama’s victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — “house negroes.”

Well, Ralph Nader and John Pilger look pretty stupid now don’t they?

Exempting Industrial-size animal farms from the Clean Water Act and air pollution controls.

Exempting the interior department from consulting wildlife managers about the impact of mining and logging before it approves such developments.

Easing restrictions so power plants can operate near national parks and wilderness areas.

Downgrading pollution controls on new power plants.

Not regulating the dumping of waste into rivers and streams by mountain-top mine operators.

Opening 2m acres of land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado to the development of oil shales, the dirtiest fuel on Earth.

If that wasn’t enough, expect announcements of further rule changes in the next few days which include one that would weaken regulation of perchlorate (a toxin in rocket fuel that can affect brain development in children) in drinking water.

The office of management and budget website shows 83 rules reviewed from September 1 to October 31 this year - about double its workload in 2007, 2006 and 2005. In addition to forcing things out, the Bush administration is trying its best act slowly on court-ordered actions on the environment.

The Guardian reports on the campaign which got under way in May when the White House chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, wrote to government agencies asking them to forward proposals for rule changes. Bolten had initially set a November 1 deadline on rule-making. The White House denies that the flurry of rule changes is politically motivated.