The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Non-ironic headline: Pentagon Denies Plot to Take Over Texas : Political Wire

The comments from readers are much more entertaining than even the stupid idea that the govt would try to take over Texas.

[PilotMan]

There are awesome comments everywhere like these on Joe the Plumber's fb page after he asks if people support the Jade Helm monitoring.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealJoet...52959833964296

Such as this winner that has 88 likes and it's 2 replies:

jade helm is to be used on good Americans. We know that because the commander in Fraud let US be invaded by illegal alieans by his criminal actions of not enforcing all laws. I keep telling CONgress to arrest him as their final action in CONgress.

Time to focus on 100 K MUSLIMS moving in a month legally

Yeah we can thank the pos muslim for that too

It's all low hanging fruit, but really amusing low hanging fruit.

[Edward64]

You would think the Feds would know better than start with Texas where gun ownership is (likely) 100%+ of the population.

Look at how 1 cop was able to take down 2 terrorists with assault weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/tex...ero/index.html

On one side, you had two men in body armor, toting assault rifles and showing every willingness to open fire now and count their victims later. On the other, you had a security officer -- a traffic officer by day -- with a pistol.

Somehow, the officer won.

Authorities have not released the name of the overmatched Garland, Texas, police officer who stopped a pair of gunmen Sunday night outside that city's Curtis Culwell Center, where people had gathered at an event featuring controversial cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. But they have described what he did, actions that could be characterized as equal parts skillful, heroic and miraculous.

BTW, I own weapons, not NRA card carrying type, believe in the right for law abiding citizens to own weapons and willing to undergo background checks etc. If the story is right, that cop deserve huge kudos for what he was able to do against armed assailants.

[Kodos]

How about, instead of waiting for them to secede, we just go ahead and kick Texas out of the U.S.?

[ISiddiqui]

So are we invading Texas or not? I don't want to be involved in another quagmire in a 3rd world country

[Kodos]

We should take the JiMG approach and nuke 'em into glass.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You would think the Feds would know better than start with Texas where gun ownership is (likely) 100%+ of the population.

Look at how 1 cop was able to take down 2 terrorists with assault weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/tex...ero/index.html


BTW, I own weapons, not NRA card carrying type, believe in the right for law abiding citizens to own weapons and willing to undergo background checks etc. If the story is right, that cop deserve huge kudos for what he was able to do against armed assailants.

That story sounds more like a trial run for when that Muslim loving military comes to take away the guns of the real Muricans in Texas. Just wanted to trial different ammo and armor that will be necessary. You think this is Obummer's first rodeo.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think I found a day better than Pumpy Day!

Welp, guess I'm done here.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

That story sounds more like a trial run for when that Muslim loving military comes to take away the guns of the real Muricans in Texas. Just wanted to trial different ammo and armor that will be necessary. You think this is Obummer's first rodeo.

Quit being a muzzie lovin libtard.

[JPhillips]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Look at how 1 cop was able to take down 2 terrorists with assault weapons.

Well, it did turn out there were four SWAT team members that just happened to be nearby somehow who also returned fire.

Not to diminish in the least what the one armed officer was willing to face in the first place, just adding that additional detail to the picture fwiw.

[Edward64]

Another one bites the dust. Not the #2 but seems like a #4-6 range?

Released from Guantanamo (there are other examples) that went/stayed bad. I think I'm okay with Guantanamo staying open for business for a select group, this is a war. Not sure about the enhanced interrogation techniques though.

Ironically, it probably better for them than some rendition program.


Senior AQAP leader Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi killed - CNN.com

(CNN)—A senior commander in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been killed in a U.S. drone strike, according to an online video statement from an AQAP spokesman.

It was not immediately clear when Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi was killed.

A U.S. official confirmed that al-Ansi was dead, but would not say whether his death was the result of a drone strike.

The senior commander was well known for giving a lengthy statement after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, claiming AQAP was responsible for the attack.
:
Al-Ansi was killed last month in a drone strike in the Yemeni city of al-Mukalla, the SITE Intelligence group said, citing media reports.
:
Al-Rubaish was once held by the U.S. government at its detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In fact, he was among a number of detainees who sued the administration of then-President George W. Bush to challenge the legality of their confinement in Gitmo.

He was eventually released as part of Saudi Arabia's program for rehabilitating jihadist terrorists, a program that U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, characterized as a failure. In December 2009, Sessions listed al-Rubaish among those on the virtual "Who's Who of al Qaeda terrorists on the Arabian peninsula ... who have either graduated or escaped from the program en route to terrorist acts."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Mike Huckabee is joining the republican circus.

Has a politician ever stepped away from politics for 8+ years and then won the presidency?

No, but Bill Clinton is about to.

[Easy Mac]

Lindsey Graham announced his bid. The Republican race is turning into a bad "a {descriptive noun} walks into a bar" joke.

[ISiddiqui]

No way... Graham?! You have got to be shitting me. Why does he think he has a chance?

[Edward64]

I think its just to sell books.

There may be some inaccuracies in the official story (the 2 SEALs that wrote books contradict each other) but overall think that's how it went down. Why would Obama lie about this?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinio...lie/index.html

Hersh's major argument in his new report is that quite contrary to what Obama administration officials claimed in the wake of the bin Laden raid, U.S. and Pakistani officials were fully conversant about bin Laden's whereabouts in the northern city of Abbottabad, cooperated in his capture and then engaged in a massive cover-up of all this, involving officials at many different levels of government in both nations.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think its just to sell books.

There may be some inaccuracies in the official story (the 2 SEALs that wrote books contradict each other) but overall think that's how it went down. Why would Obama lie about this?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinio...lie/index.html

I'm finding this whole story very hard to believe. Why would we need to cover up how we got Bin Laden? To prevent a potential war with Pakistan over American incursions into their country?

I'm also finding the main source to be questionable here too-the former leader of Pakistan's intelligence unit. To me he was embarrassed that they didn't know anything about where Bin Laden was in their country or that the Americans got into their country virtually undetected and wanted to make their country look good and an active participant in the mission to get Bin Laden-something that has never come out in any of the books or congressional investigations into the raid that I can recall. Especially with a Republican party ready and willing to expose and humiliate Obama as often as possible.

Finally, so many people and countries would have to lie as well to keep the cover-up going that I find it hard to believe this is the first we are hearing about this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No way... Graham?! You have got to be shitting me. Why does he think he has a chance?

Gotta be ego, just wants to say he "ran for President". Or maybe he aspires to "was another beaten comically lackluster nominee".

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No way... Graham?! You have got to be shitting me. Why does he think he has a chance?

He's the successor to John McCain's role as a "War Hawk" He pretty much despises anything Obama does in foreign affairs and that he has made the country much weaker than anytime in our history. He'll be the "expert" CNN needs anytime they need to talk about enemies of the US, but no chance in hell of winning the nomination. I see Huckabee is going to run again-I really thought he might be the Rep nominee then-he's the one evangelical conservatives will want to vote for, but seems to have little staying power outside the South

[Edward64]

Its common for politicians on talk shows to defer answering "I don't answer to hypotheticals" but Jeb obviously didn't do well. Think this is an opportunity for the Dems to continuing saying and stressing that Obama was cleaning up after Bush's mistake (and that the Reps agree it was a mistake).

To be fair, the next president will be cleaning up after Obama's foreign policy mess also.

George W. Bush's Iraq War Hawks Dismayed By Jeb's Dithering - BuzzFeed News

Bush, who is expected to announce his bid for the Republican presidential nomination this summer, crash-landed in this campaign quagmire Sunday when he was asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?” He surprised many observers when he confidently responded in the affirmative, prompting an onslaught of frenzied media coverage and bipartisan criticism. After the interview aired Monday, he tried to backpedal on Sean Hannity’s radio show, explaining that he had “interpreted the question wrong” — but when the conservative host gave him a chance to clarify his position, Bush demurred: “I don’t know what that decision would have been. That’s a hypothetical.”

While some of his Republican rivals made hay out of his vacillating, Bush continued to provide varied dodges. It took him until Thursday afternoon before he finally relented, testily telling a group of voters in Arizona, “If we’re all supposed to answer hypothetical questions: Knowing what we now know, what would you have done? I would not have engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq.”

He hastened to add that he believed the world was safer without Saddam Hussein, and eventually concluded, “We’ve answered the question now.”

The answer at which Bush eventually arrived aligns with popular opinion in the United States, where an Associated Press poll last year found that 71% of Americans — and 76% of Republicans — believed the Iraq war would be judged a failure by history.

But Bush’s defense of the war left much to be desired among the neoconservative elites who served as architects and advocates for the U.S. mission in Iraq — and remain ideologically invested in the muscular foreign policy that undergirded it. While the 2016 Republican field is almost uniformly hawkish, few of the party’s would-be standard-bearers feel compelled to defend all aspects of an unpopular war launched before most of them were even old enough to Constitutionally run for president. Every GOP contender asked this week said that with the benefit of hindsight, they wouldn’t have sent troops into Iraq.

[Dutch]

Jeb Bush doesn't know what the fuck he would've done. Obama didn't either. Nobody really does. I'll give credit to Obama, when he came into office and was briefed by military leaders, he changed his stance and tone pretty quickly, he stated...and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "I simply didn't have the information while running for office that I do now as President". The bottom line is that Presidents are like Quarterbacks, maybe they called their own shots back in the day, but now they have Offensive and Defensive Coordinators and are heavily consulted and guided (in many cases) to a decision. Jeb Bush says this, Obama says that, GWB says that...blah, blah, blah...sometimes it's all a bit more involved than a couple of sound-bites and some clickable word-smithing.

Originally Posted by Edward64

To be fair, the next president will be cleaning up after Obama's foreign policy mess also.

Depends what you mean. My end-state has always been to have no presence in the Middle East unless we need to protect ourselves or our interests...in which case I support our military 100% for being there. Unfortunately, "protect ourselves and interests" is left of to interpretation and the Iraqi's had made it all to easy to define "use of force required". It is very refreshing to see that Iraq is more ally than enemy after living a good portion of my life seeing the reverse. Who helped make that happen? George Bush, Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama? Probably a little of all, but the one guy we continually going back to for "fucking things up" was the guy who spearheaded change. Make no mistake about that.


In 1989, the US Military Presence in Iraq (and much of the middle east) was basically non-existent.
In 1990, the US Military Surge (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) on behalf of Iraq (for invading Iran and then Kuwait) was 543,000 troops.
From 1991-2003, the US security presence was roughly 10,000-30,000 troops on any given day.
In 2001, Al Qaeda bombed US civilian targets for having a sustained presence in Saudi Arabia with no plan to ever withdrawal from the Middle East.
In 2003, the Invasion of Iraq (which happened only after repeated failures of the US, international and regional attempts to resolve the "Iraq Problem") was around 250,000 troops.
In 2007, the 'surge' increase US troop presence in Iraq from 80,000 to 110,000 troops. Within 4 months, that surge was withdrawn.
In 2011, all major US security forces were removed.
In 2015, the US military only keeps a small contingent to very actively hunt and kill insurgents in the region.

On the flip-side.

In 1990, the Iraqi Army was a hostile force and it's strength was 1,000,000 strong (which is typical for a warring dictatorship's troop's strengths to be excessively high)
In 1991, Iraq lost a war to the US and surrendered Kuwait.
In 1992, US/UK/French military established "No-Fly Zones" to prevent the continued killing of Kurds and Shia's and give those people "safe zones" which was continually manned by tens of thousands of foreign soldiers until 2003 (that wasn't cheap and certainly wasn't free, btw)
By 2003, the Iraq Military was STILL a hostile force
In 2007, the Iraq Military did not exist on it's own, but the US Army trainers were working tirelessly and around the clock to professionalizing an army that would be accepted globally as a standard defense force.
In 2011, Iraqi Military units were conducting their own operations against Insurgents and the US Military security forces were becoming quite redundant.
In 2015, remnants of the Insurgency are all that's left and dealing with the terrorists in ISIS, are a joint US/Iraqi/Arab operation.

US Forces no longer are required to protect the Iraqi people that was necessary following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi military is responsible and fairly capable of it now.

Our presence has finally returned to pre-1990 levels. (Or at least more similarly to those levels than anytime between) Did the Iraq War make it possible to finally bring our boys home? I think it did. Was it a mistake to bring them home? No it wasn't.

[lungs]

How do people around here feel that the new Iraqi government is more closely aligned to Iran as opposed to hostile as Hussein's regime was?

Not a trick question, I'm interested in thoughts and really don't have an opinion on it either way.

[NobodyHere]

Given the Shia majority in Iraq it is not all that surprising, not to mention that Iran is interested in fighting ISIS.

[Dutch]

U.S. troops kill top ISIL commander in raid inside Syria

A U.S. defense official said the raid was conducted overnight Friday (Friday evening Washington time) by a team of Army Delta commandos who flew from Iraq into eastern Syria aboard V-22 Osprey aircraft and Blackhawk helicopters, the Associated Press reports.

Upon arrival at the target, which was a multi-story building, the Americans met stiff resistance. A "fairly intense firefight" ensued, including hand-to-hand combat, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the raid by name.

U.S. Special Operations forces carried out (the) major raid deep inside eastern Syria, killing a senior Islamic State leader who oversees illicit oil production and capturing his wife, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said Saturday.

Carter said Abu Sayyaf, also known as Mohammed Shalabi, "was killed during the course of the operation when he engaged U.S. forces."

He said none of the U.S. forces was killed or injured during the raid.

YOUR United States Army Delta Forces at work. Great job, boys.

[Dutch]

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

YOUR United States Army Delta Forces at work. Great job, boys.

I wonder why they took the wife?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/16/middle...aid/index.html

The ISIS commander, Abu Sayyaf, was killed after he fought capture in the raid at al-Omar, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said in a statement. Sayyaf's wife, an Iraqi named Umm Sayyaf, was caught and is being held in Iraq.

Carter said he had ordered the raid at the direction of President Barack Obama. All the U.S. troops involved returned safely

Great job. Hope we got a bunch of actionable intel.

[Dutch]

The CBS or NBC article said she was also an ISIS operative...so I'm guessing Intel.

[Thomkal]

I think this raid was also done to show ISIS that America is not afraid of them and will go anywhere to capture them, no matter how deep in their territory. In response to the recent Texas incident with cartoon writers that was supposedly ISIS sponsored. Just glad none of our guys got hurt.

[NobodyHere]

Russia's Putin plays with NHL veterans, scoring 8 goals

WHY CANT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA PLAY HOCKEY LIKE THAT! THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH BETTER A LEADER PUTIN IS!

[JPhillips]

what more fixed Putin hockey or Romney v Holyfield?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

what more fixed Putin hockey or Romney v Holyfield?

In a thread about Obama...you missed.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Russia's Putin plays with NHL veterans, scoring 8 goals

WHY CANT BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA PLAY HOCKEY LIKE THAT! THIS JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH BETTER A LEADER PUTIN IS!

They don't have hockey rinks in Kenya.

[Edward64]

Let's see Putin on a basketball court with Obama!

[Dutch]

There it is! Nice work, Edward.

[PilotMan]

So Putin, Obama and Kim Jong Un walk onto a basketball court.......

[SirFozzie]

Not to mention that the last man to make Putin look bad glowed in the dark before he died.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's see Putin on a basketball court with Obama!

In Russia, hoops shoot you.

[Dutch]

Putin, "Shit, let me invade Lithuania first so I can get some quality basketball players on my team."

Kim Jung Un, "Shit, I just shot my basketball team into outerspace on the back of a SCUD missile."

Obama, "Shit, the world is about to find out I really am from Hawaii..."

[Edward64]

I don't really understand TPP and why its so secretive. However, if it helps counter China, I'm willing to give Obama some leeway.

Let the Public Read the Completed Parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership*|*Dave Johnson

There is a big public dispute between President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren over certain facts about the TPP. This dispute is hardly only between the president and Warren, it is about the effect TPP could have on all of our lives. This dispute is mainly over (but not limited to): •Whether the agreement gives corporations certain powers that could let them overrule the laws and regulations of the US and other governments.
•Whether the agreement could undermine our Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms.
•Whether the agreement has clearly enforceable "progressive" labor and environmental provisions.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't really understand TPP and why its so secretive. However, if it helps counter China, I'm willing to give Obama some leeway.

Let the Public Read the Completed Parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership*|*Dave Johnson

The fact that the US isn't allowed to put country of origin labels on meat packages anymore gives me pause in giving up any more sovereignty to trade pacts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The fact that the US isn't allowed to put country of origin labels on meat packages anymore gives me pause in giving up any more sovereignty to trade pacts.

The big picture is that TPP is a way to help US stay economically relevant in Asia as China's influence inevitably increases (or at least slow down China's progression).

I really don't know if its too little, too late (which is what the article states) but at least its doing something vs status quo. TPP won't be perfect, it'll hurt (low skilled?) and help (big corporations?) different segments in the US.

China Liked TPP—Until U.S. Officials Opened Their Mouths | ChinaFile

China’s confidence in regional politics has also been boosted by its progress assembling the charter member ranks for its Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB. China proposed the AIIB in October 2013; a year later, 21 nations, all Asian, gathered in Beijing and signed the memorandum establishing the bank. Six months later, the membership has expanded to 57, including traditional U.S. allies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Korea. Embarrassingly, U.S. efforts to stop close allies like the United Kingdom from joining have failed.

With these recent successes in their proverbial back pockets, Chinese officials and scholars no longer care as much about TPP. Li Xiangyang, a Dean at CASS who was deeply concerned about TPP two years ago, now spends most of his time promoting the Silk Road. The initiative is “diverse and open,” he said; in contrast, “TPP uses high standards to exclude nations,” and is “not real openness.” Scholars also argue that TPP imposes United States-drafted terms on others. “It has too much politics,” they noted, “while AIIB was driven by market principles.” Of course, the future is critically uncertain. China has been generally silent as the TPP debate goes on in America.

There’s a lesson here for U.S. policymakers: there are profound merits to staking trade standards on solid policy grounds, as opposed to the very different terrain of realpolitik. When the U.S. speaks for labor, environment, and small inventors, it attracts reform-minded Chinese who can do much of the internal sales job themselves. When it lards initiatives like TPP with geopolitical significance, it only pushes China to focus on the same.

After all the exhaustive back-and-forth on fast-track authority, the years of negotiation, and the recent, coordinated drum-beating about containing a rising China, the TPP may ultimately come to pass. But it’s too late to win hearts and minds in China. The world’s largest country has already moved on

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just read that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for Sec of State. Assuming there can be a good working relationship between the 2 and Hillary can wait her turn in 8 yrs, I think she would be great. This brought me to ask what has Condi Rice done lately and honestly, without doing some deep research, I don't think she has been in the news or produced much of anything.

This got me thinking about the Obama presidency as a whole. Going into the election and reading post-election comments, there are extremely high expecation of what Obama will accomplish ... from righting the economy, ending the war in Iraq, capturing OBL, having the world love us again etc.

Outside of the economy which seems to be on cruise control to somewhere, what are your hopes and predictions?

My hopes are

1. Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
2. Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
3. Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
4. Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill and accomplish this!

Back to the top, so where did we get, Edward? I'm guessing the answer is "still more work to do" which is fair considering that truly is the answer to all political questions, but did we make good in-roads the last 8 years into your expectation? Does the reality line up with the expectations from 2008?

[ISiddiqui]

Based on that list, I actually think Obama did very well in most of it. Granted more work to do was always going to be part of the equation, but did plenty of good stuff there.

Oh, FWIW, I don't get the big deal about the TPP either. While I'm on the left, I think free trade is something that helps consumers and workers in other countries. I think NAFTA was a complete success and I believe the TPP will be as well. I'm not that pleased over some of the provisions (however, with all the bleating about the international tribunal overruling laws by some countries, US companies probably benefit more than not), but overall, it's a good thing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Back to the top, so where did we get, Edward? I'm guessing the answer is "still more work to do" which is fair considering that truly is the answer to all political questions, but did we make good in-roads the last 8 years into your expectation? Does the reality line up with the expectations from 2008?

I think #1 is taken care of. Is it perfect, no but better than old status quo.

On #2, I think Obama lucked out. He did not champion fracking but happened on his watch so I guess he gets some credit. There are more and more hybrids out there but don't know how much of that is attributable to him.

#3 Iraq - pretty much a failure.

#3 Afghanistan - still a chance to learn from Iraq so think its still tbd.

On #4, I do think its better but probably not by much

Obama can still pull it off but the global situation is a mess. Not all of it was under his control but it happened on his watch

-- China rising. I would have wanted to slow it
-- Middle-east. 'nuff said
-- Eastern Europe. Russia doesn't worry me on the world stage, only in Europe
-- Libya, Egypt etc.

[Edward64]

Coming along but still not quite sure what it says or does. I am good with the up or down vote. Now to the House.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politi...ity/index.html

After weeks of tense negotiations on Capitol Hill and heavy lobbying from the White House, the Senate Friday night cleared a major trade bill that is a top priority of President Barack Obama.

The Trade Promotion Authority bill passed 62 to 37, with the support of 14 Democrats and most Republicans.

The bill now goes to the House, where opposition from Democrats and some Republicans is stiff and the bill's outlook is uncertain. Action there is expected next month.

The legislation would give Congress the ability to vote for or against -- but not amend or filibuster -- major international trade agreements negotiated by the White House. It's known as "fast track" authority because it is designed to speed up and boost the likelihood of the U.S. approving free trade agreements. The pending 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't expected to be sealed until and if Congress clears the fast-track bill.

[NobodyHere]

Obama unfazed as toddler unleashes White House tantrum

I'm guessing from the headline that John Boehner visited the White House.

[Edward64]

Little more info on TPP and Chinese reaction.

This makes me think the future/now will be economic and intelligence war with China. A real estate bubble crash would be nice.

China getting panicky over U.S.-led Pacific trade deal - MarketWatch

HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal may be controversial in the U.S., but in China it appears to be the object of great worry and, in some respects, seems to be driving policy in Beijing.

The TPP agreement, strongly supported by President Barack Obama, would create the world’s largest free-trade zone, stretching across half the globe. The treaty itself, as well as the “fast-track” negotiating authority sought by the Obama Administration, has come under criticism by some U.S. lawmakers, as well as various labor and business groups concerned about everything from wages to national security.

But in Beijing, the TPP is frequently seen as an “anyone but China” trade club that threatens the Chinese economy as a whole and even the country’s very future.

“The development of the TPP has profound impact on China’s economic reforms,” Partners Capital International Ltd. Chief Executive Ronald Wan told MarketWatch.

“In a way, it is directed at China, and China needs to take the initiative and deal with it,” he said.

Clearly, China’s leadership is concerned, all the more so as the economy suffers through a slowdown. The government’s newly released master plan for future manufacturing strategy — dubbed “Made in China 2025” — specifically cites the threat posed by the TPP to the country’s trade, still the prime driver of the Chinese economy.

The U.S. “has been vigorously promoting and building” the treaty, setting high bars for service trade, intellectual property, labor rules and environmental protection, the State Council (China’s cabinet) said.

Implementation of the TPP will “further impair China’s price advantage in the exports of industrial products and affect Chinese companies’ expansion” abroad, it said.

Given the perceived threat of the TPP, not to mention a proposed free-trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, China has been taking various measures to safeguard its trade position.

[ISiddiqui]

The amusing part of that is that the list of things China is worried about the TPP doing is the same stuff that the left is saying the TPP isn't doing (setting high bars for... labor rules and environmental protection). I guess how one defines 'high' is the sticking point .

[Edward64]

I guess Obama is trying to shame and hold the Iraqi's military accountable. Interesting politics, effectively call the Iraqi military cowards.

Haven't heard much from the Kurds in the North.

Iraqi Military Vows to Recapture Ramadi After Carter Criticism - NBC News

BAGHDAD — Iraq's military vowed Monday to recapture the city of Ramadi from ISIS "within days," after a stinging criticism of its troops' "will to fight" from Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

An 8,000-strong force of Iraqi forces, bolstered by Shiite militias and Sunni tribesmen, were amassed east of the city in the town of Khalidiya and were awaiting orders to launch "a major offensive," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Yesterday Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi stated that the operation to liberate Ramadi will start soon, and the city is going to be liberated within days," the official said.

Eight days ago ISIS fighters hoisted their black flag over Ramadi, which is 65 miles from the center of Baghdad.

In the wake of the defeat, Defense Ash Carter told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that "most of us…have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight [ISIS] and defend themselves."

His comments came after the Pentagon said last week that a "failure of leadership and tactics" by the Iraqi security forces was partly to blame for the territorial loss.

Responding to Carter's comments, Al-Abadi's media director Dr. Sa'ad Al-Hadithi told NBC News the Iraqi government had "started its own investigation to punish those who neglected their duty" in Ramadi.

The senior defense official conceded that "the Iraqi government now is under a real pressure after the latest statement by the U.S. secretary of defense concerning the will of Iraqis to fight for their country."

[Edward64]

Going to be a tough battle for the DACA (which I thought was the same/subset as the Dream Act but apparently not). I think likely to extend past Obama which means the supporters would be more likely to support a Dem than GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/26/politi...urt/index.html

Washington (CNN)—A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a request from Justice Department lawyers to allow President Barack Obama's controversial immigration actions to go into effect pending appeal.

The decision is a victory for Texas and 25 other states that are challenging the Obama administration's actions, which were blocked by a District Court judge in February. Tuesday's decision means that while the issue is appealed, eligible undocumented immigrants will be unable to apply for the programs aimed at easing deportation threats.
:
At issue is the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations.

Brandi Hoffine, a White House spokeswoman, said the judges in the Fifth Circuit "chose to misinterpret the facts and the law" in their ruling denying the request for a stay.

"President Obama's immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law," Hoffine said. "The President's actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe."
:
"Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy," he said in a statement. "The President's attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws."

Pro-immigration reform groups said they were disappointed by the ruling, but not willing to throw in the towel.

"The immigration actions will help our economy, our community and our families. Each day this injunction remains in place we all suffer the consequences," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School prof, downplayed the significance of Tuesday's decision.

"The court of appeals merely held that the district court did not err when it held that Texas had standing to sue," he said. "The true test will be on the merits of the case. That could be a few years down the road, after a trial."