So I tired to question Goolsbee yesterday for WashingtonStakeout.com -- but he wouldn't take questions. But in the process of researching questions, I came across his statement from two years ago on the Colbert report: "A year from now we’re going to be in a very happy place.” (June 15, 2009). So, with my colleges at the Institute for Public Accuracy today, put out a news release titled "Goolsbee or Colbert: Who's the Clown?" And this evening, it was announced Goolsbee has anounced his resignation. Lesson: Continue provocative headlines on news releases.
Most ironic part: One of the questions I'd wanted to ask Goolsbee -- from Thomas Ferguson -- was about the administration filling regulatory vacancies. But instead of filling vacancies, they are creating them.
Marwan Muasher — now vice president at the Carnegie Endowment and former Jordanian deputy prime minister, ambassador to Israel and the U.S. — has written: “The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong,everything is under control.” This was dubbed the Muasher Doctrine by Noam Chomsky. Transcript of our exchange:
Sam Husseini: Obama gave his recent speech towards the Middle East. He didn’t mention Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia barely came up in your discussion—only in terms of fighting Al Quaeda did it come up in your discussion right now with Christiane Amanpour. Do you think the lack of discussion of meaningful democracy in places like Saudi Arabia an example of what’s been called the Mausher Doctrine, that ‘don’t worry, everything is alright.’ It’s been coined by Chomsky and attributed to you. Why this incredible blind-spot? Can the U.S. have meaningful credibility?
MM: We’ve seen different reactions to the crisis in different Arab countries. Some of them, such as in the Gulf, are trying to react to this through economic financial means. What I believe is that this is a political issue, this is an issue about the low levels of government that exists in many Arab countries, and people aren’t going to basically accept a solution that is purely economic. There is a need to address this through a serious opening up of the system, a serious reform process. For the United States obviously, which has followed the policy of prioritizing stability over democracy for many decades, switching to a policy that pursues stability through reform rather than stability over reform is not proving to be a very easy process. As we have seen in the relationship between the Saudis and the U.S., there are interests still involved. That is the issue of oil, the issue of Iran. You’re going to find more cases in the future, I think, where the issue of interests, will, at least in the short run, be prioritized over reform.
SH: As you know there were protests by Palestinian refugees today and an international flotilla of ships is headed to Gaza in June to protest the Israeli blockade. The New York Times reported this week the flotilla will include an American ship, the Audacity of Hope, 25 percent of the passengers of which are Jewish. The Israeli government has vowed to stop the flotilla by any means. What’s your view of the flotilla, the threatened Israeli response, and should the United States attempt to ensure the free passage of the flotilla.
I think there’s a feeling of empowerment in the Arab state today that’s finding its way to the Palestinian state. In other words, the feeling of powerlessness that has permeated in the Arab world for so long is no longer there. And I think the Palestinian state will not stay silent if there are no sort of serious moves to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. I expect, frankly, more of these moves to take place, particularly after September when the issue of recognizing the Palestinian state will go before the United Nations. And I think there is a new feeling in the Arab world that is shifting from a feeling that the United States holds all the cards and needs to resolve the conflict, something that I agree with. You’re seeing a shift towards a feeling that the street can affect peaceful change in a way that has not been done before.
SH: Final question: American politicians often brag about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East and talk about their “shared values” and “unshakeable commitment,” absent such assertions in dealing with Jordan or when referring to Jordan. Is it because of the absence of constitutional democracy, or for other reasons?
MM: Well Jordan is a case where the monarchy enjoys wide legitimacy unlike some of the other countries that we have seen. There is no one in the opposition today in Jordan calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. What is being called for is a reform of the system, including sometimes some of the monarchy’s authority. And I think that in places in Jordan, which does enjoy time [sic], that this time will be a serious reform process. Jordan has taken some moves towards opening up the system and the hope that they will continue with such moves. I think a measure of seriousness that people are looking for, not just in Jordan, but across the Arab world, is a process that leads to power sharing and stronger legislative and judicial bodies. A process in other words that would dilute the dominant executive power that exists in the Arab world.
Some obvious issues with what Mausher is saying: Of course the Palestinian intifadas were popular struggles to change things, but they are omitted here. And of course he has been in the Jordanian regime and is clearly sympathetic to it.
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on June 6, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]
Seeking the Republican nomination for president, Herman Cain is former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and former deputy chairman of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Other reporters questioned him on a poll that allegedly shows him tied with Sarah Palin for second place in Iowa.
I asked him — since he’s been outspoken against welfare allegedly creating a “culture of dependency” for poor people — doesn’t it amount to welfare when Wall Street gets bailouts, Federal Reserve has preferential policies for big banks, mining and broadcasting giants get giveaways from the government — shouldn’t huge corporations get off welfare as well?
Cain responded that “It’s time to get everyone off welfare” and plugged his proposal for a Fair Tax, saying that would stop the government from picking of winners and losers. (But many have stated that such a tax proposal would make further losers of low-income people.)
Cain claimed that he is “against the too big to fail philosophy” but then later said he was for TARP because we “needed to do something drastic” adding that “where I parted ways was when the administration was picking winners and losers.”
Cain wrote in 2008: “Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem.” But buying stock would seem to be a way of “picking winners and losers.”
Then I referenced (unfortunately mangling the quote in the process), Jesus: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” and asked how that related to Cain’s philosophy.
Cain said that his view was to “help those that help themselves.” After a bit of back and forth, Cain briefly mentioned “my giving and my compassion” — which would seem to run afoul of another of Jesus’ statements.
I sort of regret saying “Isn’t it time to get big business off welfare as well” at the beging of my questioning — the “as well” would make it seem that I agree with the notion that poor people should not be on welfare, which in any case was gutted during the Clinton administration. I also think I sort of bought into Cain’s tacit assumption in the back and forth that there aren’t alot of poor people who are working very hard and still can’t make ends meet. Full transcript of our exchange:
Sam Husseini: You’ve spoken against welfare creating a culture of dependency for poor people. Doesn’t it amount to welfare when Wall Street gets bailouts, when the Federal Reserve does preferential economic policies towards the big banks, mining get handouts, broadcasters get free airwaves? Isn’t it time to get big business off welfare as well?
Herman Cain: It’s time to get everybody off welfare and the only way you’re going to do that is to totally eliminate the tax code and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is a national consumption tax. Look, as long as we have the current tax code, politicians and administrations will always have the discretion to pick winners and losers whether they’re picking it for Wall Street, whether they’re picking it for corporations. And so the only way to solve the problem isn’t to just say we’re just going to get rid of all of it unless we get rid of the entire tax code. That’s the ultimate solution.
SH: But are you for getting rid of “too-big-to-fail” type things, getting the broadcasters to pay for their licenses?
HC: Yes I am against the too big to fail philosophy. The way you sort out winners and losers is not by having the government making that decision; you let the marketplace make that decision. That’s why we have bankruptcy laws. But the bigger problem is eliminating the tax code, replacing it, such that we don’t have the opportunity for a lot of those kind of programs to be interested into the economic process.
SH: But weren’t you for the bailouts, Goldman Sachs, AIG and all of them were on the verge of going under? I thought you were for that.
HC: No, let’s clarify. I hope you run this clip over and over and over and over. I was for the concept of TARP because of the financial meltdown we were looking at because I studied the financial meltdown, which was drastic, and we needed to do something drastic. Where I parted ways with TARP was when the administration started to pick and choose winners and come up with ideas like “too big to fail.” I didn’t agree with that. I think the administration of the TARP funds was too discretionary. And even on top of that they tried to get some banks to take money that they didn’t want. That wasn’t how I expected the administration to utilize those funds. That’s how I parted ways with the whole concept.
SH: How do you explain something like Jesus’ teaching that it’s easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle with your own philosophy?
HC: I believe in a philosophy of “help those that help themselves.”
SH: And what happens to the others who can’t for some reason?
HC: Help those that help themselves. And if people can help themselves, and they don’t want to help themselves, well yes, there will always be some compassionate people out there with some compassionate ways to help them.
SH: But that’s not you?
HC: Oh no it is me. If you were familiar with my giving and my compassion, I help people who help themselves. One of the fundamental things I want to change as president of the United States is that I want to get away from this entitlement society to an empowerment society. And if people aren’t willing to help themselves. Now the good news is that more people are willing to help themselves but I happen to believe that a lot of the programs encourage people to stay on government programs rather than encourage people to get off of government programs. That’s what I mean by restructuring these programs and converting it to an empowerment society.
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on June 6, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]
Stakeout was blessed with lots of great questions for Austan Goolsbee, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and a member of the cabinet. We also found this priceless tidbit from an interview he did with Colbert on June 15, 2009: “A year from now we’re going to be in a very happy place.” Colbert: “Really?” Goolsebee: “Yes.” [see video at 1:40]
Apparently no one has pointed it out since right after the interview took place, not even Colbert — even though Goolsbee has been back on Colbert’s show twice (Oct 13, 2010 and May 18, 2011). In the most recent interview, in the full web version, Goolsbee can’t get himself to object to Colbert’s repeated comment that the “government has never created a single job.”
Unfortunately, Goolsbee didn’t stop for questions from us or any of the other media assembled at the stakeout.
Among the insightful questions we got in the wake of the awful Friday unemployment numbers:
Dean Baker:”How high the unemployment rate would have to rise before they start talking about stimulus again?”
Thomas Ferguson: “Why doesn’t the administration nominate people for regulatory vacancies? — Or whether he think cuts in Social Security have any justification given that the Trustees Report concedes the program is stable through 2036.”
It is remarkable that the response to the Great Depression was to create Social Security, while the Great Recession is being used as a pretext by some to slash Social Security.
Richard Wolff: “Why no federal jobs program financed by taxes on the rich in the manner of FDR 1934-1940 — is it just because the dependence of Democrats and Obama on financing from those who would be taxed? … Or, more provocatively: so is it then the case that only because there is now no CIO or Communist or Socialist party making gains and growing that you dont see any need to do other than pander to the corporations wanting less taxes rather tha helping the mass of people as FDR did?”
I think Wolff’s last point is critical and frequently overlooked by lots of people who have been calling on and off the last two years plus for a “new New Deal” — the New Deal didn’t happen because people asked for it; it happened because the establishment was terrified of far more radical change.
Timothy Canova: “Why rely on the private sector to lead the recovery? Is this a political assessment that the Republican House will not go along wtih any public sector initiative? President Obama was saying much the same as Goolsbee even before the Republicans took control of the House last November. Obama and Goolsbee have both said that it’s the private sector that must be the engine of job creation. Why no public sector jobs programs? We’re heading into forest fire season and there’s no Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC). Like millions of Americans, Ronald Reagan’s father survived the Great Depression working for the Works Project Administration. Even during the Carter administration, hundreds of thousands of Americans were employed in major jobs training programs. With more than twenty million Americans either officially unemployed, underemployed, or discouraged, and many more millions of consumers under water on their mortgages, how can we expect the private sector to lead the recovery? U.S. businesses are sitting on more than $2 trillion in earnings with insufficient incentives to invest given labor market conditions.”
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on June 6, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]
Manal Al Sharif: “I would like to thank our leaders, on top of whom is the Custodian of the two Holy Mosques (King Abdullah) for their instructions to release me,” she said in comments carried by the London-based Saudi daily Alhayat.
“As for driving by women in Saudi Arabia, I will now leave this issue to our leaders who are more aware and better acquainted of its advantages and disadvantages…on this occasion, I would like to say that I will always be the Moslem Saudi woman who is keen to serve her country and satisfy her Lord.”
Not that I'm one to fuss over every utterance by Martin Indyk, but this morning, my colleague Hollie Ainbinder told me that Indyk on NPR on Sunday made some interesting remarks that touched on the farcical nature of the alleged Obama-Netanyahu standoff. So I check the "transcript" and didn't really find anything like that. But then I listened to the audio, and there were some such remarks.
The "transcript" provided on the NPR web page begins with Indyk saying "I think that there is the big hanging question of once you've laid this out, what is the next step?" But before that, this occurs (thanks to intern Sam McCann for transcribing):
LIANE HANSEN: What do you think the president is trying to accomplish in setting those terms?
MARTIN INDYK: Well in that clip you just played in part of his speech, he kind of made clear that he doesn’t expect there’s going to be any negotiations anytime soon. In fact the effort to re-launch negotiations, which he’s been pursuing for the last two years, has failed. Instead what’s coming down the track is a unilateral effort by the Palestinians to get the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state and welcome it into the United Nations and I think the President is much more focused on short-term damage control and longer-term laying down a place marker about what the Palestinian state will need to look like. In the short term, Netanyahu’s fairly extreme reaction has actually helped, I think, in his tactic, which is to show the Europeans that the United States is serious and that they should get behind the United States’ effort rather than the UN General Assembly effort.
LIANE HANSEN: How effective will that strategy be do you think?
MARTIN INDYK: Well, we’ll have to see but the great irony of this situation is that the more that Bibi protests, the more credible the President looks to his European allies, where he’s going later today, when he says to them, ‘Come on, get behind me and let’s see if we can move things forward instead of going down the UN General Assembly which is the exact opposite of negotiations, it’s unilateral actions, which will only put the United States and the Europeans, the British and French, in a very difficult position because it will end up in the Security Council. And the President, in the context of this Arab Awakening which he’s just spoken about in the other part of the speech, the main part of the speech, does not want to be in a situation in which, come September, he has to veto a UN Security Council resolution declaring a Palestinian State because that will put him on completely the wrong side of Arab opinion.
Now, this isn't a matter of missing a word of two, and I don't know how common it is, but that's rather problematic. An even bigger problem is that I'm not sure there's any record, either on the web in audio or in transcript form of the "audio headlines" NPR gives. They are frequently the most bias part of programming and, if I'm correct, there's a real accountability problem with them.
On Tuesday, at a rare joint session of Congress for a foreign leader, members of Congress will clap hands raw for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel -- a nation many members of congress are incapable of speaking simple truths about.
The upshot of the professional wrestling "fight" between Obama and Netanyahu the last several days is that they both want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be decided by "negotiations between the parties." These "negotiations" are between a nuclear armed Goliath Israel and largely defenseless Palestinians. It's like "negotiations" between the Corleone family and a bandleader -- except we're not even supposed to notice the Corleone family comes to the table with huge guns drawn.
Yesterday at AIPAC Obama spoke of the "existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map -- face of the Earth." He spoke of "our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." Obama said to applause from the attendees at the pro-Israel group: "So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. ... Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses." Of course, Netanyahu is ever more vociferous in his accusations regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
But at his first news conference at the White House in February of 2009, Obama was asked by Helen Thomas if he knew of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. Obama replied that he didn't want to "speculate."
It's simply not a credible position to have.
Obama is accusing Iran of having an "illicit nuclear program" (which seems to exaggerate the National Intelligence Estimate findings) while refusing to acknowledge the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal. Mordechai Vanunu definitively exposed Israel's nuclear weapons program in 1986 and was tossed into prison for 18 years, most of it in solitary confinement, for doing so. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel has between 70 and 400 nuclear weapons. These weapons pose a real -- not a potential or an imagined -- threat to millions upon millions of people in and beyond the region. As do nuclear weapons held by other countries, but at least they are acknowledged.
But the U.S. and Israeli governments have maintained a stance of "deliberate nuclear ambiguity" since Richard Nixon and Golda Meir made a deal on the matter and stopped nuclear inspections in Israel in 1970.
The U.S. government stance is particularly absurd given that the main pretext for invading Iraq was false claims about that country's alleged possession of WMDs.
As part of WashingtonStakeout, where I ask tough questions of politicians as they leave the Sunday morning chat shows, I've asked a host of politicians about Israel's nuclear arsenal. Though they've varied somewhat in their answers, none has actually been straightforward.
John Negroponte, who when I questioned him was Director of National Intelligence, outright refused to engage on the issue: "I don't want to get into a discussion about Israel's nuclear powers." While they were in office, Cheney and Rice wouldn't stop for stakeout questions at all.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told me that "there is no comparison between Israel and Iran and those who would draw a comparison ignore the fact that Israel is our ally," virtually defining what hypocrisy is. Similarly, I asked John Edwards "doesn’t Israel have nuclear weapons?" and he responded by voicing his concern about "Iran having a nuclear weapon" and the proliferation that would allegedly cause: "odds are high that if Iran goes nuclear that the Saudis will go nuclear, the Egyptians will go nuclear, the Jordanians may go nuclear" -- all without acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons.
Which raises a central question: If Iran is going nuclear, why would that be? One possible answer is because Israel has nuclear weapons. Contrary to conventional wisdom, that seems to have been the case with Iraq. Imad Khadduri, who worked on the Iraq nuclear weapons program beginning in 1981 -- after Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor -- told me that the Israeli attack actually drove him and others to work on a weapons program: “I worked on the pre-1981 nuclear program and I was certain it would not be used for military purposes. But after the 1981 bombing, we were so angry that we were ready to work on a military program.” (Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Khadduri argued that, contrary to what the Bush administration was claiming, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program had been dismantled.)
Another reason that regimes might get weapons of mass destruction is self-preservation. That is certainly a lesson one could draw looking at Iraq and Libya the last ten years: Both disarmed and both were attacked. Viewing U.S. policy in that light, it would seem rather suicidal for the Iranian government to not develop nuclear weapons. Of course, we don't know that they are, but if anything, militarized U.S. policy seems to be pushing them in that direction.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who is vice-chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, paused when I asked him if he knew that Israel had nuclear weapons, then said “I’m aware that Israel is our most cherished ally...” I followed up: “Do you think it increases or decreases U.S. credibility around the world when U.S. government officials can’t even acknowledge that Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal?” Pence stuck to his line: “The American people support Israel. I call Israel our most cherished ally...” He was utterly incapable of engaging on the issue.
Somewhat similarly, former Amb. Martin Indyk replied: “What does that got to do with it, sir?”
Newt Gingrich, initially when asked if he knew Israel had nuclear weapons, said "of course," but then backtracked, saying it was a “guess” since the Israeli nuclear weapons program could be a "Potemkin village." My friend Jabari Zakiya retorted that perhaps Gingrich would be inclined to question the reality of the moon landings. Carl Levin (D-Migh.), when I questioned him, was chair of the House Armed Services Committee. He similarly said he "thought" Israel had nuclear weapons, but didn't "know," because "I'm not the government."
I questioned Russ Feingold in 2010, shortly before he lost his seat, and he initially said “I’m not free to comment on that." I asked: “Why can you not say that Israel is a nuclear power, Senator?” Feingold replied: “I basically think it is, but I’m not somebody who is privy to all the details on that." But Finegold was on the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time of this exchange. In any case, the necessary information on Israel's nuclear weapons is public.
This year, I questioned Kerry: “Do you know that Israel has a nuclear weapons program?” Kerry: “Sure. Everybody -- it’s common knowledge and commonly understood.” Question: “Why won’t the administration acknowledge that?” Kerry: “I don’t know what the administration policy is on that.” It was good to get a "sure," but it’s rather remarkable that Kerry states he doesn’t know what the administration policy is given that he is chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- and presidential aspirant: "It's a determination for Israel. ... If it's been established as a matter of fact, it speaks for itself." Thomas Pickering, former U.S. ambassador to the UN: "It's a decision for Israel to make."
In April, 2007 I asked former president Jimmy Carter at the National Press Club about why no administration would acknowledge Israel's nuclear weapons. He responded: "When I was president, I did not comment on Israel's nuclear arsenal. But it's generally known throughout the diplomatic and scientific world that Israel does have [a] substantial arsenal. ... It's [Israel's nuclear power] well known anyway to every diplomat, scientist involved in nuclear affairs, it doesn't make it incumbent or important that the president of the United States announces that another nation does have nuclear arsenal. ... I don't think it's up to the U.S. government, president or officials to announce that another country does indeed have or have not nuclear arsenal if they themselves don't acknowledge it. I don't think it's helpful to do that, but ... it's not harmful either because everybody knows it." (The Press Trust of India, April 5, 2007)
Finally, in 2008 Carter acknowledged the obvious truth somewhat more forthrightly: "The U.S. has more than 12,000 nuclear weapons; the Soviet Union [sic] has about the same; Great Britain and France have several hundred, and Israel has 150 or more." Perhaps, when he is years out of office, Obama will tell the truth about things like Israel's nukes.
In 2006, in what were described as "slips," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and then-incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates referred to Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Similar to anticipated moves at getting the Palestinian issue seriously before the United Nations in September of this year (a move Obama is denouncing), in 2009, the U.S., Canada and other Western nations attacked and tried to block a vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. After 18 years of trying the measure finally passed.
In his widely-heralded 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama emphasized the need for truth. It's long past time to stop the games and get real about the Mideast and have a fact-based discussion. A good place to start is an acknowledgement of the threatening elephant in the room that is Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal.
Also see, from 2017: "Video: Schumer Eventually Calls Israel's Nuclear Arsenal a 'Fact', Cuts off Further Questioning."
Sam Husseini is founder of WashingtonStakeout. Many thanks to Chris Belcher of Alchymedia for camera and video work.
On Tuesday, at a rare joint session of Congress for a foreign leader, members of Congress will clap hands raw for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel — a nation many members of congress are incapable of speaking simple truths about.
The upshot of the professional wrestling “fight” between Obama and Netanyahu the last several days is that they both want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be decided by “negotiations between the parties.” These “negotiations” are between a nuclear armed Goliath Israel and largely defenseless Palestinians. It’s like “negotiations” between the Corleone family and a bandleader — except we’re not even supposed to notice the Corleone family comes to the table with huge guns drawn.
Yesterday at AIPAC Obama spoke of the “existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map — face of the Earth.” He spoke of “our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Obama said to applause from the attendees at the pro-Israel group: “So let me be absolutely clear — we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. … Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses.” Of course, Netanyahu is ever more vociferous in his accusations regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
But at his first news conference at the White House in February of 2009, Obama was asked by Helen Thomas if he knew of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. Obama replied that he didn’t want to “speculate.”
It’s simply not a credible position to have.
[originally published on Washington Stakeout on May 23, 2011; posted on posthaven Nov. 13, 2015]
