Saturday, October 17, 2015

Biden Cartoon

Hillary moneyman highlights new Saudi connection

The Saudi government, under increasing criticism over civilian casualties from its airstrikes in Yemen and a harsh crackdown on political dissidents at home, has just hired a powerhouse Washington, D.C., lobbying firm headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser — an arrangement that critics charge raises fresh questions about the influence that foreign government lobbyists could have on her campaign.

The Saudi contract with the Podesta Group, owned by veteran Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign bundler Tony Podesta, calls for the firm to provide “public relations” and other services on behalf of the royal court of King Salman.

It included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000 last month and unspecified further sums over the course of the next year, according to documents recently filed with the Justice Department Foreign Agents Registration Act office.

The retention comes at a time when the Saudis are being condemned by United Nations officials over reports that their bombings against Houthi strongholds in Yemen’s civil war have resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of innocent civilians, including children.

Adding to the international pressure, the Saudis are also facing criticism from human rights groups over their continued refusal to allow basic rights to women (e.g., the freedom to drive cars). They are also being criticized for their hard-line domestic suppression of political dissidents, with draconian punishments such as the sentence — by beheading — recently given to a 20-year-old Shiite political protester.

“They are very nervous about an American policy change, and so they are betting on the horse they think will win — Hillary Clinton,” said Ali Al-Ahmad, a Saudi analyst with the Institute for Gulf Affairs, and a frequent critic of the regime, about the hiring of the Podesta Group.

The Podesta Group is now on a roster of a half-dozen D.C. lobbying firms representing the Saudis, including the giant international law firm DLA Piper and the firm Hogan Lovells, whose principal on the Saudi account is former Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, who chairs the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super-PAC that is a major source of House GOP campaign funds. (Former Texas congressman Tom Loeffler, a top bundler for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, for years represented the Saudis, but his current firm, Akin Gump, now lobbies for the United Arab Emirates, among other foreign clients.)

But the retention of the Podesta Group has gotten attention in Washington lobbying circles because of its unusually close ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Tony Podesta is the brother and former business partner of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. He is also a prolific Democratic Party fundraiser who is among 43 Washington lobbyists (many of whom also represent foreign governments) listed as Clinton campaign bundlers in reports filed by the campaign with the Federal Election Commission.

The reports disclose that Podesta had raised $140,175 for the Clinton campaign through Sept. 30. Two weeks ago, just days after filing its Saudi contract with the Justice Department, Podesta held a Clinton campaign fundraiser at his home that offered fine Italian food cooked by five gourmet chefs, including himself and his brother, the campaign chairman.

The Podesta Group point man on the Saudi account is David Adams, who previously served as assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 2011 and 2012, making him Clinton’s chief Capitol Hill lobbyist for her last two years as secretary of state, according to Justice Department filings reviewed by Yahoo News.

But Tony Podesta, while calling himself “a proud Clinton bundler,” vigorously denied that the Saudi contract had anything to do with his efforts to elect her president. “I’ve never had a conversation with Hillary Clinton or anybody in the campaign about the work of the firm,” Podesta said when reached by Yahoo News on his cellphone while he was dining at a restaurant in Sicily. “We represent a dozen foreign governments around the world — we do good work for them. And it has nothing to do with the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

Obama's foreign policy could burden Biden if he runs in 2016

When President Barack Obama announced this week that the United States would leave more troops than planned in Afghanistan, his vice president, Joe Biden, stood right at his side.

And for Biden, still mulling a presidential bid, that could pose a problem.

As he calculates all the angles that would influence his candidacy - a decision is reportedly coming within days - Biden has more than the looming obstacle of front-runner Hillary Clinton to consider. As a candidate, he would become the chief defender of a foreign policy that critics say has been incoherent and that gets increasingly low marks in public opinion polls.

Beyond Afghanistan, the White House is under fire for its response to Russian action in Syria, where Vladimir Putin has assumed the superpower role there that the United States has declined to take, for the enduring threat posed by Islamic State, and for the Iran nuclear deal that has spiked tensions with ally Israel.

Biden, who prides himself on being a full partner on Obama’s national security team, would own all of it. “Foreign policy is a liability for Biden,” Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen said.

The Afghanistan shift was a personal setback for Biden, the most influential voice in the administration pushing for hard timelines for the removal of U.S. troops from the country. Clinton, by contrast, favored a more robust military presence there during her tenure as secretary of state during Obama's first term.
Clinton, whose status as the prohibitive front-runner wouldn't change even if Biden jumps in, has distanced herself from Obama by calling for more aggressive action in Syria and opposing the Pacific Rim trade deal. As a sitting vice president, Biden wouldn't have the luxury of distancing himself from Obama's policies, even if he were so inclined.
“How does a presidential aspirant like Joe Biden reach for a bold American foreign policy without fundamentally distancing himself from his boss? It’s tough,” said Aaron David Miller, a former official in the Clinton and Bush administrations who is now with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Obama’s approval ratings with the U.S. public on foreign policy have tumbled since Biden stood at the Democratic National Convention three years ago and pronounced, “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.”
According to Gallup, Obama enjoyed about a 50 percent approval rating on foreign affairs during his first term. That number fell to 36 percent this summer.
National security is often overshadowed in U.S. presidential races by domestic issues, most notably jobs and economic growth.
But with the economy on a firmer footing that means it is not drowning out other issues for voters, some Republicans such as U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida are trying to put more of a spotlight on foreign policy.
Rubio regularly blasts Obama on the campaign trail and said of Biden: “He’s been wrong time and again on issue after issue."
“He would be a disastrous commander-in-chief,” Rubio told radio host Hugh Hewitt in August, as speculation about Biden’s intentions began to swirl.
Biden’s reputation took a hit when it was revealed that he had advised against the U.S. military raid that killed bin Laden in 2011.
He was a firm supporter of a reduced U.S. role in Iraq, which the administration’s detractors argue created a vacuum that strengthened the rise of Islamic State. Biden also resisted arming rebel groups in Syria.
Clinton recently called for a "no fly" zone in Syria, which both Obama and Biden oppose.

Should he run, Biden “has to establish his own identity,” but to do so he would have to highlight times when he privately disagreed with Obama, said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on U.S. security policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Biden’s supporters say he could point to his decades in the Senate, especially his years chairing the Foreign Relations Committee, to counter Republican arguments that he would simply be an extension of Obama's world view. For example, Biden has been friends for decades with Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama, by contrast, has a frosty relationship with the Israeli prime minister.

Donald Trump says true thing about 9/11 and Jeb! is having none of it

Last night, things got even more fun when Jeb! decided to come at the Donald via everyone’s favorite social media platform for discussing large complex topics.
What kicked this newest incident off was an interview Trump did with Bloomberg, during which he said:

When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time…He was president, OK?…Blame him, or don’t blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign.

This is a 100% factual claim, which is a weird thing to say after a Donald Trump quote, but here we are. Jeb! (whose last name is Bush) wasn’t thrilled with this statement and took to Twitter to let everyone know.
This is similar to a Jeb! quote from the last republican debate, which also made its way into another confusing tweet.
There is a certain morbid hilarity in the idea of a picture of Bush standing atop the rubble of a terrorist attack and proclaiming he “Kept us safe.” This is a weird talking point that Jeb! just refuses to abandon, despite the fact that every time he says it everyone legitimately wonders if he just flat out doesn’t remember 9/11.
By the way, Jeb! should know way more things about his brother. Little things, like his birthday and wife and children’s names should probably be on the list of “things you know for sure about your brother.”
Of course, coming at Trump on Twitter is a risky proposition, because he will respond, and he will be mean, and he will put a period before that @ to make sure everyone sees it.
Once again, these are true statements. It’s an empirical fact that the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 happened during the presidency of George W. Bush. If Jeb! wants to argue to finer points of why his brother shouldn’t be blamed or how his policies in the aftermath of the attack were good (which would be a monumentally difficult task, because they were not), fine, he can do that. But he really needs to stop just saying “he kept us safe,” because it’s way too easy to point to that one day and say “No, I don’t believe he did.”

Jeb responds to Trump comments on George W. Bush and 9/11 attacks

Jeb Bush on Friday night defended brother and former President George W. Bush after fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested that he shares blame for the 9/11 terror attacks.
Bush, a former Florida governor, called Trump’s criticism “pathetic.”
The front-running Trump made his comments earlier Friday while speaking on Bloomberg Television about how and why, if elected, he could best handle national emergencies.
“Blame him or don’t blame him, but (Bush) was president,” Trump said. “The World Trade Center came down during his reign.”
Jeb Bush responded on Twitter, saying “How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.”
This is not the first time Bush has during his 2016 campaign had to defend his older brother, in trying to distinguish himself from the Bush family political dynasty and be his “own man.”
In the second GOP presidential primary debate, Bush defended similar criticism from Trump, after he acknowledged that his foreign policy advisers would likely come from the administrations of his brother George W. and his father, former President George H. W. Bush.
“You remember the rubble” at the World Trade Center? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism, and he did keep us safe,” Bush said to huge audience applause.
Trump responded: “You feel safe right now? I don’t feel so safe.”