The Common Ills: Now we know where Barack draws the line

Today at Al Jazeera, Mark Weisbrot writes:

On Wednesday President Obama beat a hasty retreat from his global public relations and diplomatic, and political campaign against Snowden. It was quite an amazing, if implicit, admission of defeat. Here was the president of the world’s most powerful nation, with the world’s most influential media outlets having rallied to his cause, now quietly trying to lower the profile of an issue that his own government had elevated to one of the biggest stories in the world.
He didn’t talk to the presidents of China or Russia, he said, because “I shouldn't have to. This is something that routinely is dealt with between law enforcement officials in various countries.” Except that it has been dealt with by these other governments in the same way that Americans deal with annoying telemarketing phone calls. Hong Kong casually hung up on the Obama Administration’s extradition request. President Putin provided a jovial “buzz off” response on Wednesday, saying that Snowden was a “free man,” and with an analogy to shearing a piglet, made it clear that he had more important things to think about than helping an unfriendly arrogant power get its hands on a pesky whistleblower. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s threats that a failure to follow Washington’s directives would “have consequences” turned out to be nothing more than bluff and bluster.
“I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,” said Obama in response to a question as to whether he would try to force down a plane carrying Snowden away from Russia.

And the above impressions are what we were talking about Monday in "The White House and administration grind to a halt" and in the "Iraq snapshot."

He just can't learn, Barack just can't learn. He spent the first two years with him and his administration attacking Fox News. That's not what the White House does. (We called it out in real time.) First off, attacking the press is neither sound nor smart if you're the government. Second, if you really believe someone is against you, why do you elevate them to your level?

I think Ed Snowden did a great job. I have a really hard time believing that even the awful Richard Nixon would have elevated Snowden to the level of presidential rival. I can hear Pat Nixon (his wife) offering one of her bitchy remarks that she was so proud of. But not Tricky Dick. It usually worked like this, Crooked Nixon would attack a group of people (say protesters -- infamously calling them "bums") and then along would come bitchy and unhappy Pat attacking, for example, Jane Fonda specifically. As we now know, Jane was on Tricky Dick's enemies list and he used the government to try to go after her. But in public, it was left to Pat to do the attacks.

Ed Snowden is a whistle-blower. I think he did a great thing. Barack's actions have turned Ed into a global folk hero. The Aljazeera column doesn't note that John Kerry has lowered his rhetoric, thankfully. That should have been mirrored by the White House. But what we're seeing is that Barack is even more petty than Nixon.

In fact, Barack's a 'two-fer.' He's Richard and Pat Nixon rolled into one. Ellen Barry, Michael D. Shear and William Neuman (New York Times) report:

President Obama sought Thursday to minimize the significance of a fugitive former national security contractor wanted for leaking government secrets, calling him a “29-year-old hacker” and suggesting that American frustration with China and Russia for apparently helping him evade extradition was not worth damaging relations with those countries.

What a petty little bitch. Barack is Dick and Pat Nixon rolled into one and the only benefit there is that he can screw himself -- an act some might suggest he pursue. Repeatedly.

How stupid has it all been? It would be great if we had a functioning press in the United States. It would be good if we even had a would-be Jonathan Swift to offer a wicked satire as a mirror so we could get just how much nonsense this has all been.

If you're not getting how the threats and the bitchy and everything else has been over the top, notice what happens when basic questions are asked of various administration officials. Remember facts? The press doesn't appear to.

But Wednesday at the Pentagon, after Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) made idiots out of themselves over Snowden, a basic question was asked:

Q: If I could follow up on that, both of you, with your hat on as senior members of the national security team, what damage did Snowden do? Did he simply cause embarrassment to the United States by revealing this information or is it your feeling -- can you explain what damage he did, what advantage he may have given terrorists at this point?
And, secondly, not hypothetical, Russia has yet to give him back. If the Russians do not give him back, what does that do to the United States military-to-military relationship with the Russians? Can you go on business as usual?

SEC. HAGEL: I would hope that the Russians do the right thing here and turn Snowden over to the United States. He has broken laws, and I think -- as far as I know, the decision of the Russian government -- at least a final decision hasn't been made yet. Maybe it has. As far as I know, Snowden is probably still at the airport in Moscow, unless you all know something different.
As to the damage done to this country, I've said, General Dempsey's said, others, yes, there was damage done to this country by the Snowden leaks. And we are assessing that now. But make no mistake: This violation of our laws was a serious security breach in our national security apparatus.
General?

GENERAL DEMPSEY: It is too early to tell. There was damage. The extent of the damage will -- will be determined. But it -- just simply stated, if -- if our adversaries are witting and -- and know the way in which we tried to gain information about them, then clearly they will seek to change their tactics and we'll be in a position of trying to adjust our tactics, as well. But we'll know more about that soon.

"There was damage," Dempsey wants to insist. But "it is too early to tell."

Heat's up, tea's brewed
Clothes strewn around the room
Looks like a wind swept through
Made a wild man out of you
And doesn't anger turn you on
An expectation of a calm
After the storm

-- "After The Storm," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her Playing Possum album

After a storm, or an event, you can usually see damage. If you can only offer, "There was damage" and that "it is too early to tell," there's really no damage.

Jeff Mason and Mark Felsenthal (Reuters) report Barack's scrambling jets remark, "'No, I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker,' he told a news conference in Dakar, a note of disdain in his voice." Tom Parfitt (Telegraph of London) covers it here (and there's a video you can stream of Barack making his remarks).

And those appalling remarks? Now we know where Barack 'draws the line' -- and doesn't it call to mind the underrated film The Two Jakes (script by Robert Towne), specifically the exchange between Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson) and Loach (David Keith).

Gittes: I wouldn't extort a nickel from my worst enemy. That's where I draw the line.

Loach: Well, I'll tell you, Jake, I knew a whore once. For the right amount of money, she'd piss in a guy's face -- but she wouldn't s**t on his chest. You see, that's where she drew the line.

The following community sites -- plus Tavis Smiley, Pacifica Evening News, the ACLU, The Diane Rehm Show, Cindy Sheehan and Chocolate City -- updated last night and this morning: