Image via Wikipedia

What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in Israel

Mar 16 2010, 11:07 AM ET

There is much speculation that this kerfluffle over 1,600 theoretical apartments on the wrong side of the green line in Jerusalem will lead to a rupture in American-Israeli relations, but analysts who suggest this are missing the point of President Obama's maneuverings. I've been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it's fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America's relations with Israel; he's trying to organize Tzipi Livni's campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government.  I'm not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it's clear to everyone -- at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog -- that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman's far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai's fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu's surpassingly fragile coalition.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni's centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It's up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel's best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all -- people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- but he'd rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right. 

Image via Wikipedia

WIRED:

The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing today on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and things are not looking pretty for the next-generation stealth aircraft. It's likely the Air Force will have to declare the program has soared past a key cost-containment barrier, in addition to being more than two years behind schedule.

The Air Force will have to declare a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which could force a serious restructuring of the program, according to a Reuters story quoting Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter.

A new Government Accountability Office report, issued today, puts it in simple numbers. "Total estimated acquisition costs have increased $46 billion (.pdf) and development extended 2 ½ years, compared to the program baseline approved in 2007," the report states.

The cost per plane has risen dramatically as well: The unit cost has ballooned to $112 million per aircraft. When the "system development" phase began in October 2001, the cost was reckoned at $69 million per plane.

Aerospace journalist Bill Sweetman, who was live-blogging the hearing at Ares, notes that the average procurement cost has spiked 18 percent, just within the past three years. Poking fun at some old talking points from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, he writes: "Maybe Lockheed Martin will stop using silly numbers in public now."

Obama's C-Span Problem

Brian Lamb has put President Obama on the spot. Lamb is the CEO of C-Span, and today he wrote a letter to the leaders of Congress asking them to allow cameras in the room for the final negotiations on the health care bill. Lamb wrote:

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

Indeed, this was one of Obama's signature promises on the campaign trail:

It's hard to get more explicit than that. But that was then. Today, when asked for the 3rd time whether President Obama believes that the "standard" he set during the campaign for transparency on health care negotiations is being met by the current process (which now appears to include bypassing the formal conference process), White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a flaccid but telling response. "I do not believe the American people have lacked for information on what's in these bills - the political and policy arguments around different people's positions - I think that's been well documented," Gibbs said. With all due respect, the reporter did not ask Gibbs for his appraisal of what he thinks the public does and does not know about the health care bills. Rather, the question is very simple: will President Obama honor his campaign pledge and demand that the final health care negotiations are televised on C-Span? Judging from Gibbs' response, the answer is an obvious "no."