Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Obama makes nostalgic trip to his Indonesia childhood home – ABC News

Former U.S. President Barack Obama and his family arrived Friday in his childhood home of Jakarta on the last leg of a 10-day vacation in Indonesia, where they visited ancient temples and went whitewater rafting.

Local television news channels broadcast live coverage of the family's arrival in the capital.

Indonesian President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo later met Obama at the Bogor Palace in West Java. The grand Dutch colonial building about 55 kilometers (35 miles) south of Jakarta is famous for its botanical gardens and a herd of spotted deer that roam the grounds.

The two jumped into a golf cart with Jokowi at the wheel and headed off to a cafe nestled inside the lush gardens. Many Indonesians have drawn comparisons between Jokowi and Obama, who were both highly popular during their election campaigns.

After Obama became president, many here viewed him as a native son and saw him as a symbol of hope and religious tolerance because of his years living in the world's most populous Muslim country.

A statue of the boy still remembered as "Barry" by childhood friends was erected outside the elementary school he once attended in the capital's upscale, leafy neighborhood of Menteng.

"This is the last opportunity for us to meet with Barry, our childhood friend who has made us so proud," said Widianto Cahyono, who sat next to Obama in the fourth grade and is hopeful the former president will visit his old neighborhood. "We have long waited for a reunion with him."

Obama also retains a soft spot for Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10. He moved to Jakarta in 1967 after his mother split up with his father and remarried an Indonesian man. They had his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who is traveling with the family.

After her second marriage failed, Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, stayed on in Indonesia and Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.

During a 2010 presidential visit, he delighted onlookers by proclaiming in Bahasa Indonesia that bakso, a savory meatball soup, and nasi goreng, flavorful fried rice, are delicious. They are two of the country's signature dishes.

Prior to arriving in Jakarta, Obama, his wife Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia visited the resort island of Bali where they stayed in the tranquil mountain enclave of Ubud, touring sweeping terraced rice paddies and rafting the Ayung river. They then traveled to the island of Java to the historic city of Yogyakarta, where Obama's mother did anthropology research. They visited Borobudur, a ninth century Buddhist temple complex, as well as the ancient Prambanan Hindu temple compound.

Obama is scheduled to speak at an Indonesian Diaspora Congress in Jakarta on Saturday.

Link:
Obama makes nostalgic trip to his Indonesia childhood home - ABC News

Obama used covert retaliation in response to Russian election meddling. Here’s why. – Washington Post

By Austin Carson By Austin Carson June 29

This past weekend, The Washington Post published a new account of the Obama administrations struggle to respond to Russian covert activity during the 2016 election and new details on the intelligence and internal debate about retaliation.

One fascinating revelation is that the White House did not simply punish Russia symbolically by expelling diplomatic personnel. It also fought fire with fire via a covert, retaliatory cyber operation.

On its face, a secretive and ambiguous action seems an unlikely choice for deterrence. As when President Trump used the mother of all bombs in Afghanistan, standard U.S. procedure is to issue loud and clear warnings to adversaries. While the details of Obamas cyber operation remain classified, The Posts reporting suggests that it was designed to be detected by Moscow and to imply Washingtons ability to inflict severe damage should Russias meddling increase. Thus, this particular covert response may have allowed the White House to threaten its adversary without creating a public spectacle and the domestic and international consequences.

[Cybercriminals have just mounted a massive worldwide attack. Heres how NSA secrets helped them.]

Russian behavior and the American response is not the first instance of private, secret measures during the coercive contests that often arise in world politics. New research sheds light on why leaders sometimes prefer covert coercion and why such efforts may or may not work.

Coercion means bending the enemys will

Coercion refers to any attempt to alter another governments decision-making through the threat of future costs. Such efforts need two essential ingredients to be effective:

1. Intelligibility A threat of future costs must be expressed in a way that makes sense to the adversary you are trying to influence. This is particularly important if a government coerces through physical action rather than an explicit, verbal do this or else statement.

2. Credibility Anyone can bluff. But, as Thomas Schelling points out, success requires laying out a believable course of action that will be triggered only if the target fails to act as desired.

Leaders have a large coercion toolkit. Usually coercion takes the form of highly visible and symbolic military maneuvers, such as the periodic repositioning of the U.S. Seventh Fleet to East Asia. On land, military mobilizations in the run-up to World War I signaled the resolve of Russia and Germany but also helped propel escalation. As The Post reports, Obama aides generated a menu of options that focused on cyber, economic and diplomatic punishments.

[The Senate wants tough new sanctions against Russia, but key U.S. allies are furious. Heres why.]

Choosing coercive tools with broad visibility can have credibility benefits. As Schelling originally argued, rattling ones saber in front of a wide audience makes it harder to sheath the saber. Leaders that make threats and then visibly do not follow through can suffer audience costs, or a loss of popular support. Knowing this, adversaries may be more likely to believe the threat in the first place. While the significance of audience costs has been challenged by international relations scholars, the fact remains that most coercion efforts are high-visibility verbal and military threats.

The art of coercion in secret

Less well-understood is the art of backstage coercion. Privately communicated verbal warnings are one version, which Obama apparently used in a warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin last fall. Easily dismissed as cheap talk, these kinds of private warnings, as recent scholarship suggests, can carry diplomatic weight, especially when communicated in meetings among leaders face to face.

Governments can also use covert or otherwise nonvisible military actions to send a targeted message to an adversary. In the Korean War, the Eisenhower administration repositioned bombers used to deliver atomic bombs to quietly nudge the Soviet Union into a negotiated settlement. Eisenhower also used quiet military preparations only detectable by Soviet leaders to demonstrate resolve regarding Berlin in the late 1950s.

During the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration similarly manipulated U.S. air assets to simulate a nuclear alert in the hopes of pressuring Moscow and North Vietnam into a peace deal. The Carter administration paired public protests of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with a covert arms supply program intended to show Moscow its resolve to impose costs for aggression.

[Americans are united on retaliating against Russian cyberattacks]

Do these efforts work? The track record is mixed. While Eisenhowers atomic diplomacy may have helped with the Korean War armistice, historians have found little evidence that Moscow saw Nixons madman alert as credible or even understood it.

Why is coercion harder to do in secret? For one thing, intelligibility is more challenging in the covert sphere. Success requires a careful design that functions like a dog whistle, inaudible and undetected by one set of observers (i.e., the public and third-party leaders) but audible and detected by the target the adversary.

Making a quietly conveyed message credible is also tricky to pull off. As Keren Yarhi-Milo and I argue, this second ingredient can come from the costs and/or risks generated by a coercive covert action. Although it tends to be more subtle than overt alternatives, covert operations can still provide tangible proof their sponsor is willing to expend precious resources and incur political and other risks, including the risk of inadvertent exposure.

Israels covert strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear site in 2007 is a good illustration. The strike showed Israels willingness to significantly raise the risks of war and wide exposure to stop suspected nuclear proliferation, even as secrecy helped maintain face-saving opportunities for Damascus to react conservatively.

Assessing the Obama response to Russia

Detecting an ongoing Russian covert operation left the White House balancing competing demands, as The Posts story describes. Obama needed to deter Russia from further sabotage on Election Day and similar operations in the future. Yet the administration also feared creating a spectacle that would have serious partisan implications at home and risks of a dangerous spiral abroad.

The need to show resolve and cope with constraints helps explain why the White House ultimately opted to pair symbolic public actions with covert cyber-retaliation. By targeting a government system and avoiding public acknowledgement, this cyber operation, like others, had a low public profile.

And how did the Obama operation do in terms of intelligibility and credibility?

Regarding the first ingredient, it seems quite plausible Moscow got the message. By implanting computer code in sensitive computer systems that Russia was bound to find, as The Post reported, the designers of the U.S. cyberattack clearly anticipated the need to create a dog whistle effect. The actions Russia was being warned to avoid were likely either clearly intelligible or clarified in private warnings.

Judging the second ingredient of credibility is more difficult. Did Russia find it believable that U.S. leaders would ever exploit cyber-vulnerabilities? A one-off cyber operation seems low cost. The more likely source of credibility is risk. Obamas reprisal may have been perceived by Russia as representing a new level of cyber-aggressiveness by Washington. Alternatively, it may have simply been seen as a clever but ultimately empty hello message by an outgoing president, carrying little risk.

Because of its covert nature, assessing the success of the Obama administrations response to Russian cyber-meddling will have to wait a few decades for the opening of government archives on both sides. Still, in its messaging structure, the Obama cyber-reprisal closely parallels nuclear alerts and other cases of covert coercion in the Cold War. Yet the 2016 election episode does suggest a larger lesson: Cybertechnology deployed by states may be ushering in a renaissance in the art of covert coercion.

Austin Carson is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago and co-author with Keren Yarhi-Milo of Covert Communication: The Intelligibility and Credibility of Signaling in Secret.

Read the original:
Obama used covert retaliation in response to Russian election meddling. Here's why. - Washington Post

Trump gets trolled again by Obama’s White House photographer over ‘respect for women’ – Washington Post

As a chorus of Democratic and Republican lawmakers slammed President Trump for sexist tweets about MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, a former White House chief photographer took to social media to troll the president, again.

Pete Souza, who chronicled theObama presidency, shared a photoof an Oval Officemeeting four women had with Barack Obama while he was president.The candidphotoshows Obama sitting on hisdesk and gesturing while talking with the female staffers.

Souza labeledthe Instagram post: Respect for women.

Souza also shared the photo on Twitter, a few hours after Trump unleashed a couple of tweets about Brzezinski and her co-host, Joe Scarborough. Trump calledBrzezinski"low I.Q. Crazy Mika" andclaimed she had a facelift.

Trump's tweets came just three weeks after members of Congress called for civility, restraint and cooperation following a shooting rampage that injured five during a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. Several lawmakers have taken to Twitter to rebuke Trump for his tweets, which many called sexist and unbecoming of the president of the United States.

Souza,whohas said his "political leanings are Democratic," has previously trolled Trump by sharing photos that appear to show the men's stark differences.

[Mr. President, please grow up: Lawmakers slam Trumps vile Mika Brzezinski tweets]

For example, he shared a picture of Obama clasping the left hand of his wife, Michelle Obama, as the two listened to a speech in Selma, Ala. The short caption,"holding hands," appears to be a slight at what Trump and first lady Melania Trump had just done or not done,The Washington Post's Amy B. Wang wrote.

Holding hands.

A post shared by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on May 23, 2017 at 7:53am PDT

Souza's photo followed a pair of viral video clips of the president and the first lady during their trip to the Middle East last month. One shows Melania Trump appearing toswat away her husband's hand after they arrived in Tel Aviv.In the other, she appears to avoid holding the president's handafter they landed in Rome.

Last May, after The Post broke the news about Trump revealing highly classified information to Russian officials, Souza posted a photo of a folder marked CLASSIFIED on hisformer boss's desk.The caption: Organized paperwork on the Resolute Desk, 2009.

The subtext, wrote The Post's Emily Heil:Obama knew how to handle sensitive information.

Souza, who also photographed the Reagan White House,has for months been sharing candid pictureshe took of Obama over the past eight years.CNN described itas a silent, social media, shade-throwing protest told in visuals.

The Fix's Callum Borchers explains the years-long feud between President Trump and the hosts of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Avi Selk and Amy B. Wang contributed to this story.

READ MORE:

Is the former Obama White House photographer trolling President Trump?

More Instagram shade from Obamas White House photographer over Trumps classified leak

How Pete Souza became President Obamas secret weapon

Continued here:
Trump gets trolled again by Obama's White House photographer over 'respect for women' - Washington Post

Eric Schultz: Obama White House didn’t "choke" in handling of Russian meddling – CBS News

The Obama administration didn't "choke" in its handling of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, former White House official Eric Schultz said on the latest episode of "The Takeout" podcast. He defended the Obama administration's handling of intelligence demonstrating Russia intended to influence the American democratic process.

"Our view was, let's do this by the book. And what that meant was, the intelligence community was going to investigate they were going to be thorough, and as soon as they reached a conclusion they were going to release it." And that, he told CBS News' Major Garrett and Steve Chaggaris, was the right decision at the time.

Schultz's comments follow aWashington Postreport that details much of what the Obama administration knew and when officials knew about Russian President Vladimir Putin's directives to influence the election.

At the heart of the story is the question of whether the Obama administration did enough in late 2016 to combat Russia's cyber campaign in an attempt to "disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." Politicians from both sides have argued that not nearly enough was done to prevent interference.

President Trump went as far as to say President Obama "colluded or obstructed" and "did not want to 'rock the boat'" because he thought Clinton would win.

One official quoted in the story said the situation was "the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend," and that "I feel like we sort of choked."

Schultz argues that's not the case, and that the risk that the Obama administration could being perceived as intervening in the electoral process should not be underestimated.

"It's important to take stock of how we were making decisions in real time, versus looking back in hindsight. So if you transport ourselves back to the summer and fall of 2016, it's in the midst of a spirited, intense presidential election," Schultz said, noting that he respected the Washington Post's thorough reporting.

"It's also in the midst of President Obama crisscrossing this country campaigning for Secretary [Hillary] Clinton," he added. "We're acutely aware of that, and we're acutely aware of how information that we release gets consumed in that particular environment. And you had a Republican nominee for president claiming that the election was rigged. And you had a campaign trying to undermine results if Secretary Clinton had prevailed."

Over yogurt, berries, eggs, toast, and Garrett's "Kitchen sink Omelet-plus" at the Ritz Carlton'sQuadrant, Schultz, who served as the White House principal deputy press secretary, also discussed what it's like to stand at the White House podium to brief reporters on live television.

"Briefing for the White House is the hardest thing I've ever done, and will likely be hardest thing I ever do," he said. "When you brief, you can move markets, you can mobilize armies, you can impact Congress and governors."

For more from Schultz's conversation with CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett and CBS News Political Director Steve Chaggaris, listen to "The Takeout" podcast, available oniTunes,Google Play,Stitcher,SpotifyandCBSNews.com. And follow "The Takeout" on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter: @TakeoutPodcast.

Producers: Arden Farhi, Nick Fineman, and Katiana Krawchenko

Facebook:Facebook.com/TakeoutPodcast

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

More:
Eric Schultz: Obama White House didn't "choke" in handling of Russian meddling - CBS News

Republican attorneys general target Obama ‘Dreamer’ program – Reuters

Ten Republican state attorneys general on Thursday urged federal authorities to rescind a policy set by former U.S. President Barack Obama that protects from deportation nearly 600,000 immigrants brought into the country illegally by their parents, known as "Dreamers."

Obama, a Democrat, had hoped that overhauling the U.S. immigration system and resolving the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would be part of his presidential legacy. But Republican President Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security earlier this month rescinded a separate Obama-era policy meant to cover illegal immigrant parents that had been blocked by the courts. However, DHS said the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy covering "Dreamers" was still in effect.

In a letter on Thursday, the Republican attorneys general asked that DHS abolish the DACA program going forward, while noting that the government did not have to rescind permits that had already been issued.

If the federal government does not withdraw DACA, the attorneys general said they would file a legal challenge to the program in federal court in Texas.

A DHS representative referred questions to the U.S. Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The 10 Republican attorneys general who signed the letter represent the states of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Nebraska, Arkansas, South Carolina, Idaho, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kansas.

A larger coalition of 26 Republican AGs had challenged the policy covering illegal immigrant parents.

In a statement, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said it took encouragement from the diminished number of attorneys general signing onto the DACA letter, and urged Trump not to "cave in to the toothless threat" of legal action.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

BEIJING China reacted relatively calmly on Friday after a series of diplomatic broadsides by the United States, expressing anger over new arms sales by Washington to Taiwan but hoping ties could soon be brought back on track.

Maine lawmakers will vote on a budget plan on Friday that would repeal a 3 percent tax hike on those who earn at least $200,000 and increase education funding to try to avert a partial government shutdown threatened by Governor Paul LePage.

Visit link:
Republican attorneys general target Obama 'Dreamer' program - Reuters