Blog For Arizona

The problematic disintegration of Syria

By Karl Reiner

In 1970, Gen. Hafiz al-Assad, a member of the minority Alawite sect, took power in Syria following a long period of political instability. Assad's secular Bath Party portrayed itself as an upholder of Arab nationalism willing to defend the nation and its minorities against foreign threats and Islamic fundamentalism. Remarkably, he was able to hold on to the presidency for 30 years and then transfer power to his son, Bashar.

Under Hafiz al-Assad, the Alawites got an opportunity to overcome their second-class status but not necessarily to become wealthy. Repression was always one of Assad's tools. In February 1982, he was faced with an armed Islamist uprising. The general/president decided to make an example of the city of Hama where the rebellion was based. Estimates put the death toll resulting from the devastating attack on the city at between 10,000 and 30,000.

Sen. John McCain and his fawning media base

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Grampy McCrankypants, Sen. John McCain, has a sad that the U.S. has not gone to war lately with  (insert country name here)  , because the man has never met a war he did not like. McCain knows nothing about foreign affairs, yet the media villagers hang on his every word as though his thoughts are worth listening to. Paul Waldman at The American Prospect dispels the media myth of John McCain in John McCain Says Ignorant, Belligerent Things; Press Swoons:

I'll admit that I know next to nothing about Ukrainian politics. And when it comes to the current crisis there, I don't have any brilliant ideas about how the United States could solve this problem, but that's partly because the United States probably can't solve this problem. My limited knowledge and lack of transformative ideas puts me on equal footing with John McCain. Yet for some reason, McCain is once again all over the news, now that the situation in Kiev[.]

What does McCain actually think we should do about Ukraine? We'll get to that in a moment. But if you had to sum up John McCain's foreign policy beliefs in a single word, that word would probably be "Grrrr!" Whatever the situation is, McCain's view is always that we should be tougher than whatever the White House is doing. This applies to both Republican and Democratic presidents. If we're already bombing somebody, McCain's answer to any challenge is that we should bomb harder. If we haven't yet commenced action but are seriously thinking about it, he thinks we should start bombing. If we're engaging in diplomacy, McCain thinks we should ditch all that talk, which is for pussies anyhow, and get "tough" with whoever it is that needs getting tough with.

That is, I promise you, the extent of the sophistication of McCain's foreign policy thinking. Despite the fact that he is regularly lauded by the reporters who have worshipped him for so long as an "expert" in foreign policy with deep "knowledge" and "experience," I have never heard him say a single thing that demonstrated any kind of understanding of any foreign country or foreign crisis beyond what you could have gleaned from watching a three-minute report on the Today show.

Wartime events had an influence on Arizona’s geographic shape

By Karl Reiner

Early in the Civil War, Gen. Joseph Johnston and his generals in Northern Virginia quarreled with Confederate President Davis in Richmond over the practicality of the president's defensive war policy. While advocating a defensive posture in Northern Virginia, Davis was also eager to extend Confederate power as far as the Pacific. Taking control of California's lucrative gold fields would provide a source of revenue for the haughty, new Confederacy. Any westward expansion of slavery would also be strongly supported by the South's politically powerful large plantation owners.

For years, variations of the expansionist dream of slave owners had been a mainstay of dinner conversations in the South's finest plantations. The objective was to create a confederation in the Western Hemisphere which would include the Southern Slave States, the territories of the southwest United States, possibly Cuba, parts of Central America and northern Mexico. Although it is now largely forgotten, the hazy notion was a subtle part of the ideology driving many of the promoters of secession. The dream held out a promise of an empire based on cotton production and slavery. It offered a sparkling alternative to the fraying relationship the South had in the Union. It was a belief held by many of the South's leaders despite the fact that the institution of slavery was being dismantled in other parts of the world.

Sen. David Farnsworth fears living a sci-fi TV series

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I don't watch a lot of television, mostly because of crappy television programming like NBC's post-apocalyptic science fiction television drama Revolution, the premise of which is that all electricity on Earth has been disabled and people are forced to adapt to a world without electricity.

Oh noes! Mankind survived for thousands of years without electricity. Hardly scary stuff. You can survive.

Sen. David Farnsworth (R-Mesa), he of "constitutional" chickens fame, fears one day he will be living the premise of this sci-fi TV series. When one can no longer distinguish between reality and a fictional TV series, I do believe it's time to seek professional help.

I almost spit out my coffee this morning when I read this report. Lawmakers discuss essential supplies for electronic disaster:

State lawmakers are moving to make sure you know what to have on hand when electronic Armageddon strikes.

Legislation approved Wednesday by the Senate Public Safety Committee would require the state Division of Emergency Management to develop recommendations for what Arizonans should buy now and store in the garage, basement or storage room just in case an enemy detonates a nuclear or other bomb that wipes out power and communications in the state — and possibly nationwide.

The place where illusions shattered and dreams died

By Karl Reiner

In Northern Virginia outside of Washington, DC, the stream valley of Little Rocky Run near U.S. Route 29 and the historic village of Centreville located on the plateau to the stream's west played a crucial role in the early days of the Civil War. It is the place where the dreams and illusions of a divided nation, presidents and soldiers began to disintegrate. Today, less than 40 miles down the road, the fragmented U.S. Congress fritters away time sidestepping issues as it unthinkingly ignores the lessons so painfully learned in the past.

The United States had cracked apart due to a complex series of issues involving the growing industrial power of the North, the shifting of the balance of political power in Congress from South to North and the increasingly toxic issues of abolition and slavery. After Abraham Lincoln, an attorney expert in the emerging field of railroad law, won the presidential election of 1860, the planter class of the South decided to quit the Union. The result was a war that nearly everyone in the North and South expected to be inexpensive, glorious, short and decisive.

Benghazi is spelled IOKIYAR

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

 

To be a liberal in America is to be acutely aware of the gaping double standard that exists with regard to the expectations placed on you versus those put on conservatives. The disparity is so enormous that I doubt even the most dimwitted “both sides do it!” centrist pundits can deny it to themselves. Liberals are expected to argue politely and rationally, have our facts perfectly in order, and maintain a calm and pleasant demeanor at all times no matter what mendacious, hateful nonsense the other side is flinging at us. No concomitant expectation exists for conservatives. They are free to behave as poorly as they want and take whatever liberties with the truth they’d like, knowing that “both sides” will be blamed, which lets conservatives escape accountability and encourages them to see how much farther they can push the envelope.

Iran and a host of intertwined problems

By Karl Reiner

On January 12, the P5+1 (the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany) and Iran reached agreement on a joint plan to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months. The next more difficult step will be to negotiate a long-term agreement. Given the differences remaining between the positions of the parties, many skeptics don't think a final deal can be reached. Other analysts think the effort will

falter because Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not willing to give up the option to acquire nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't like any of it. He sees the talks as a major blunder, an Iranian stall to gain extra time.

There is growing support in Congress for placing additional sanctions on Iran. There are serious doubts about what Iranian President Rouhani can actually deliver. Not everyone believes he has a real mandate for change. There is a suspicion that he is the friendly face sent to shield the stall tactics of Iran's supreme leader. The move in the Senate to impose new sanctions does make President Obama look feeble. With Congress smugly failing to acknowledge the agreements that have been reached so far, President Obama is seen by Iran's hardliners as not being in control of his foreign policy. In this tension filled environment, Iran's policy of non-recognition and hostility toward Israel doesn't help matters.

Kavanagh for the kleptocracy of the 'Kochtopus'!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last year I posted that the Goldwater Institute declares war on public employees:

Now the Goldwater Institute "Kochtopus" Death Star wants to extend this fiscally reckless amd irresponsible idea [Tucson public employee pension initiative] to state and local governments in Arizona through a statewide initiative. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Initiative would tie government spending to pension funding:

A proposed ballot measure would effectively bar state and local governments from increasing spending across the board until its employee pension systems are adequately funded.

[The purposefully deceptively named] Responsible Budgets Act, which was filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office on Friday, would bar political entities with underfunded pension systems from increasing spending, except for inflation and population growth. A provision in the initiative defines “adequately funded” as 80 percent funded.

[I-02-2014 Responsible Budgets in Support of Proposition __ and Petition Serial # ____, full text of initiative: PDF]

I am guessing that the Goldwater Institute "Kochtopus" Death Star is also behind this latest bill attacking the state employee pension system as well, sponsored by its waterboy, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills). Lawmaker seeks to allow cuts in public pensions:

An Arizona lawmaker wants the state constitution amended to allow cuts to public employee pensions and increases in employee contributions if the systems are badly underfunded.

Republican Rep. John Kavanagh introduced a bill [HCR 2001 (.pdf)] that would refer the proposal to the voters. He said in an interview he is targeting automatic cost-of-living increases but acknowledged nothing in his proposal would prevent cuts to existing pensions.

Points to ponder as we glide into the New Year

By Karl Reiner

August 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. The war to end all wars did not end war, it was the starting point for the turmoil that led to World War II. The year 1914 began with a sense of self-assuredness and hope in a Europe where colonialism was an accepted fact of life. Peace had reigned for 40 years, communications were improving and trade was on the increase. Advances in medicine and sanitation were having an effect, living standards were on the rise. Economic ties were thought to deter conflict, Germany and the United Kingdom were each other's largest trading partners. Some observers  saw a problem, they believed the European powers were spending too much on armaments.

The European nations were also facing surges of socialism, nationalism and labor unrest intermingled with hefty doses of communism and anarchism. Although there had been limited conflicts in the Balkans, the people of Europe believed their leaders would be able to keep things under control. Germany and England were in race to build more warships. Russia, bruised from setbacks in the Balkans and the loss of the 1904-05 war with Japan, was stoking nationalism. France remained bitter and vengeful for the drubbing it had received from the Germans in 1871. Germany, unified by Bismarck, was no longer bound by his restraint. It sought empire and world respect.

Senate war mongers want to get their war on with Iran

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After all the blood and treasure this country has expended in America's longest war in Afghanistan, and the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, there is still a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators who dream of the next war with Iran.

They won't fight this war of course; and neither will their children. They will send your sons and daughters to die in a war that will drag on at least as long, if not longer, than Afghanistan. And when the inevitable retaliatory terrorist attacks occur, well, that will just serve as a rallying cry for more war. Because there is big money to be made in war, damnit! These senate war mongers want to get their war on with Iran. The fact that this includes Democrats is enraging.

These senators are actively seeking to sabotage the current P5+1 negotiations currently under way with Iran. This is how the Washington Post reported it, Senators defy White House, threaten new Iran sanctions:

A bipartisan group of 26 senators introduced legislation Thursday that threatened new sanctions against Iran, dismissing warnings from the White House that such a move could scuttle efforts to peacefully resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

The bill, called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, drew a rebuke from the Obama administration and highlighted deep divisions among Senate Democrats on whether to heap new pressures on Tehran’s government while sensitive diplomacy is underway.

Hours after the bill’s introduction, a separate group of senior Democrats revealed in a letter that U.S. intelligence agencies had cautioned lawmakers in private briefings about the consequences of new sanctions. A Dec. 10 intelligence assessment had concluded that new punitive measures would “undermine the prospects for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran,” according to the letter, signed by 10 Democrats.

This is how wars get started

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You would never know it from watching the news on the tee-vee in the United States, but there is an international conflict that has been building for over a year in the Pacific between an increasingly aggressive China and its neighbors over who controls the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and the natural resources under the seas.

In November 2012, China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, a "first generation multi-purpose carrier-borne fighter jet" classified as the J-15, landed the first jet on the aircraft carrier. Since then, China's navy has been testing the territorial claims of its neighbors in Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and even Vietnam. These are the kinds of incidents that can easily escalate into a military confrontation where a "miscalculation" occurs.

This past weekend, China established an "air defense identification zone" in the East China Sea. On Tuesday, the U.S. Sent Two B-52 Bombers Into Air Zone Claimed by China (There was no immediate Chinese response to the flights conducted without prior notification as demanded under the new declaration from Beijing). On Thursday, Japan and South Korea defied Chinese air defence zone (again without prior notification as demanded under the new declaration from Beijing).

On Friday, things started getting hairier when China scrambled fighter jets in response. China sends jets as U.S., Japan fly in defense zone:

China said it launched two fighter planes Friday to investigate flights by a dozen U.S. and Japanese reconnaissance and military planes in its new maritime air defense zone over the East China Sea.

It was the first time since proclaiming the zone on Nov. 23 that China said it sent planes there on the same day as foreign military flights, although it said it merely identified the foreign planes and took no further action.

The military-industrial complex and the establishment media reject diplomacy with Iran

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The military-industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisienhower warned Americans against in Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation, needs an enemy -- real or imagined -- to justify the trillions of dollars spent on national security and defense.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) prepares an annual series of reports on international defense spending, The Military Balance 2013 (subscriber-only). In its press release, Military Balance 2013 Press Statement | IISS, the IISS notes that while "the Pentagon was already implementing cuts of $487 billion over ten years, and as a result of sequestration will now need to make additional reductions of $600bn over ten years," . . . "It needs to be remembered, however, that the defense budget of the United States still equals that of the next 14 nations combined (Bar Chart) and the United States still intends to remain engaged globally."

Then there is the establishment media, led by the Washington Post, which is home to Neocons who believe in a Pax Americana empire through military superiority and global domination. The establishment media serves to create the narratives for crises and conflicts and enemies of the United States to maintain taxpayer funding to the military-industrial complex, as well as U.S. interventions abroad. War and the threats of war are big business, and has made a lot of people extremely wealthy.

The military-industrial complex and the establishment media have a vested financial interest in maintaining wars and the threats of wars. If peace were to break out, they could no longer justify the trillions of dollars spent on national security and defense ans marketing war.

Which brings me to the breakthrough deal brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and our allies with Iran late Saturday. After 34 years of a "cold war" between the U.S. and Iran, this rapprochement of diplomatic relations was long overdue. Iran, six world powers reach historic deal on nuclear program.

Think of all the blood and treasure lost in the Obamacare rollout!

by David Safier

Oh wait. That was the Iraq War and the botched aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Never mind.

General Giap’s fearsome legacy

By Karl Reiner

North Vietnamese Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap died last month at the age of 102. The news stories reporting the general's demise brought back memories of the distant rumble of artillery, illumination flares hanging in the night sky, helicopter rides and the clatter of small arms fire. And the chilly remembrance that the situation in Vietnam was far more convoluted than we had been led to believe. Gen. Giap's strategic decisions affected America's 8.2 million Vietnam era veterans in one way or another, especially the nearly 2.6 million that served in the country. By the time U.S. troops departed in 1973, American losses in Vietnam totaled over 58,000 killed and more than 153,000 seriously wounded.

Giap became active in politics in the 1920s, studied law and political economy. At one time, he taught history. He worked as a journalist in the 1930s. A ferocious nationalist, he joined the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1931. Although lacking formal training, Giap began his military exploits resisting the Japanese occupiers in the latter stages of WW II. In a landmark campaign during the First Indochina War in 1954, Gen. Giap overwhelmed the French forces at Dien Bien Phu. His 55,000 troops occupied the surrounding mountains, dismantled artillery pieces were hauled up the steep slopes by hand. The astonishing and complex effort was supported by the toil of 260,000 laborers.

South Carolina and another nullification crisis

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post's Colbert King got it exactly right in The rise of the New Confederacy.

South Carolina, the state that gave us the Nullification Crisis with the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification in 1832, until Congress in 1833 passed a Force Bill, authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina ended the crisis.

South Carolina, the home of Senator John C. Calhoun, the intellectual force behind states' rights and nullification, under which states could declare null and void federal laws which they viewed as unconstitutional, and who was an inspiration to the secessionists of 1860–61.

South Carolina, the first state to secede from the United States with the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.

South Carolina, whose Confederate militia batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the first shots of the American Civil War in 1861.

South Carolina, which has refused to accept its defeat in the Civil War or to accept the post-Civil War Amendments, in particular the 14th Amendment, which forever ended any debate over Sen. Calhoun's theories of nullification and secession.

An opening for a diplomatic initiative with Iran

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran."
-- Senior Bush Official, May 2003

Remember this supremely arrogant statement from the Neocon war mongers who lied this country into an unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq, and triumphantly declared their willingness to take this country into another war with Iran?

President Barack Obama has an opportunity to turn this supreme arrogance on its head in a "Nixon goes to China" moment in U.S. diplomacy. I would not be suprised if this leads to a state visit by President Obama to Tehran in the next year or so in a major diplomatic initiative.

Obama's first opportunity will come at the United Nations next Tuesday. US and Iran eye diplomatic defrosting at UN:

President Barack Obama and Iran's new president may meet briefly next week for the first time, marking a symbolic but significant step toward easing their countries' tense relationship. An exchange of letters between the leaders already has raised expectations for a revival of stalled nuclear talks.

* * *

Both Obama and Rouhani will be in New York next week for the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. The White House hasn't ruled out the possibility of a direct exchange, though spokesman Jay Carney said no meeting is scheduled.

Obama has long said he would be open to discussions with his Iranian counterparts if Tehran shows it is serious about curbing its nuclear program.

"There have been a lot of interesting things said out of Tehran and the new government - and encouraging things," Carney said Thursday. "But actions speak louder than words."

U.N. inspectors' report: 'clear and convincing evidence' that chemical weapons were used in Syria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

For all the media villages who have been playing the game of "show us the (classified) evidence" of chemical weapons use in Syria, the U.N. inspectors said Monday there is "clear and convincing evidence" that chemical weapons were used on a relatively large scale in an attack last month in Syria that killed hundreds of people. UN: 'Convincing evidence' of Syria chemical attack:

The findings represent the first official confirmation by scientific experts that chemical weapons were used in Syria's civil war, but the report left the key question of who launched the attack unanswered. The rebels and their U.S. and Western supporters have said the regime of President Bashar Assad was behind the Aug. 21 attack, while the Syrian government and its closest ally, Russia, blame the rebels.

Note: The inspectors were mandated to report on whether chemical weapons were used and if so which ones — not on who was responsible.

And in Geneva, the chairman of a U.N. war crimes panel said it is investigating 14 suspected chemical attacks in Syria, dramatically escalating the stakes. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said the panel had not pinpointed the chemical used or who is responsible.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presented the U.N. inspectors' report to a closed meeting of the U.N. Security Council before its release.

Note to the right-wing propaganda noise machine: Putin is not that into you

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Steve Benen today adds his take to the points I made in posts over the weekend about unfolding events in Syria, and the massive messaging problem the right-wing propaganda noise machine of the conservative media entertainment complex is having. The right struggles to hide its disappointment with diplomatic progress:

A couple of years ago, after the United States and its allies used military force to help remove the Gadhafi's government from Libya, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) issued one of my favorite Republican press releases ever. The two senators, who had eagerly spent months touting U.S. military action in Libya, issued a joint statement commending the "British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE."

McCain and Graham eventually said Americans can be "proud of the role our country" played, but they nevertheless condemned the Obama administration's "failure" to act in Libya the way the GOP senators preferred.

It was striking at the time for its bitterness -- the United States had achieved its strategic goals, but instead of celebrating or applauding Obama's success, Republicans pouted and whined.

It's funny how history sometimes repeats itself. Over the course of six days, the Obama administration pushed Syria into the chemical weapons convention, helped create a diplomatic framework that will hopefully rid Syria of its stockpiles, successfully pushed Russia into a commitment to help disarm its own ally, quickly won support from the United Nations and our allies, and did all of this without firing a shot.

Will U.S-Russia bilateral cooperation lead to talks with Iran?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A couple of under-the-radar reports that will get more media attention in the coming days. Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, has been signaling his openness to direct talks with the U.S. since his election. US, EU See New Hope for Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News. Bloomberg reports, Rouhani Says Iran Plans to Restart Nuclear Talks in NY:

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said his government plans to restart nuclear talks with world powers in New York, where he will attend the United Nations General Assembly this month.

The “serious talks” should help lead to a “win-win” final outcome in the dispute over the Islamic republic’s nuclear program, Rouhani said in an interview on Iranian state-run television [last week]. The negotiations will involve the International Atomic Energy Agency and the so-called P5+1 group, made up of the five permanent UN Security Council members in addition to Germany, he said.

“The nuclear issue will be resolved soon if the other side is serious,” he said. “The final result should be a win-win. We are ready for it.”

John McCain, war monger

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" - Oliver Cromwell Address to the Rump Parliament (20 April 1653)

This is the message Arizonan's should send to their embittered, angry old man, Sen. John McCain, who has been making a complete ass of himself and embarrassing the residents of this state with his perpetual war mongering.

"If it's Sunday, it's John McCain," and this Sunday Arizona's embittered, angry old man is once again a guest on NBC's "Meet the Press" — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.

On Saturday, after the U.S. and Russia announced a breakthrough agreement on ridding Syria of its chemical weapons, the Neocon war monger John McCain and his puppet boy, Little Lindsey Graham, who see war in Syria as a jumping-off point for the war with Iran that they long for, were critical of the deal. McCain, Graham blast Syrian chemical weapons deal:

Two Republican senators who are among President Barack Obama's sharpest foreign policy critics on Saturday blasted a Syrian chemical weapons agreement as "an act of provocative weakness" by America that will embolden enemies such as Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon.

* * *

"What concerns us most is that our friends and enemies will take the same lessons from this agreement: They see it as an act of provocative weakness on America's part," Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a joint statement. "We cannot imagine a worse signal to send to Iran as it continues its push for a nuclear weapon."

And there it is . . . the war with Iran that these Neocon war mongers long for.

A remarkable week of events re: Syria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The right-wing propaganda noise machine of the conservative media entertainment complex is having a massive messaging problem over Syria.

These chicken hawk war mongers, who have been critical of President Obama for the past two years for not getting their Neocon war on in Syria, suddenly became isolationist pacifists when President Obama threatened the use of military force against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against civilians in violation of international treaties. "Whatever Obama does, we do exactly the opposite."

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry made a "rhetorical argument" at a press conference: "Sure, [Assad] could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay," Kerry said. "But he isn’t about to." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately jumped at Kerry's "offer," and Russia's client state Syria said it "welcomed" the offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed.

All media villagers, echoing the right-wing propaganda noise machine, adopted the meme that Secretary Kerry had 'bumbled" his way into a possible resolution. Even Jon Stewart of The Daily Show got caught up in this meme, comparing Secretary Kerry to Mr. Magoo.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee approves resolution for use of force in Syria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post reports, Senate panel passes resolution authorizing strike on Syria (paragraphs have been reordered):

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday granting President Obama limited authority to launch a military strike on Syria in response to its reported use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Acting hours after Obama, during a visit to Sweden, said the credibility of Congress and the international community was also at stake, the committee voted 10 to 7, with one member voting “present,” to approve using force against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

* * *

The senators voting in favor of the resolution were Menendez, McCain, ranking member Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Voting against were Paul and Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) voted “present.”

* * *

The committee approved a McCain amendment aimed at strengthening the moderate rebel groups fighting Assad.

* * *

The resolution now goes to the full Senate. The House is separately considering a similar resolution.

President Obama to seek congressional authorization for use of force in Syria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama announced today that as commander-in-chief, he has decided that the U.S. should take military action against Syria for the use of chemical weapons against its civilian population in violation of the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). (Syria is one of only seven countries that have not signed the CWC). The President will seek congressional authorization for use of force in Syria. Statement by the President on Syria:

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.  This would not be an open-ended intervention.  We would not put boots on the ground.  Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.  But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose.  Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now.  And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I've made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress. 

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard.  I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

Video below the fold.

Struggling On Syria

Posted by Bob Lord

I'm glad it's not my decision how to handle the Syrian situation. I'd make a bad decider on this one. 

I have friends in the Syrian-American community here and have discussed the situation with them. They have family in Syria. They've lost loved ones to Assad. Make no mistake about it, Assad's pure concentrated evil. My Syrian friends are certain that the U.S. must act to avoid mass bloodshed. They may be right.

But when the drums of war start beating, I get a sick feeling. I'm about halfway through Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars and I just read a piece about Hans Blix's view of the situation. Political and military leaders love war, and Obama is no exception. We're now hearing it's a certainty that Assad used chemical weapons. He's clearly evil enough to do so, but why would he? Militarily, his situation is not desperate enough to call for chemical weapons and politically his use of them would be suicidal. Would he intentionally provoke U.S. involvement on the side of the rebels? 

And why is this more an Obama decision than a UN decision?

Ultimately, I don't believe we can engage on a limited basis. So American kids likely would die. I then have to ask myself if I'd be willing to risk losing one of my kids to a war in Syria, because if I'm not willing to go there, I can't expect any other parent to either. 

I guess I'm not there yet. 

Afghanistan's unsettled future

By Karl Reiner

President Obama has committed to winding down American military involvement in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.  After a dozen years of fighting extremists and fabricating a nation, the combat role is ending.  The U.S. and NATO are training the Afghan army and police to assume security duties.  As foreign troops depart, donor nations have agreed to pay $5-7 billion annually to fund Afghan security forces.

At the present time, there are approximately 100,000 foreign troops in the country.  About 66,000 are American, the remainder from NATO allies.  Due to disputes with the Karzai government regarding the status of forces agreement, there is a possibility that no troops will remain in Afghanistan after 2014.

If the stalled agreement is not signed, all foreign troops will leave. This is a problem because the Afghan forces are not capable of providing logistics, medical evacuation, intelligence or air support.  This deficiency results in a need for between 12,000 and 20,000 foreign troops to remain in Afghanistan.  About two-thirds would be American.  The agreement needs to be signed by November to allow planning for a post-2014 military presence.

War without end

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There are several cringe-worthy headlines in the news today:

First, Dempsey urges Afghan approval of post-2014 U.S. presence:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday that he wanted the United States and Afghanistan to complete a security partnership agreement by October, allowing for the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey played down the chances that no U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan after the United States formally terminates its combat role by the end of next year. He urged rapid completion of an accord that would pave the way for a long-term American presence here, and he expressed optimism that the agreement could be completed soon, despite public opposition from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Without a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) the U.S. would withdraw all combat personnel in 2014, as it did in Iraq when the SOFA negotiated by President George W. Bush expired at midnight on the 31st of December, 2011, without a new SOFA agreement.

Next, Congressional panels approve arms aid to Syrian opposition:

The House and Senate intelligence committees have approved CIA weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, allowing the Obama administration to move ahead on the stalled program, senior congressional and administration officials said Monday.

Despite ongoing “very strong concerns about the strength of the administration’s plans in Syria and its chances for success,” the House committee reached consensus “after much discussion and review,” Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said in a statement.

Happy birthday Malala Yousufzai

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A year after being shot in the head by the Taliban, Malala Yousufzai drew standing ovations today at the UN Youth Assembly on her 16th birthday. This is one fearless, courageous young woman. Maybe one day she will save her country.

Video below the fold.

Military coup d'état unfolding in Egypt

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

After weeks of protest against President Mohamed Morsi, the shit hit the fan today. There is a military coup d'état unfolding in Egypt after Morsi refused to step down and call for early elections. NBC News reports, Egypt coup? Morsi aide says tanks on move:

Forces allied with the president of Egypt said Wednesday that a military coup was under way and that tanks were on the move outside Cairo.

Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, backers of President Mohammed Morsi, said that some of its leaders have been rounded up and arrested. A Morsi adviser told NBC News that communication with the president had been cut off.

A military deadline for the president of Egypt to give up power came and went with no sign of a resolution to the standoff and both sides vowing that they were prepared to fight to the death.

As the military appeared to take control of state television, thousands of people massed in Tahrir Square in Cairo, waving flags, singing patriotic songs and demanding the ouster of Morsi.

They danced and cheered after a local television report that Morsi was under house arrest, but two presidential advisers told NBC News that the report was not true.

Laser lights spell out a message to President Mohammed Morsi as protesters congregate in Cairo's landmark Tahrir Square on July 2. (Khaled Desouki / AFP - Getty Images)

Iran's election and the Syrian dilemma

By Karl Reiner

Taking office in August, Hassan Rowhani becomes Iran's new president at the age of 64.  The former nuclear negotiator got over 51% of the vote in a race with five other candidates. He received 18.6 million votes. About 75% of eligible voters went to the polls.  Rowhani won because Iran's reformist groups considered him the best candidate available.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his hardliners control key aspects of Iran's political system.  Despite their efforts to put a conservative into the president's job, the race was won by the most moderate of the approved candidates.  Rowhani, a member of two of Iran's top governing bodies, is experienced in economics and social issues.  While he has an Iranian revolutionary's suspicion of the West, Rowhani does not value ideology and resistance over pragmatism and results.

The conflict between security needs and the media is timeless

By Karl Reiner

Some things never seem to change.  Government and the media exist in an uneasy relationship, especially in time of war.  The unhappy association is replete with competing and conflicting interests.  The rights of the media often conflict with the government's need for secrecy.  During the Civil War, generals such as Lee, Johnston and Sherman believed newspapers were a hindrance to them because they published information that was useful to the enemy.

Commanders on both sides avidly read newspapers published in enemy territory because they were good sources of information. Since the governments of the United States and Confederate States maintained the tradition of allowing the press to function relatively freely, the complaining generals may have had a point.

Misplaced Congressional Priorities: Pork for the Pentagon but Not for Children

by Pamela Powers Hannley

During the Bush II Era, excessive deficit spending was no big deal for Republicans. Congressional Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, and even current “budget hawk” Paul Ryan “spent money like drunken sailors”– particularly when the spending benefited the 1% (remember the tax cuts we couldn’t afford?) or corporations (two wars, Medicare Advantage, off-shoring jobs, more tax cuts, privatization, etc.)

But as soon as a Democratic President occupied the White House, the siren song became: We must tighten our belts and live within our means! Cut government jobs…er… spending! Cut Social Security… er… “entitlements”! 

This austerity screed intensified after the Democratic “shellacking” in 2010 when Teapublicans took control of the House of Representatives and the budget, and Senate Teapublicans began playing games with people’s lives by filibustering everything. (No wonder Congress has a 16% approval rating.)

For the past few months, Congress has been weighing the pros and cons of budget cuts and pork barrel projects. Food stamps and schools lunches are on the chopping block, while the Congress considers passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, which authorizes $640 billion more in defense spending than the Pentagon asked for. (This action was passed by the House Armed Services committee last week; the full vote in the House of Representatives is scheduled for today– Wednesday, June 12.) More details about Pentegon pork after the jump.

NSA leaker comes forward

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post is reporting Edward Snowden identified as source of NSA leaks:

Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old system administrator and former undercover CIA employee, unmasked himself Sunday as the principal source of recent Washington Post and Guardian disclosures about top-secret NSA programs, denouncing what he described as systematic surveillance of innocent citizens and saying in an interview, “it’s important to send a message to government that people will not be intimidated.”

* * *

Snowden, whose full name is Edward Joseph Snowden, said he understands the risks of disclosing the information, but that he felt it was the right thing to do.

“I intend to ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy,” Snowden told the Post. The Guardian was the first to publicly identify Snowden. Both media organizations made his name public with his consent.

“I’m not going to hide,” Snowden said Sunday afternoon. “Allowing the U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is contrary to the public interest.”

“I’m not going to hide” and “I intend to ask for asylum" are contradictory statements, Mr. Snowden. True courage means turning yourself in to stand trial in the U.S.

Update: The surveillance society that Americans chose to live in

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There has been quite a bit of discussion today about a New York Times editorial in which the editors declare "The administration has now lost all credibility" as a result of the NSA data mining program(s). President Obama’s Dragnet.

I would point out that the New York Times lost all credibility on this subject years ago when it withheld publication of a report on the Bush-Cheney administration's unconstitutional and illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program for over a year until 2005 -- after the presidential election had passed -- when this report might have affected the outcome of the 2004 election.

And Judith Miller, the Times reporter who peddled the bogus weapons of mass destruction to justify the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, and who went to jail for her role in the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA covert operative.

That's pretty much "hello pot, meet kettle." The Times is in no position to judge anyone's credibility.

The surveillance society that Americans chose to live in

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

So everyone is having a freak-out today over Glenn Greenwald and Spencer Ackerman’s big scoop in The Guardian on the secret court order compelling Verizon to turn over to the NSA basically all of its call record data (as do other communications networks).  NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily.

I don't know what everyone is so excited about. Congress overwhelmingly approved the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and Americans terrified of terrorist attacks after 9-11 overwhelmingly approved surrendering their liberty for a false sense of security. Have you all forgotten that?

I fought the USA Patriot Act, and I have fought every extension of the Act -- which the American people and Congress also overwhelmingly supported. You all got what you wanted. There is no surprise here. The government has been doing exactly what you asked for since 2001.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee co-chairs said today, ‘It’s Called Protecting America’: Senators Defend NSA On Phone Records:

The top two senators on the Intelligence Committee on Thursday defended the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone records after it was reported in The Guardian.

“It is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress,” Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told reporters at an impromptu news conference in the Capitol. “This is just meta data. There is no content involved. In other words, no content of a communication. … The records can only be accessed under heightened standards.”

“I read intelligence carefully. And I know that people are trying to get to us,” Feinstein said. “This is the reason we keep TSA doing what it’s doing. This the reason the FBI now has 10,000 people doing intelligence on counter-terrorism. This is the reason for the national counter-terrorism center that’s been set up in the time we’ve been active.”

“And it’s to ferret this out before it happens,” she said. “It’s called protecting America.”

Follow Up On Obama Torture (Yes, It Sucks Even Worse)

Posted by Bob Lord

I posted a few days back on the Obama administration's use of torture at Guantanamo. This a follow-up.

I'm part way through Jeremy Scahill's, Dirty Wars, and came upon this quote from Lawrence Wilkerson, describing the reliance by Special Ops forces on faulty intelligence:

You go in and you get some intelligence, and usually your intelligence comes through this apparatus too, and so you say, 'Oh, this is really good actionable intelligence. Here's "Operation Blue Thuder." Go do it.' And they go do it, and they kill 27, 30, 40 people, whatever, and they capture seven or eight. Then you find out that the intelligence was bad and you killed a bunch of innocent people and you have a bunch of innocent people on your hands, so you stuff 'em in Guantanamo. No one knows anything about that. (emphasis mine)

When you put that next to what's happened with the Guantanamo detainees, it's ugly. Ugly as in "this is what the history books will say about America 50 years from now."

Sen. John McCain's questionable friends

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I posted about this bit of American history years ago which has apparently disappeared down the "memory hole":

John McCain was a patron of Ahmad Chalabi, the exiled leader of the Iraqi National Congress (and a fugitive from justice in Europe) whom Neoconservatives like McCain supported and thereby lent his credibility.  Chalabi and his protege "Curveball" provided U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense with falsified information that the Neoconservatives relied upon to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Part 1 of the investigative report by Mark G. Levey explored "McCain's Role in the WMD Cover-up, John McCain and Charlie Black's War, How a senator and a lobbyist led the deception campaign that tricked the U.S."  Read the full report here Election Fraud News & The Money party.

Our boy John McCain is back at it again, this time supporting questionable characters in the Syrian opposition forces with links to al Qaida. McCain's motto: "Shoot first, ask questions later. Damn the consequences."

On Monday, John McCain, a supporter of U.S. intervention in Syria, slipped silently into the country to meet with opposition leaders. McCain: ‘We Can Help The Right People’ In Syria:

A State Department official confirmed that the department was aware of the trip, and in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, McCain repeatedly expressed his gratitude to the State Department, as well as to the rebel groups, for providing his security.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that Syrian rebels "do not understand why the U.S. won't help them" during an appearance Wednesday night on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

Sen. Jon McCain's statement on President Obama's terrorism speech

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have to admit, I am surprised by Sen. John McCain's fairly gracious response to President Obama's terrorism speech on Thursday.

Here is Sen. John McCain's statement:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S SPEECH ON TERRORISM TODAY

May 23, 2013

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement on President Obama’s speech on terrorism today at the National Defense University in Washington, DC: 

“There is much that I support in President Obama's speech today. Though I continue to have questions and concerns about specific details of how he plans to achieve the goals he laid out today, I believe there is common ground to work with the President to advance both our counterterrorism objectives and our highest values as a nation of laws.

“I support the President’s plan to consolidate the use of armed drones in the Department of Defense. That is the appropriate department of our government to conduct military operations against our enemies. Assigning this role to the Department would enable our other government agencies to focus their precious time and resources on furthering their own essential core missions. 

“I also support the President’s reaffirmation of the goal of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That is a goal I have long shared. More than four years ago, the President said he would close Guantanamo but did not put forward a concrete plan to do so. I look forward to seeing the specifics of the plan the President outlined today.

“As the President suggested, closing Guantanamo will require bringing some detainees inside the United States to stand trial in civilian courts or military commissions, as appropriate. It will also require transferring other detainees back to their home countries or to other foreign locations in a way that limits the risk of recidivism as much as possible. And, for those detainees who unfortunately cannot be brought to trial but who are too dangerous to release, closing Guantanamo will require those individuals to be held indefinitely in the United States. This long-term detention should include periodic review and additional due process safeguards. I encourage the President to work with Congress on what additional authorities may be needed to establish a legal framework to meet this goal that is consistent with our national security and principles of justice. 

President Obama: ‘This War, Like All Wars, Must End’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

As the New York Times editorialized this afternoon, "For the first time, President Obama clearly stated that the current state of war is unsustainable for a democracy and that it must come to an end." The End of the Perpetual War.

From the White House blog:

Today at National Defense University, President Obama laid out the framework for U.S. counterterrorism strategy as we wind down the war in Afghanistan.

President Obama discussed how the threat of terrorism has changed substantially since September 11, 2011, and explained his comprehensive strategy to meet these threats.

Read the prepared remarks here.

Fact sheet on U.S. policy standards and procedures for use of force in counterterrorism outside U.S., via Daily Kos.

Video (hour long) below the fold.

Benghazi! 'A tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There has been a remarkable amount of bad journalism this week from the corporate "lamestream" media, taking its cue from the hysterical conspiracy mongering conservative media entertainment complex cult on "Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!!". This is the right-wing noise machine's business model, as Jonathan Bernstein pointed out in The real lesson of Benghazi:

Part of what’s happening is, as Jamelle Bouie pointed out today, the strong demand within the conservative marketplace for scandal. But there’s more than that; it’s not just a demand for scandal, but how easily the customers accept anything presented to them. The result — and Alex Pareene is very good on this today — is that they don’t bother putting together a “coherent or convincing narrative.”

Pareene usefully contrasts Benghazi and other Obama scandals to the Bill Clinton scandals of the 1990s .  . . With Obama, there’s no need for these scandals to make sense; the conservative press will run with them either way. And there might even be an advantage to incoherence. After all, if the accusations are gibberish, the neutral reporters will tend to ignore them — and then conservatives can go on conservative talk radio and Fox News and charge the rest of the press of ignoring these extremely important charges.

Andrew Sabl asks the right questions that the lazy good for nothing Beltway media villagers are not asking. On Benghazi—An honest plea for specific charges:

Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

'Fools rush in where angels fear to tread' - Sens. McCain and Graham call for U.S. intervention in Syria

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Last week, the Obama administration announced that U.S. Intelligence points to small-scale use of sarin in Syria:

In a letter sent to lawmakers before Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's announcement, the White House said that intelligence analysts have concluded "with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin."

The White House cautioned that the "chain of custody" of the chemicals was not clear and that intelligence analysts could not confirm the circumstances under which the sarin was used, including the role of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

But, the letter said, "we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime."

Note the caution and need for further investigation of the evidence in this statement. This is the lesson learned from the fabrication of intelligence and lies told to falsely lead this country into an unnecessary war in Iraq. Contrast this restraint with Neocon war monger Sen. John McCain, who said the evidence is good enough for him, let's intervene in Syria yesterday:

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, urged the administration to work for the establishment of a safe zone for Syrian rebels.

"Everything that the non-interventionists said would happen in Syria if we intervened has happened," he said. "The jihadists are on the ascendency, there is chemical weapons being used, the massacres continue.

It's time to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Can we seat a Nuremberg Tribunal-style panel of judges now to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes in the name of America? (Statutes of limitations do not apply to war crimes).

The New York Times today reports  "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that 'it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture' and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it." U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes:

The sweeping, 577-page report [Document: Constitution Project’s Report on Detainee Treatment] says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

Sanctions, resistance and a campaign trip to Iran

By Karl Reiner

Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran by President Carter in response to the hostage crisis.  They are currently imposed by the UN, U.S. and EU to prod Iran into negotiating the nuclear issue.  The goal is to make life difficult for the population. It is hoped that the economic squeeze will create enough popular pressure to force the Iranian government to agree to a nuclear deal.

Sanctions have delayed Israeli military action. At the UN, they have helped maintain unity between the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.  The combination of Iranian mismanagement and sanctions are slowing the Iranian economy.  In 2011, Iran produced 3.6 million barrels of oil per day. Oil provides the government over 50% of its income.  Its output has been depressed by 25%.  Iran's GDP has slipped by 8%, inflation has climbed to 10%, and unemployment stands at 20%.

Is Team America headed for a Korean Barbeque?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone may want to reassemble Team America: World Police (2004), because it is increasingly apparent that new North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is even crazier than his old man, Kim Jong-il -- this man-child is threatening a Korean Barbeque (nuclear war) to "settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists."

Reuters News Service reported on Wednesday, North Korea to cut all channels with South:

Reclusive North Korea is to cut the last channel of communications with the South because war could break out at "any moment", it said on Wednesday, days of after warning the United States and South Korea of nuclear attack.

The move is the latest in a series of bellicose threats from North Korea in response to new U.N. sanctions imposed after its third nuclear test in February and to "hostile" military drills under way joining the United States and South Korea.

The North has already stopped responding to calls on the hotline to the U.S. military that supervises the heavily armed Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and the Red Cross line that has been used by the governments of both sides.

"Under the situation where a war may break out at any moment, there is no need to keep north-south military communications which were laid between the militaries of both sides," the North's KCNA news agency quoted a military spokesman as saying.

"There do not exist any dialogue channel and communications means between the DPRK and the U.S. and between the north and the south."

Can an American-Iranian optimist become president of Iran?

By Karl Reiner

The Iran-Iraq war has been forgotten.  The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the campaign to drive them out is old history.  The 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is quietly observed as the military effort in Afghanistan slowly winds down.  At the same time, tensions grow between the West and Iran over Iran's nuclear program.  To deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons, UN, U.S. and European Union sanctions have been imposed.

Israel has threatened to take military action unless Iran abandons the program suspected of developing nuclear weapons.  Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, states that the Islamic Republic will retaliate if its nuclear facilities are attacked. Iran will strike Israeli cities. Although negotiations between the West and Iran continue, there is a drift toward war.

Ten Years After the Iraq Invasion, Lessons Remain Unlearned

By Michael Bryan

Now that the Iraq war has been "ended" by Obama's draw down of active combat troops (I scare quote here because of the thousands of embassy personnel and private defense contractors still in country), and the ten year anniversary of the invasion is upon us, it is perhaps time to try for a little perspective on this passage in American political history.

I continue to view the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a massive crime of control fraud perpetrated by the Bush junta to extract hundreds of billions from the public fisc to line the pockets of the corporate welfare state wards known collectively as the defense industry. But the historical treatment of that fraud and its long-term impact on American government and politics is what I think deserves more discussion.

As I write, a concerted effort at historical revision by many of the key players in the Iraq fraud is underway throughout the media. People who perpetrated and participated in the Bush Administration's national security follies now seek to cast the Iraq fraud as a successful, if costly, mission to free the Iraqi people from tyranny.

 

That effort is a subtle poison undermining American security.

The Iraq War: 10 years later no one has been held accountable

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War -- an unnecessary "war of choice" built upon a mountain of lies and deception, fabricated intelligence, and media propaganda -- that was illegal under international law and treaties because Iraq did not pose an "imminent threat of harm" to the United States.

To this day, not one of the architects of this unnecessary and illegal war, whether the Neocons in the conservative think tanks, members of the Bush-Cheney administration or Congress, members of the Tony Blair government in Britain, military contractors and military leaders of the Pentagon, the spectacularly failed intelligence agencies, or members of the propagandist media have been held to account for their crimes under the law. Not one.

The media villagers invent their new 'Chauncey Gardiner'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

At the outset, let me state that I have real issues with the concept of drone warfare. I have no problem with the use of drones for the gathering of battlefield intelligence. We should be using the most state of the art technology available for tactical advantage to protect the lives of our troops and noncombatants alike.

It is the use of drones as "remote control" weapons from command centers thousands of miles removed from the battlefield that leaves an uneasy feeling that the controller is playing a video game and is detached from the real-life horrors of war when the drone fires its weapons. (I do not mean to suggest that drone pilots are soulless video game players. I understand from recent reporting that many of them have sought psychological counseling associated with their work).

But it is all too clinical. It is the horrors of war that makes men disinclined to wage a war. It reminds me of a classic Star Trek episode, A Taste of Armageddon (1967), in which two worlds at war with one another fight a war via computer simulation. The citizens of each planet have to voluntarily submit themselves for real executions inside "disintegration booths" based upon the results of the simulated attacks.

The Drones Are Coming: FBI Seeks Info on Drone Spotted in JFK Air Space

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Many Americans don't have a problem with the drone warfare being waged by the United States against "persons of interest," "enemy combatants," or "terrorists" because: 1) we have an old west "get the bad guys" attitude toward foreign policy; 2) we use drones because we can; and 3) drones kill other people's citizens not ours (except in the cases when we have killed US citizens with drones). Right now, we are the big bully on the block with drone warfare, but 70+ countries now have drone technology, and soon US air space will be opened up to drone usage by law enforcement. 

It looks as if that future-- the future where we may be attacked by the technology we created-- came a bit closer to reality today. According to the Huffington Post, an Alitalia pilot reported a close encounter with an unknown drone in the air space over John F. Kennedy International Airport outside of New York City. More details after the jump.

Bushonomics still holding back the economy

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Federal deficits and debt have risen under President Obama, but the evidence continues to show that the Bush Great Recession, President Bush’s tax cuts, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain most of the deficits that have occurred on Obama’s watch — based on the latest Congressional Budget Office projections. Excerpts from a new report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Though some lawmakers and pundits continue to blame record deficits on the President’s policies in general — and his actions to boost the economy and stabilize the financial system in particular — these policies increase budget deficits only briefly; they will have no significant impact on the long-term problem of large deficits and rising debt.

* * *

Although longer-term pressures on spending stem chiefly from an aging population and rising health-care costs, those pressures are not new.  Policymakers knew about them when they enacted the Bush-era tax cuts and assented to fighting two wars on borrowed money.  (These pressures also were taken into account in the Congressional Budget Office projections issued at the start of 2001, which showed budget surpluses for the next several decades.)

The goal of reining in long-term deficits and debt would be much easier to achieve if it were not for the policies set in motion during the Bush years.  That era’s tax cuts — most of which policymakers extended in this year’s American Taxpayer Relief Act, with President Obama’s support — and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the debt that we will owe, under current policies, by 2019.  By contrast, the economic recovery measures and financial rescues will account for just over 10 percent of the debt at that time.

Senate breaks the new 'Three Stooges' filibuster of Chuck Hagel

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The U.S. Senate today broke the filibuster by the new "Three Stooges," John McCain, his puppet boy Little Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte ("Shemp"). The Washington Post reports, Hagel clears filibuster hurdle, is poised for confirmation:

Chuck Hagel’s bid to become the next defense secretary cleared a major hurdle Tuesday, beating back a Republican effort to block his nomination almost two weeks after GOP senators launched a filibuster.

On a 71 to 27 vote, easily clearing the 60-vote threshold, the former Republican senator is poised for confirmation later Tuesday afternoon, overcoming Republican objections to his views on Middle East security.

Eighteen Republicans supported moving to a final vote, joining 53 Democrats. Some of the Republicans who supported ending the Hagel filibuster — including his chief opponents, Sens. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — are expected to oppose him on the final vote, which will only require a simple majority for his confirmation.