Inspired by KT's Special Comment at Burnt Orange Report this week, I have one related to hate crimes.
So this week I heard from Barney Frank's office that the defense authorization bill would soon be voted upon in the House. The House already passed one version, H.R. 2647, but the approved Senate version (S. 1390) contained an amendment expanding the definition of hate crimes to protect the LGBT community. So, they are in conference. Frank was urging leaders in the LGBT community to ask activists to call their House member and support the passage of a bill with hate crimes protections in it.
In response, I heard a lot of disgust that this was the way hate crimes was going to be done, and a lot of selling-our-soul talk because a defense bill authorizes, well, military activities. I saw exactly one e-mail go out asking LGBT activists to call in support- from the Stonewall Democrats- and no blog posts or any other kind of organizing. Meanwhile, our opponents are organizing against it.
I wrote a little bit previously about a lot of grumbling in the LGBT community that why aren't our issues being voted on now now now, what good is a Dem majority and President, etc. etc. Now, after the Dem leadership and Frank have acted on hate crimes, the new griping is that it isn't done as a stand-alone bill. Seriously.
Okay, let's look at how this shapes up.
To the Democratic leadership, there are a lot more pressing issues on the agenda, and if we're holding our breaths for a stand-alone hate crimes bill to be the very next thing on the agenda, or even considered this year, we'll be waiting quite awhile. In a time when every community has been waiting eight years to finally have a chance to move on an issue, there is a very crowded line. Passing it via the defense bill is the swiftest way to achieve this, and a chance I don't want to give up.
The Senate takes forever to do anything, and is going to be at it on health care for the next month at least, then probably spend another several weeks voting on cap and trade, and the defense bill, and who knows what else that is of greater priority to the leadership and most Americans.
Re whether a D majority means anything, there's an expectation out there that you can just pull stand-alone bills up and vote on them like flipping on a light switch when you have the majority. Doesn't work that way. Politics gets in the way, the fact that the Senate takes forever gets in the way, and frankly, so do more pressing issues, like getting the economy out of the trash heap, which took up a lot of debate time earlier this year. Republicans also get in the way- I thought by now DC would have a vote in Congress, until the Republicans attached a horrid amendment related to guns. Such is life.
This, to me, emphasizes the importance of taking the chances when we get them, and this is a chance.
For those who complain this is selling your soul to the devil or whatever, go read the bill. It covers everything from salaries of military employees to mental health care for their family members to establishing a voter registration office on military bases to buying staplers at the Pentagon. That's the reason the Senate version passed with 87 votes and the House version with 389. And that happens every year. You're conflating Bush's $87 billion for Iraq request with bills such as this. So your decision to pick up the phone or not will not mean more or less war. It could means no hate crimes protections if that amendment isn't included.
The only plausible objection I could see is that if hate crimes is passed as a stand-alone will, it will make some headlines "Congress passes equal protections for gays" "Obama: gays deserve the same protections", etc. If it passes this way, somewhere buried in paragraph five of the story on the defense bill will be "Attached to the bill was an amendment..." So it won't get the attention it deserves. To me, this isn't worth waiting another who knows how many months, not to mention the real-life consequences, if we opt not to do it this way.
So this insistence on wanting it done as a stand-alone is absurd. Please do contact your member. I'd rather have a defense bill that will pass anyway do some good for the LGBT community.
There is key information missing in General Stanley McChrystal's recipe to reform U.S. detentions in Afghanistan. The plan, part of the General's 66-page assessment published by the Washington Post, outlines a strategy to turn over "all detention operations in Afghanistan ... to the Afghan government once they have developed the requisite sustainable capacity to run those systems properly." This is the correct objective for the United States, but some of the ingredients for achieving it need to be filled in.
"Congressman Sestak is a flagrant hypocrite in challenging my being a real Democrat when he did not register as a Democrat until 2006 just in time to run for Congress," Specter said in the statement. "His lame excuse for avoiding party affiliation, because he was in the [military] service, is undercut by his documented disinterest in the political process."
Of course, Sestak was an Admiral on active duty until only a couple months before February 2006. So, what Arlen Specter is really doing here is criticizing Sestak for not being partisan enough during his time as an Admiral.
Lots of officers, including Colin Powell, do not register with a political party when they are still in the military. The basic idea is that you don't want to politicize the military leadership.
Would Arlen Specter rather that all Admirals and Generals state their political preference for the whole county to see? I'm sure that wouldn't cause any problems at all.
Now, I am a partisan, and I argue that more Democrats should be active partisans. However, it also strikes me as Honduran-ly obvious that high ranking military personnel should most definitely not be partisans while they are still in the service.
Further, to call a veteran a "hypocrite" for only becoming a partisan after he left the service is to deny all veterans the right to fully participate in American political life. Once you leave the service, you should be allowed to become as much of a partisan as you want, free from charges of "hypocrisy" simply because you served your country in a non-partisan way.
Specter's ignorance of the enormous difficulties active duty service personnel face in voting (see here and here, for starters) was a nice touch to this classy attack.
Arlen Specter hasn't been a Democrat for very long, and he clearly still needs practice acting like one. As the Sestak campaign itself says, this is a Republican-style Swift Boat attack on Joe Sestak's military record, pure and simple.
Since 2001, the US Air Force has dropped nearly 31 million pounds (14,049 metric tons) of bombs on Afghanistan. The UN estimates that US airstrikes alone accounted for 64 percent of the 828 Afghan civilians killed last year. Those numbers practically scream the need to abandon conventional warfare tactics in Afghanistan and dramatically shift US foreign policy to incorporate a more humanitarian approach. Instead, we're seeing the horrific images from IDP camps: refugees who have lost loved ones; parents so desperate they would rather sell their children than watch them starve; children scarred both physically and psychologically. These are the survivors, forced to endure the bleak aftermath of airstrikes as the US escalates this war.
The front page story in the LA Times today examines the US military's seemingly impossible task of reducing the number of civilian casualties in airstrikes like the one that killed up to 140 people in Farah province on May 4. The civilians casualties from that attack, we know from a preliminary investigative report, died because a series of military errors. Had the Afghan forces being trained by the US military not ignored warnings about entering a Farah village, they wouldn't have been ambushed by insurgents, prompting the Marines to call for a strike. And had the pilot of an aircraft not lost site of his target, or had those commanders rethought the need to send in a B-1 bomber strike at a point when those Afghan forces weren't under direct attack, the high number of civilian casualties could have been avoided. Yet as our highly skilled military revisits protocols for conducting airstrikes to minimize mistakes like these in the future, these casualties are the inevitable consequences of conventional warfare.
$100 billion more in wartime spending. That's what Congress is hellbent on approving despite valiant efforts from a growing number of Progressives led by FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher to derail this legislation's passage in the House. $100 billion, and for what? To bring more troops to Afghanistan without an exit strategy? To further US foreign policy that fails to address the humanitarian needs of the world's third poorest country? To escalate military operations that directly result in Afghan civilian casualties?
Recently, Anand Gopal, who has been covering the war in Afghanistan for The Christian Science Monitor, dispelled the myths about troop escalation at the America's Future Now Conference in Washington, DC. The reality, Gopal grimly assessed, is that more troops will mean more incidents of violence. More troops will also mean the need for more airstikes, which, as you can see in the sobering trailer for part four of Rethink Afghanistan, will mean more civilian casualties.
Just who is Dr. Roshanak Wardak? She is a member of Afghanistan's parliament--one of 68 women in the lower house--committed to women's rights issues, as well as rebuilding schools and hospitals. Before turning to politics, Dr. Wardak was a gynecologist who practiced for 30 years, during which time she worked with Afghan women in refugee camps in Pakistan. She has witnessed the devastation this war has wrought upon innocent Afghan civilians; she has even experienced it firsthand. Six months ago, a Predator drone bomb landed 200 meters from her house.
As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reported, "The blast, [Dr. Wardak] says, lifted her house off the ground and woke up the village. The curious went to see what happened. That's when the second drone struck, killing roughly 15 civilians."
We need to hear from experts like Dr. Wardak who understand the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, particularly as our country is sending more troops and more airstrikes, which, as we saw last month, result in rampant civilian deaths that fuel anti-American sentiment. That's why Brave New Foundation brought her to Washington, DC this week for the America's Future Now! conference and to meet with members of Congress.
I spent a lot of time during the transition criticizing many of President Obama's choices for top appointments as too centrist. Eventually, I dropped the argument, realizing that arguing over abstractions like "centrist" versus "progressive" rarely, if ever, leads to new knowledge. The arguments just never seem to go anywhere.
However, I am going to break the seal on these arguments today, now that there is growing evidence that, at least when it comes to LGBT rights, many key Obama appointees are, in fact, to the right of the American public as a whole. For example, take his senior military advisors on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Supporters of the repeal in recent days have pointed out that Obama's senior military team has not been in line with the president's decision to overturn the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"So far his senior military team is not on the same page with the president and has not aligned with him yet," said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to repealing the ban.
"Or if they are, it is certainly not apparent," he added.
Every poll, not matter how it is phrased, shows that only a minority of Americans oppose repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There is a wide variation, but those opposing repeal are always under 50%:
Quinnipiac University Poll. April 21-27, 2009. N=2,041 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.2
"Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?"
Should repeal 56%--37% should not repeal
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 23-26, 2009. Adults nationwide.
"Do you favor or oppose the policy sometimes called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in which the U.S. military does not ask new recruits whether they are gay or lesbian, but prohibits gays and lesbians from serving in the military if they reveal their sexual orientation?"
"Do you think people who are openly gay or homosexual should or should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military?"
Should 81%--17% Should Not
Why are President Obama's senior military advisors aligned more with the conservative minority on this one? Even if you think that the evenly divided 48%-47% poll is the most accurate one, surely a Democratic President, representing the nation's center-left coalition, should have advisors that represent the center-left position. Otherwise, there is no way to ever hope that progressives can become senior leaders within the military apparatus.
Now, I know that one reason for this is that progressives have not done as much successful organizing in the military area as they have in, say, labor and environmental matters. Generally speaking, one should expect more progressive appointments in areas of policy where progressives have done more successful organizing. However, Democrats did retake Congress in 2006 largely because of a military issue (Iraq), and President Obama won the Democratic nomination largely for the same reasons. After all that, it is still extremely frustrating that there seems to be no way to win in areas of military policy.
Men In The United States Military Are Raping Men and Women Prisoners in Iraq. President Obama Is Covering It Up.
Barack Obama, the new President of the United States, the man who campaigned on a platform of having opposed the U.S. War Against Iraq from the get-go, the man who campaigned on a promise to end the U.S. War Against Iraq, the man who proclaimed to the world that he was different, he would not support or cover up or participate in or sponsor or allow the continuation of kidnapping, torture, and murder, that same President Obama is today continuing the policies of the Bush-Cheney regime, directing and authorizing the kidnapping, torture, and murder of people from other countries, has just authorized the military to release a statement to the public that the U.S. will continue to occupy Iraq as our colony for at least 10 more years, has already authorized a secret war against Pakistan, has refused to honor the law and release the prisoners against whom there is insufficient evidence to try them, has announced an entirely new adoption of the tool of dictators everywhere stating that the government may simply engage in preventative detention, imprison people forever without charges, without counsel, without rights, without a trial.
And President Obama is also directly and personally covering up the men in the United States military who have been raping men and women in Iraq as a weapon of torture. That's right: Rape. I've read that some of the children who were kidnapped and imprisoned at Guantanamo were raped, but cannot find a link right now. Who's next? Grandma? Do we have some big strong marine with steroid-biceps and tatoos of Mom all over his pec-implants who wants to rape Grandma? Is there any exemption for children under 6? No?
One of the retired generals who conducted an investigation into Abu Ghraib (like having Wall Street investigate itself) said he doesn't see any purpose to be served by releasing pictures of the rape other than a legal one. Well, yes. The purpose would be to enforce the law. Exactly. The purpose would be to enforce the law of our nation against rape, and bring to account the rapists in our military and the people who directed them. We should also allow the victims to receive monetary compensation, assuming the military didn't kill them after they were done with the gang rape.
I'll bet anything the rapists were "Christians," probably screaming out scripture as they pounded some little boy's butt until it bled to the cheers of his fellow Marines, all of whom apparently stood by and allowed it to happen, but made sure to get photos on their i-phones to send back home to their girlfriends. Are they all insane? Are we feeding them all amphetamines to ensure they will be psychotic, and commit acts of barbarism on command? Do you think Sean Hannity would say rape is not torture, and would he offer to allow himself to be raped -- for charity?
These rape photos, which include pictures of both women and men prisoners being raped by members of the United States Military (was it the few, are they proud, or was it the guys from the army of one?), were obtained in connection with an investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib as well as 6 other prisons, specifically including 400 identified instances of abuse. This was systematic and institutional, not a case of a few bad apples. The systematic, institutional torture of prisoners was ordered and directed by people at the top of the Bush Administration. They need to be tried and imprisoned. If people in the Obama administration try to cover it up, they should be prosecuted and imprisoned for obstruction of justice and for ratifying and adopting the barbaric conduct.
This is how it works: if it is okay for the government to torture, rape and murder prisoners from some other country, it's okay for them to do it here too. That's what this is. It's just the beginning. It's going to get worse unless we stop it now. And Barack Obama not only refuses to do anything about it, he wants to just cover the whole thing up, let the bad guys go free, and send the signal out to the military: Keep On Raping, Boys. Have Fun. The Few, The Proud, The Rapists? An Army Of Fun? Is it any wonder we have such a high level of violence and suicide among vets, when their own government is teaching them to be murderers and rapists?
It's beginning to seem like the United States Empire and the institutions that own and control the world -- Wall Street, the Banks, the politicians they own, the corporations, and the U.S. military -- are really in charge of everything, and the President and Congress are just a circus for the peasants, a diversion to keep us distracted. And to waste our money making campaign contributions, as if that will make any difference at all.
What change? Exactly what has changed?
"LONDON (AP) -- A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Obama's administration does not want released. Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, told Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article published Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
"The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004. According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported.
"The Telegraph said the photos relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons."
Remember this one? A group of U.S. military men murdered an entire family so they could take turns raping a 14-year-old girl, then murdered her? Reportedly four U.S. soldiers decided they wanted to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza. So they went to her home, took her mother, father, and her 5 year old sister into a bedroom and killed them, then took turns raping the 14 year old girl. When they were done repeatedly raping her, they shot her in the head and killed her, then set fire to her body.
The perpetrators of this rape and these murders were prosecuted and found guilty. But if we had never invaded Iraq, or if the top leadership in our country had not directed the military to use torture and rape on the occupied territory, none of this would have happened.
I suppose if anyone wants to prosecute the people who ordered and directed the rape, the top leaders of our country during the Bush regime, the Obama Administration will say that what they did is a top secret, classified, so the trial cannot go forward. Or, maybe President Obama will announce another new policy, like the preventative detention one. He could just issue an Executive Order saying that anyone who is rich and powerful, from Wall Street to government to private board rooms, is exempt from any liability for anything they do. They'll call it the Obama Doctrine.
President McCain announced this week that another one of the Bush policies that would continue during his administration was the practice of taking people from other countries, kidnapping and torturing them, holding them in secret prisons around the world operated by the CIA murdering thugs and barbarians and their friends, the dictators and despots of the world and, for any prisoner who actually survives years of this, they will be "tried" before secret military tribunals which will hand down a "guilty" sentence, then order these prisoners be murdered. (Sorry about that President McCain bit -- it's getting harder to remember that "we" won).
And, consistent with a secret state police, military, and death-squad criminal enterprise committing state-sponsored kidnapping, torture, and murder, the evidence of those activities by our government will remain secret, probably shredded, to protect the worst criminals in our country from eventual prosecution for war crimes.
Any questions?
We've all heard how Stalin controlled the Soviet Union with an iron hand, staging what we call show trials and mass executions, re-writing history to eradicate evidence of his crimes. But who knew that the United States would choose to follow some of the most reprehensible practices of Comrade Stalin.
For example, in order to get legal authority for arresting and executing anyone he wanted, Stalin passed a law relating to "terrorist organizations and terrorist acts." Really. There were special laws which applied to anyone accused of belonging to a "terrorist organization," or accused of having committed a "terrorist act." One of the most important provisions of these new laws against "terrorism" was a speedy, abbreviated investigation and trial without the benefit of counsel or any appeal, and speedy executions. Just like we do.
Anybody who caught the eye of authorities could be labeled an "enemy of the people," subject to the show trials and mass executions. Of course the people arrested were also tortured. Does any of this sound familiar?
At the same time that the nation and its institutions were under attack from within, with purges against some, including certain ethnic minorities inside the country, the Stalinist regime also began rewriting the history books, and preparing propaganda materials to cover up and/or justify their conduct. Does any of this sound familiar? Not only is Dick Cheney doing his comeback Tour of America, but he's got an entire staff in the Congress promoting the view that international war crimes "Keeps Us Safe," and torture is good. If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't confess. Or if they weren't witches, they wouldn't drown.
Murder by the state is not just being supported by the Republican party, but the Democrats are also now in it up to their eyeballs, covering it up, refusing to allow the citizens their right to have hearings and prosecutions, to have the laws enforced.
What do we call it when the government refuses to enforce the laws? Isn't that a dictatorship?
Historians estimate that as many as 700,000 citizens of the Soviet Union were executed during the Stalinist reign. How many people will die because of the U.S. international war crimes in the middle east?
Assuming we had legitimate grounds to invade Afghanistan, to stop anyone inside that country from attacking us again, we had no grounds to invade Iraq. We had no legal reason to be in Iraq, so obviously have no legal grounds to have kidnapped or imprisoned or tortured or mudered any person from Iraq. And we have no legal grounds to invade Pakistan, although it appears we've already done so.
At least Stalin stayed mostly within his own boundaries. How far will the American Empire go?
If we have kidnapped someone who is not a "prisoner of war," and we do not have legitimate and sufficient evidence to prosecute this person for any alleged crime in a court, with an attorney, with due process, with equal protection of the laws, then we must let that person go. "Permanent detention," another thing President Obama ratified this week, is a tool of dictators. It's what England did to the Irish. It's completely inconsistent with any theory of law.
We had no grounds under any circumstances to move people from one country and drag them to another one. If we kidnapped somebody in Iraq, they should be returned to Iraq and should be tried in Iraq in front of a jury of Iraqis if we claim they committed some "crime." An Iraqi who fought against the U.S. invasion did not commit a crime in the traditional sense of the word. Doesn't everyone have the right to fight against an invader? In that circumstances, it seems to me they should have been considered prisoners of war and held subject to all the rights of the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war -- no torture, no abuse.
If we have legitimate grounds to charge someone with a crime, then do so, and have a public trial in the country where the alleged crime occurred. If we do not have grounds to charge someone, and we still take the position the person is not a prisoner of war, then they must be released. Those are the only two choices of a civilized nation, a nation of laws. Secret trials, and detention forever without charges or trials, are the tools of dictatorships, not a democracy.
OK, so today's Mothers' Day. I'm planning to stop by my mom's house shortly and check up on her. But before I do that, I must address this:
President Barack Obama's national security adviser says allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is in the early discussions.
But retired Marine Gen. James Jones says it's very preliminary in a very busy administration.
Jones said Sunday he's not sure if the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be overturned, although Obama has said he wants it eliminated. Jones said the decision to go forward lies with the president.
For now, Jones says, "We have a lot on our plate right now."
Mr. Jones, President Obama, and members of Congress, you just allowed this fine patriotic soldier to be fired. And believe it or not, we've already lost too many thousands of good soldiers simply because they're queer. Now's the time to lift the military service ban. Seriously.
How did Senators John McCain and and Joe Lieberman spend the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war? Did they apologize for cheerleading the Bush administration's pernicious lies that led our country into and have kept us mired in Iraq? Did they show remorse for a war that took the lives of over 4,000 US soldiers and up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, while costing us $3 trillion when all is said and done? No, instead these Senators brought us the sequel to their twisted buddy comedy, escalating the war in Afghanistan.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed yesterday, McCain and Lieberman urged the Obama administration to go all in after completing its policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "minimalist" or "reductionist" path would be, in their view, "dangerously and fundamentally wrong, and the president should unambiguously reject it." As with the Iraq war, McCain and Lieberman believe it's in our national interest to win in Afghanistan at all cost, which they even define as establishing "a stable, secure, self-governing Afghanistan that is not a terrorist sanctuary."
How do McCain and his ideological Benedict Arnold of a sidekick propose achieving such a lofty goal? Well, that part they don't get into. No need to be bogged down with the specifics; suffice it to say our country needs a broad counterinsurgency and we need it now! The maximalist approach, which is ironic, considering McCain and Lieberman criticize and fear-monger about those who use "loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan." The thing is though, and I never ever thought I'd write these words, McCain and Lieberman are absolutely right.
Today is the sixth anniversary of the start of our most recent war in Iraq. News reports marking the occasion will no doubt note that combat deaths are now lower than at earlier stages in this war -- a silver lining to a still very dark cloud. No matter how quickly our troops leave Iraq, the war will not soon leave those who are serving -- and have served -- in it. A epidemic of psychological trauma is ripping through our military's ranks, and we're probably still years away from seeing the last of our troops withdrawn from Iraq.
So I attended my first congressional hearing today on the Hill, and yes, it is indeed as boring as it sounds. Except for two word: Barney Frank.
Frank (D-Mass), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, held a Defense Spending forum and press conference that was attended by several members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus along with a couple of policy wonks (Drs. Lawrence Korb and Gordon Adams) to discuss how cutting wasteful military spending is absolutely vital in funding our domestic priorities and contributing to economic recovery.
Frank, who has the unique skill of being able to blend humor and pith into the most mundane of topics, traded enough blistering attacks with homespun humor to keep me awake through all of the policy-ese that was one or two level above my head.
"We cannot sustain the current level of military funding without revenue increases. There is excessive spending in our military budget. We need to get away from the idea that the only jobs American can afford to create are the one's where you shoot people."
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif) agreed. "It is unconscionable that we continue to spend tens of billions of dollars on cold war weapons we no longer need."
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) encouraged progressives to reach out to non-traditional organizations as partners. "This has to be an issue for people who are trying to raise money for breast cancer research, a clean environment and some of our republican friends as well. What conservative isn't against wasteful spending?"
Money is policy. For too long now, our policy and tax dollars have favored unbridled spending on projects not necessary to ensure our safety over things Americans need everyday - like the ability to see a doctor when you're sick and the ability of little Suzy to read and write at a level where they can compete in a college environment.
We support Frank's proposal to reduce the size of the military budget. The amount of reduction isn't as important as the point being made. Budgets must be scrutinized not in terms of their size but in terms of their sensibility.
There is an opportunity cost that is associated with our military budget. If we continue to let defense be the 800-pound gorilla in the room, we won't have money left for anything else.
As our country celebrates this Veterans Day, all of us should reflect on some sobering realities. Over 1.7 million men and women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in the past seven years, nearly half from the National Guard and Reserves. Almost one-half of the members of the National Guard and Reserves return from deployments experiencing some form of post-combat psychological injury. Frontline combat units of the Army and Marine Corps are serving their fourth and fifth tours. Recruitment standards have dropped to the point where less than 83% of Army recruits have high school diplomas.
Advisers also said Obama is open to supporting discussions between the Afghan government and "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban, a nascent effort of which the State Department has been fairly dismissive...
But the Pentagon, at least rhetorically, has left the door open wider. Senior officers describe a substantial portion of Taliban foot soldiers as more opportunistic than ideologically committed. Gates has spoken openly about the possibility of reconciliation, saying, "at the end of the day, that's how most wars end. . . . That's ultimately the exit strategy for all of us." Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said during a recent visit to Washington that the idea of "reconciliation, I think, is appropriate, and we'll be there to provide support within our mandate."
Spencer Ackerman noted this possibility in late October, as did Brandon Friedman of VoteVets. More than one superpower has cracked its head on tribal affiliations in Afghanistan, if we can dislodge and destroy Al Qaeda through negotiations with their protectors, that sounds like change I can believe in.
The campaign schedule has been pretty intense over the last week and will continue to be so until the BIG day on Tuesday, November 4th. I want to congratulate everyone for putting so much effort into this year's election, not just for an individual campaign, but for the entire Democratic ticket. I've seen people in every community throughout the 5th district working to make sure the message is getting out.
I want to remind everyone it is important that we finish strong. Don't take anything for granted, ignore the polls and work like the polls show our candidates 5 points down. Remember, while all indications show Barack Obama will be our next president, if we believe the polls, Al Gore would be concluding his second term or we would be working to re-elect President John Kerry right now.
The all-but-certain criminality at the top of our government has been getting more coverage lately, but we shouldn't lose sight of those who have at times taken substantial risks to oppose it
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
Of the countless movies made since 9/11, this new Batman film might have the most accurate depiction of the political and social climate of the world as it is today. A world largely uncontrolled by law and order, instead run by criminals, who are in turn pursued by vigilante heroes who stand in for a largely ineffective law enforcement. This leads to feelings of great fear and insecurity among the people of Gotham.
In The Dark Knight, Gotham is faced with its most treacherous villain yet: The Joker. Heath Ledger's brilliant and maniacal anarchist clown should be remembered one of the finest movie villain performances of all time. Ledger's Joker eschews all order, whether it is the power of the state or the invisible hand of capitalism. He appeals to a side of humanity more disordered than even the basest most animalistic parts of our minds. His complete unpredictability becomes a power that he uses to control the population of Gotham, much like the specter of terrorism has dominated the American psyche since 9/11.
Batman, our hero, who, in the time between the first movie and this one, has fought to put most of Gotham's big villains behind bars. He's done so as a vigilante and without much support (and a little disdain) from the people of Gotham City. While much of the film focuses on Batman's trying to reconcile the good that he's doing with the hate he incurs from the public and it's elected officials, the film's true protagonist is the people of Gotham City, whose mood, almost like that of a Greek Chorus echoes throughout each scene.
Above is video of Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC complaining bitterly about lack of press access in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I had a longer clip that had Andrea Mitchell responding to the idea of the military being too positive to the Obama campaign. The idea is laughable on its face. General Petraus has no particular reason to be overly friendly to Obama, as he and Obama clash on opinions about what to do in Iraq (in today's news conference, Sen. Obama asserts that this clash is appropriate - that the generals on the ground have a single mission while the president, or any candidates for that office, have to think about the country as a whole, and not just one aspect of the country's strategic objectives). My point is - it seems highly likely that McCain is the favorite of the military, NOT Obama - and if the press was shooed away from the goings on in Iraq and Afghanistan it was either for their protection, or because the candidate wanted an opportunity to do as close to a genuine assessment as he could - which likely necessitated being away from press view.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 10-13, 2008. N=1,119 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?"
July 2008: Should 75%--22% Should Not
January 2001: Should 62%--35% Should Not
May 1993: Should 44%--55% Should Not
That is a massive and remarkable shift on an issue that really isn't discussed that much anymore. It is demonstrative of a vastly more progressive nation on LGBT rights, and the large-scale failure of the conservative movement at persuasion in this area.
In 2009, Obama and Democrats in Congress should move to repeal the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military by passing legislation to reform the uniform code. Overwhelming public opinion like this will make passing such reform possible, and also result in driving a wedge right down the middle of the Republican coalition. Conservative evangelicals would have a conniption and primary challenge any Republican who votes to pass such a bill. However, with 75% of the country in favor, many of them will vote in favor of it.
This is a lovely little wedgie that should send Republicans at each other's throats during 2009 and 2010. I would love to find more of these, and create real chaos in Republican ranks, thus preventing their ability to stall progressive legislation under the coming Democratic trifecta.
