RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How the CIA Bungled the War on Terror Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28584"><span class="small">Pratap Chatterjee, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 December 2013 14:08

Chatterjee writes: "Think of it as the CIA's plunge into Hollywood - or into the absurd. As recent revelations have made clear, that Agency's moves couldn't be have been more far-fetched or more real. In its post-9/11 global shadow war, it has employed both private contractors and some of the world's most notorious prisoners in ways that leave the latest episode of the Bourne films in the dust ..."

(illustration: ABC News)
(illustration: ABC News)


How the CIA Bungled the War on Terror

By Pratap Chatterjee, TomDispatch

07 December 13

 

all it the Jason Bourne strategy.

Think of it as the CIA's plunge into Hollywood -- or into the absurd. As recent revelations have made clear, that Agency's moves couldn't be have been more far-fetched or more real. In its post-9/11 global shadow war, it has employed both private contractors and some of the world's most notorious prisoners in ways that leave the latest episode of the Bourne films in the dust: hired gunmen trained to kill as well as former inmates who cashed in on the notoriety of having worn an orange jumpsuit in the world's most infamous jail.

The first group of undercover agents were recruited by private companies from the Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs and then repurposed to the CIA at handsome salaries averaging around $140,000 a year; the second crew was recruited from the prison cells at Guantanamo Bay and paid out of a secret multimillion dollar slush fund called "the Pledge."

Last month, the Associated Press revealed that the CIA had selected a few dozen men from among the hundreds of terror suspects being held at Guantanamo and trained them to be double agents at a cluster of eight cottages in a program dubbed "Penny Lane." (Yes, indeed, the name was taken from the Beatles song, as was "Strawberry Fields," a Guantanamo program that involved torturing "high-value" detainees.) These men were then returned to what the Bush administration liked to call the "global battlefield," where their mission was to befriend members of al-Qaeda and supply targeting information for the Agency's drone assassination program.

Such a secret double-agent program, while colorful and remarkably unsuccessful, should have surprised no one. After all, plea bargaining or persuading criminals to snitch on their associates -- a tactic frowned upon by international legal experts -- is widely used in the U.S. police and legal system. Over the last year or so, however, a trickle of information about the other secret program has come to light and it opens an astonishing new window into the privatization of U.S. intelligence.

Hollywood in Langley

In July 2010, at his confirmation hearings for the post of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper explained the use of private contractors in the intelligence community: "In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War... we were under a congressional mandate to reduce the community by on the order of 20%... Then 9/11 occurred... With the gusher... of funding that has accrued particularly from supplemental or overseas contingency operations funding, which, of course, is one year at a time, it is very difficult to hire government employees one year at a time. So the obvious outlet for that has been the growth of contractors."

Thousands of "Green Badges" were hired via companies like Booz Allen Hamilton and Qinetiq to work at CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) offices around the world, among the regular staff who wore blue badges. Many of them -- like Edward Snowden -- performed specialist tasks in information technology meant to augment the effectiveness of government employees.

Then the CIA decided that there was no aspect of secret war which couldn't be corporatized. So they set up a unit of private contractors as covert agents, green-lighting them to carry guns and be sent into U.S. war zones at a moment's notice. This elite James Bond-like unit of armed bodyguards and super-fixers was given the anodyne name Global Response Staff (GRS).

Among the 125 employees of this unit, from the Army Special Forces via private contractors came Raymond Davis and Dane Paresi; from the Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Jeremy Wise, and Tyrone Woods. All five would soon be in the anything-but-covert headlines of newspapers across the world. These men -- no women have yet been named -- were deployed on three- to four-month missions accompanying CIA analysts into the field.

Davis was assigned to Lahore, Pakistan; Doherty and Woods to Benghazi, Libya; Paresi and Wise to Khost, Afghanistan. As GRS expanded, other contractors went to Djibouti, Lebanon, and Yemen, among other countries, according to a Washington Post profile of the unit.

From early on, its work wasn't exactly a paragon of secrecy. By 2005, for instance, former Special Forces personnel had already begun openly discussing jobs in the unit at online forums. Their descriptions sounded like something directly out of a Hollywood thriller. The Post portrayed the focus of GRS personnel more mundanely as "designed to stay in the shadows, training teams to work undercover and provide an unobtrusive layer of security for CIA officers in high-risk outposts."

"They don't learn languages, they're not meeting foreign nationals, and they're not writing up intelligence reports," a former U.S. intelligence official told that paper. "Their main tasks are to map escape routes from meeting places, pat down informants, and provide an 'envelope' of security... if push comes to shove, you're going to have to shoot."

In the ensuing years, GRS embedded itself in the Agency, becoming essential to its work. Today, new CIA agents and analysts going into danger zones are trained to work with such bodyguards. In addition, GRS teams are now loaned out to other outfits like the NSA for tasks like installing spy equipment in war zones.

The CIA's Private Contractors (Don't) Save the Day

Recently these men, the spearhead of the CIA's post-9/11 contractor war, have been making it into the news with startling regularity. Unlike their Hollywood cousins, however, the news they have made has all been bad. Those weapons they're packing and the derring-do that is supposed to go with them have repeatedly led not to breathtaking getaways and shootouts, but to disaster. Jason Bourne, of course, wins the day; they don't.

Take Dane Paresi and Jeremy Wise. In 2009, not long after Paresi left the Army Special Forces and Wise the Navy SEALs, they were hired by Xe Services (the former Blackwater) to work for GRS and assigned to Camp Chapman, a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan. On December 30, 2009, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor who had been recruited by the CIA to infiltrate al-Qaeda, was invited to a meeting at the base after spending several months in Pakistan's tribal borderlands. Invited as well were several senior CIA staff members from Kabul who hoped Balawi might help them target Ayman al-Zawahiri, then al-Qaeda's number two man.

Details of what happened are still sketchy, but the GRS men clearly failed to fulfill their security mission. Somehow Balawi, who turned out to be not a double but a triple agent, made it onto the closed base with a bomb and blew himself up, killing not just Paresi and Wise but also seven CIA staff officers, including Jennifer Matthews, the base chief.

Thirteen months later, in January 2011, another GRS contractor, Raymond Davis, decided to shoot his way out of what he considered a difficult situation in Lahore, Pakistan. The Army Special Forces veteran had also worked for Blackwater, although at the time of the shootings he was employed by Hyperion Protective Services, LLC.

Assigned to work at a CIA safe house in Lahore to support agents tracking al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Davis had apparently spent days photographing local military installations like the headquarters of the paramilitary Frontier Corps. On January 27th, his car was stopped and he claims that he was confronted by two young men, Faizan Haider and Faheem Shamshad. Davis proceeded to shoot both of them dead, and then take pictures of their bodies, before radioing back to the safe house for help. When a backup vehicle arrived, it compounded the disaster by driving at high speed the wrong way down a street and killing a passing motorcyclist.

Davis was later caught by two traffic wardens, taken to a police station, and jailed. A furor ensued, involving both countries and an indignant Pakistani media. The U.S. embassy, which initially claimed he was a consular official before the Guardian broke the news that he was a CIA contractor, finally pressured the Pakistani government into releasing him, but only after agreeing to pay out $2.34 million in compensation to the families of those he killed.

A year and a half later, two more GRS contractors made front-page news under the worst of circumstances. Former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods had been assigned to a CIA base in Benghazi, Libya, where the Agency was attempting to track a developing North African al-Qaeda movement and recover heavy weapons, including Stinger missiles, that had been looted from state arsenals in the wake of an U.S.-NATO intervention which led to the fall of the autocrat Muammar Qaddafi.

On September 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was staying at a nearby diplomatic compound when it came under attack. Militants entered the buildings and set them on fire. A CIA team, including Doherty, rushed to the rescue, although ultimately, unlike Hollywood's action teams, they did not save Stevens or the day. In fact, several hours later, the militants raided the CIA base, killing both Doherty and Woods.

The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

The disastrous denouements to these three incidents, as well as the deaths of four GRS contractors -- more than a quarter of CIA casualties since the War on Terror was launched -- raise a series of questions: Is this yet another example of the way the privatization of war and intelligence doesn't work? And is the answer to bring such jobs back in-house? Or does the Hollywood-style skullduggery (gone repeatedly wrong) hint at a larger problem? Is the present intelligence system, in fact, out of control and, despite a combined budget of $52.6 billion a year, simply incapable of delivering anything like the "security" promised, leaving the various spy agencies, including the CIA, increasingly desperate to prove that they can "defeat" terrorism?

Take, for example, the slew of documents Edward Snowden -- another private contractor who at one point worked for the CIA -- released about secret NSA programs attempting to suck up global communications at previously unimaginable rates. There have been howls of outrage across the planet, including from spied-upon heads of state. Those denouncing such blatant invasions of privacy have regularly raised the fear that we might be witnessing the rise of a secret-police-like urge to clamp down on dissent everywhere.

But as with the CIA, there may be another explanation: desperation. Top intelligence officials, fearing that they will be seen as having done a poor job, are possessed by an ever greater urge to prove their self-worth by driving the intelligence community to ever more (rather than less) of the same.

As Jeremy Bash, chief of staff to Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense secretary, told MSNBC: "If you're looking for a needle in the haystack, you need a haystack." It's true that, while the various intelligence agencies and the CIA may not succeed when it comes to the needles, they have proven effective indeed when it comes to creating haystacks.

In the case of the NSA, the Obama administration's efforts to prove that its humongous data haul had any effect on foiling terrorist plots -- at one point, they claimed 54 such plots foiled -- has had a quality of genuine pathos to it. The claims have proven so thin that administration and intelligence officials have struggled to convince even those in Congress who support the programs, let alone the rest of the world, that it has done much more than gather and store staggering reams of information on almost everyone to no particular purpose whatsoever. Similarly, the FBI has made a point of trumpeting every "terrorist" arrest it has made, most of which, on closer scrutiny, turn out to be of gullible Muslims, framed by planted evidence in plots often essentially engineered by FBI informants.

Despite stunning investments of funds and the copious hiring of private contractors, when it comes to ineptitude the CIA is giving the FBI and NSA a run for their money. In fact, both of its recently revealed high-profile programs -- GRS and the Guantanamo double agents -- have proven dismal failures, yielding little if anything of value. The Associated Press account of Penny Lane, the only description of that program thus far, notes, for instance, that al-Qaeda never trusted the former Guantanamo Bay detainees released into their midst and that, after millions of dollars were fruitlessly spent, the program was canceled as a failure in 2006.

If you could find a phrase that was the polar opposite of "more bang for your buck," all of these efforts would qualify. In the case of the CIA, keep in mind as well that you're talking about an agency which has for years conducted drone assassination campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Hundreds of innocent men, women, and children have been killed along with numerous al-Qaeda types and "suspected militants," and yet -- many experts believe -- these campaigns have functioned not as an air war on, but for, terror. In Yemen, as an example, the tiny al-Qaeda outfit that existed when the drone campaign began in 2002 has grown exponentially.

So what about the Jason Bourne-like contractors working for GRS who turned out to be the gang that couldn't shoot straight? How successful have they been in helping the CIA sniff out al-Qaeda globally? It's a good guess, based on what we already know, that their record would be no better than that of the rest of the CIA.

One hint, when it comes to GRS-assisted operations, may be found in documents revealed in 2010 by WikiLeaks about joint CIA-Special Operations hunter-killer programs in Afghanistan like Task Force 373. We don't actually know if any GRS employees were involved with those operations, but it's notable that one of Task Force 373's principal bases was in Khost, where Paresi and Wise were assisting the CIA in drone-targeting operations. The evidence from the WikiLeaks documents suggests that, as with GRS missions, those hunter-killer teams regularly botched their jobs by killing civilians and stoking local unrest.

At the time, Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and State Department contractor who often worked with Task Force 373 as well as other Special Operations Forces "capture/kill" programs in Afghanistan and Iraq, told me: "We are killing the wrong people, the mid-level Taliban who are only fighting us because we are in their valleys. If we were not there, they would not be fighting the U.S."

As details of programs like Penny Lane and GRS tumble out into the open, shedding light on how the CIA has fought its secret war, it is becoming clearer that the full story of the Agency's failures, and the larger failures of U.S. intelligence and its paramilitarized, privatized sidekicks has yet to be told.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Hamba Kahle Nelson Mandela Print
Saturday, 07 December 2013 13:58

Naidoo writes: "Nelson Mandela was never really a prisoner, but a free man always, and now, forever. As a South African, a comrade in the struggle to liberate my homeland from the evil of apartheid and a citizen of the world, my heart is heavy today. The loss was to be expected, but remains hard to bear."

Nelson Mandela. (photo: Yousuf Karsh)
Nelson Mandela. (photo: Yousuf Karsh)


Hamba Kahle Nelson Mandela

By Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace

07 December 13

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yv1G8Ohgo]

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead." – Nelson Mandela speaking at the 90th birthday celebration of Walter Sisulu, Walter Sisulu Hall, Randburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 18 May 2002.

elson Mandela was never really a prisoner, but a free man always, and now, forever. As a South African, a comrade in the struggle to liberate my homeland from the evil of apartheid and a citizen of the world, my heart is heavy today. The loss was to be expected, but remains hard to bear.

The world has lost a true leader, a true father and a true inspiration. To say he lived a life of significance barely does it justice, and it is not over – he leaves a profound legacy of hope in a world still wracked by injustice and inequity. His inspiration will live on in my heart and in the hearts' of people everywhere.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during these hard times. The world has collectively drawn a breath and is mourning. This is a time for reflection and quiet contemplation of a life well lived, for a man well loved.

I was 15 years old when I first heard the name Mandela, or Madiba, as he is fondly known in Africa. In apartheid South Africa he was public enemy number one. Shrouded in secrecy, myth and rumour, the media called him 'The Black Pimpernel'. He was able to avoid the police, using several disguises – a favorite of which was that of a chauffeur – until the CIA colluded with the apartheid regime to ensure his capture. In Durban, where I was born and grew up, and all over Africa, he was a hero! Now he is a hero to the world.

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world" he told the University of the Witwatersrand in 2003.

Thinking back to how he shaped my early life as an activist;during the apartheid regime I first stood up to in protest against inequality in education – I fought apartheid education – I remember when my friends and I first heard of the "Free Mandela" campaign. Madiba, as we fondly refer to him, was censored from the media. Such was the official fear the state held for his ideas. From then on, Madiba became a major source of inspiration for me, and when he said, "the struggle is my life," I realised how powerful and true his words really were. Those words inspired many of my fellow activists fighting the brutality of the apartheid regime. For me too, like many of my former comrades, it has become my life, a joyous life, but sometimes a hard life.

I have had the privilege to meet Madiba several times, and for that I consider myself extremely lucky. I first met him when I was in my late 20s, in 1993. I was helping facilitate an African National Congress (ANC) workshop to plan its media strategy. For someone who is rarely lost for words, I was choked, I was humbled, I could barely utter a sentence when Madiba shook my hand: "It's an honour to meet you, Madiba" – and I couldn't get a word out after that. He was an enormous presence, yet remained simple, without pretension. After lunch he asked the manager of the hotel we were meeting in if he could thank the workers who provided the food. He went to the kitchen and greeted each and everyone. I followed and saw him shake everyone's hands – a simple honest gesture of appreciation that meant so much to all of them.

In 1995 I met him again when I was heading the Adult Literacy Campaign in South Africa. On International Literacy Day I took kids and adult learners to the Parliament to meet Madiba. They were excited to have their picture taken with him – the image was to become a poster for our campaign to promote adult basic education – but everyone was anxious; they where asking me what they should say and how they should approach meeting the President! Taking no chances most had prepared sentences, planning to thank him for making the time to see us. But when Madiba emerged from his Cabinet meeting he turned the tables. He walked in and thanked everyone for taking the time to see him. "I know how busy you all are and I thank you for taking time to meet me," he said. In that moment he closed the gap. He was just a human being, a person like them, and everyone relaxed.

He was larger than life but never lost sight of his humanity and 'ordinariness'. His tenacity, resolution and willingness to forgive were superhuman and have given me strength and taught me important lessons about determination and perseverance.

Madiba once said that the struggle for justice is not a popularity contest. The truth is not always popular, and his example helped me and thousands of others become more resilient. Madiba believed that injustice will carry on unless decent men and women say, "enough is enough and no more."

He declared: "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realised. But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die." - Defence statement during the Rivonia Trial, 1964

There will be a little more colour and joy in heaven today, he will be there in one of his 'trademark' shirts, still burning with the passion and wisdom that was forged in the furnace of injustice and adversity and honed in victory. He will be looking down on us – people everywhere, willing us to go on, knowing that the impossible is possible if we stay true to ourselves.

Rest in peace Madiba, with our never-ending gratitude, you have more than earned it!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Republicans Can't Address Rising Inequality Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14128"><span class="small">Joe Conason, The National Memo</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 December 2013 13:56

Conason writes: "So far, the Republican response to President Obama's historic address on economic inequality has not veered from the predictable cliches of Tea Party rhetoric. It was appropriately summarized in a tweet from House Speaker John Boehner, complaining that the Democrat in the White House wants 'more government rather than more freedom' - and ignoring his challenge to Republicans to present solutions of their own."

Child sleeps in a car in New York City. (photo: Steven Shames)
Child sleeps in a car in New York City. (photo: Steven Shames)


Why Republicans Can't Address Rising Inequality

By Joe Conason, The National Memo

07 December 13

 

o far, the Republican response to President Obama's historic address on economic inequality has not veered from the predictable clichιs of Tea Party rhetoric. It was appropriately summarized in a tweet from House Speaker John Boehner, complaining that the Democrat in the White House wants "more government rather than more freedom" – and ignoring his challenge to Republicans to present solutions of their own.

But for Republicans to promote real remedies – the kind that would require more than 140 characters of text – they first would have to believe that inequality is a real problem. And there is no evidence that they do, despite fitful attempts by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill to display their "empathy" for the struggling, shrinking middle class.

Back when Occupy Wall Street briefly shook up the national conversation, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan both professed concern over the nation's growing disparities of wealth and income. But their promises of proof that they care – and more important, of policy proposals to address what Cantor admits are "big challenges" – simply never materialized.

Meanwhile, working Americans learned what rich Republicans say in private about these sensitive topics when the "47 percent" video surfaced the following summer, in the final months of the 2012 presidential campaign. In Mitt Romney's unguarded remarks to an audience of super-rich Florida financiers, the contempt for anyone who has benefited from public programs (other than banking bailouts) was palpable. Whether that sorry episode turned the election is arguable, but the Republican brand has never recovered – and the perception that Republicans like Romney and Ryan are hostile to the interests of working people remains indelible.

Of course, the House Republicans have done nothing to diminish that impression and everything to reinforce it. They have set about cutting food stamps, killing extended unemployment benefits, rejecting Medicaid expansion, as if competing in demonstrations of callous indifference. They complain about the lack of jobs – so long as they can blame Obama – but undermine every program designed to relieve the suffering of the jobless.

Callous or not, they are certainly indifferent to the injuries of inequality. In a party consumed by right-wing ideology and market idolatry, the further enrichment of the super-rich at the expense of everyone else is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Whenever they bray about "getting government out of the way," that means removing the last defenses against that process.

With Pope Francis and President Obama - a pair of the world's most powerful voices - warning against the dangers of social exclusion and excessive greed, we can expect to hear expressions of remorse as well as rage from all the usual right-wing suspects. But what we shouldn't expect is honesty. Republicans know that worsening inequality disturbs the great majority of Americans, so they cannot confess that they aren't troubled at all.

Congress could begin to address the income gap, which conservative policies have exacerbated for three decades. Raising the minimum wage significantly would be a first step toward restoring fairness. Rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and school systems, rather than letting them continuously decay, would raise employment substantially and improve incomes. Removing obstacles to unionization would begin to level the gross disparities in economic power between the 1 percent and the rest of us.

Now the president has vowed to fight inequality for the rest of his days in office. He is taking that fight directly to the Republicans who have frustrated so many of his initiatives. He will have to cast aside the last illusions of bipartisanship.

No matter what he does or says, he may not be able to win a higher minimum wage or a serious jobs program or universal pre-school with the other party controlling Congress. But if he consistently challenges us - and his adversaries - to restore an American dream that includes everyone, he may yet fashion a legacy worthy of his transformative ambitions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | The ALEC Documents Exposed Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 December 2013 10:42

Pierce writes: "The Guardian - which, of course, we should all ignore because people don't like Glenn Greenwald and will not have him over for dinner any time soon - has gotten its hands on a whole trove of documents from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and is doing god's work with them."

Stand your ground hurt ALEC with donors. (photo: James Fassinger/stillscenes.com)
Stand your ground hurt ALEC with donors. (photo: James Fassinger/stillscenes.com)


The ALEC Documents Exposed

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

07 December 13

 

he Guardian -- which, of course, we should all ignore because people don't like Glenn Greenwald and will not have him over for dinner any time soon -- has gotten its hands on a whole trove of documents from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and is doing god's work with them. The most interesting of them notes that ALEC started seriously bleeding corporate support when it lined up on the wrong side of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, who was killed by misunderstood crimebuster George Zimmerman for the crime of carrying snack food in a neighborhood where Zimmerman didn't think he belonged. It also notes that ALEC is concocting new scams to revive itself.

The Guardian has learned that the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which shapes and promotes legislation at state level across the US, has identified more than 40 lapsed corporate members it wants to attract back into the fold under a scheme referred to in its documents as the "Prodigal Son Project". The target firms include commercial giants such as Amazon, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Kraft, McDonald's and Walmart, all of which cut ties with the group following the furore over the killing of the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida in February 2012...The reference to the Prodigal Son Project is just one of many revelations contained in a batch of internal Alec documents that have been obtained by the Guardian. The documents, prepared for its most recent annual board meeting in Chicago in August, cast light on the inner workings of the group. They show that: Alec has set up a separate sister group called the "Jeffersonian Project" amid concerns over possible government inquiries into whether its activities constitute lobbying - which would threaten its tax-exempt status; the network has suffered a decline in its membership among state-based Republicans and among big corporations following the Trayvon Martin controversy; its income raised from conferences, membership fees and donations has fallen short, leaving the group with a potential funding crisis; a draft agreement prepared for the board meeting proposed that Alec's chairs in each of the 50 states, who are drawn from senior legislators, should be required to put the interests of the organisation first, thus setting up a possible conflict of interest with the voters who elected them.

Nobody has any excuse any longer. Reporters -- local and national -- no longer have any excuse to treat ALEC and its work product as anything more than corporate-funded propaganda designed to exist outside the imperatives of democratic self-government. Voters -- local and national -- no longer have any excuse that they were somehow fooled by their representatives, who were acting out of loyalty to some distant boardroom and not to the people who elected them. Democratic parties -- local and national -- no longer have any excuse to keep fro crushing this organization in whatever new guise it chooses to camouflage itself and its agenda. That last part -- the "draft agreement" by which state legislators agree to be big old 'ho's for the people who run ALEC -- should be politically suicidal. It's long past time to ACORN these bastards in the public mind.



Charlie has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently "Idiot America." He lives near Boston with his wife but no longer his three children.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bye-Bye, Fake Liberals: The Warren Democrats Are Winning! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23847"><span class="small">Joan Walsh, Salon</span></a>   
Saturday, 07 December 2013 08:58

Walsh writes: "By now everyone knows that the pro-Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York's Mayor-elect Bill De Blasio in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, arguing that their 'economic populism' was a 'dead end' outside of the midnight-blue communards of Massachusetts and New York City."

Democratic party centrists are taking aim at Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Warren.gov)
Democratic party centrists are taking aim at Sen. Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Warren.gov)


Bye-Bye, Fake Liberals: The Warren Democrats Are Winning!

By Joan Walsh, Salon

07 December 13

 

The backlash against an inane Op-Ed bashing Elizabeth Warren shows that "economic populism" is the way forward

am very late to the Third Way-trashing party, but that's a story in itself. I didn't need to weigh in; progressives erupted in immediate backlash at the group's latest attack on "economic populism."

By now everyone knows that the pro-Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York's Mayor-elect Bill De Blasio in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, arguing that their "economic populism" was a "dead end" outside of the midnight-blue communards of Massachusetts and New York City.

Not only was Third Way's argument immediately and widely debunked - Salon's Elias Isquith did it very well here - but its domination by Wall Street became an issue in itself, thanks to folks at Daily Kos and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Warren herself responded by asking Wall Street CEOs to voluntarily disclose their think tank funding - without mentioning Third Way by name - suggesting it amounted to "little more than another form of corporate lobbying."

And by Wednesday evening centrist Pennsylvania Rep. Alison Schwartz, a Third Way co-chair who's running for governor next year, had disavowed the group's attempted takedown of her party's populist wing, calling it "outrageous." (Update: Thursday afternoon another co-chair, Rep. Joe Crowley, joined Schwartz.)

Oh, and meanwhile, President Obama gave his best economic speech yet, calling income inequality "the defining challenge of our time."

Is something going on here? I'd say yes. Wall Street's domination of the Democratic Party is facing a genuine and sustained fight, and that's a good thing for Democrats and the country.

Remember, it was only last year that Third Way made big news warning that ol' devil economic populism would be a dead-end for Obama. No, it was worse than that: Third Way said its polling showed that Obama's message of "fairness" was a loser; voters preferred to hear about "opportunity." Fairness, people. They came out against a "fairness" message as too radical. Liberals debunked the poll, but Third Way got a big endorsement from the New York Times columnist Bill Keller, who used the group's faulty data to warn Obama that he was turning off independents by being "a plutocrat-bashing firebrand" and pushing "Robin Hood" politics like the Buffett Rule.

In fact, as I argued back then, during Obama's first term his political fortunes improved when he strengthened his message of economic populism, and plummeted the more he preached about bipartisan deficit-cutting and "shared sacrifice" as defined by plutocrats. If Third Way and Bill Keller were right, we'd be debating President Mitt Romney's new tax cuts for the wealthy right now.

Of course Third Way wasn't right. But there didn't used to be a penalty for being wrong in the service of Wall Street's agenda. Now its plutocracy-defending drivel is both debunked quickly and denounced by politicians - even the one it's trying to demonize.

That Elizabeth Warren is a great tonic for the Democratic Party is not news (although her decision to attack Third Way's donor base rather than quail at its attacks merits attention and more admiration). What seems new to me is a sustained feistiness among progressives. The push to expand rather than cut Social Security is already widening the debate and making it harder for any Democrat to fearlessly back even hidden cuts like the chained CPI. And the wave of fast-food strikes and Wal-Mart protests is channeling the anger and moral outrage that inspired Occupy Wall Street, and then seemed to dissipate, into a policy agenda.

Which brings me to the president's speech. He gave a similar one in the wake of the Occupy uprising, in Osawatomie, Kan., two years ago this Friday, and yet it's been hard to translate his rhetoric into change. I find it hard these days to get excited about speeches, and yet, given the Republican extremism that's led to gridlock, that bully pulpit is one of Obama's most effective tools, and he doesn't always use it to advantage. He did on Wednesday.

Obama called the "growing deficit of opportunity" a greater threat than the "rapidly shrinking" fiscal deficit. That's important as Democrats face down Republicans in budget talks. And more vividly than before, he showed how the country's post-World War II investments in building a middle class created a wider prosperity, while our current 40-year experiment with austerity and tax cuts has cut the heart out of the American dream.

Republicans and Fox News are already attacking the president's speech as "class warfare," and that's fine. We've been living through class war for the last few decades, but only one side bothered to fight. For a time they enlisted a lot of Democrats, including Obama. Most people - not only progressives, even some Tea Partyers who aren't driven by racism - know that Obama's administration bailed out banks, but not their victims. Yet pampered CEO crybabies responded to the president's mild chiding over their obscene bonuses and renewed profiteering by comparing him to Hitler and funneling their cash to Mitt Romney.

Now, with income inequality continuing to worsen on Obama's watch, he has to pick a different side in the class war if he cares about his legacy. I hope that's what the speech Wednesday was about. I trust that an energized progressive movement, and its congressional allies, can hold him to it. We'll see. But the energetic backlash against Third Way shows that economic populism isn't a dead end but the way forward.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 Next > End >>

Page 3007 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN