RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
My Final Mission Print
Wednesday, 26 June 2013 12:13

Somers writes: "My body has become nothing but a cage, a source of pain and constant problems. The illness I have has caused me pain that not even the strongest medicines could dull, and there is no cure."

Suicides in the Army have now surpassed the rate of combat fatalities. (photo: US Army)
Suicides in the Army have now surpassed the rate of combat fatalities. (photo: US Army)



My Final Mission

By Daniel Somers, Gawker

26 June 13

 

Daniel Somers was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was part of Task Force Lightning, an intelligence unit. In 2004-2005, he was mainly assigned to a Tactical Human-Intelligence Team (THT) in Baghdad, Iraq, where he ran more than 400 combat missions as a machine gunner in the turret of a Humvee, interviewed countless Iraqis ranging from concerned citizens to community leaders and and government officials, and interrogated dozens of insurgents and terrorist suspects. In 2006-2007, Daniel worked with Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) through his former unit in Mosul where he ran the Northern Iraq Intelligence Center. His official role was as a senior analyst for the Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and part of Turkey). Daniel suffered greatly from PTSD and had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury and several other war-related conditions. On June 10, 2013, Daniel wrote the following letter to his family before taking his life. Daniel was 30 years old. His wife and family have given permission to publish it.

am sorry that it has come to this.

The fact is, for as long as I can remember my motivation for getting up every day has been so that you would not have to bury me. As things have continued to get worse, it has become clear that this alone is not a sufficient reason to carry on. The fact is, I am not getting better, I am not going to get better, and I will most certainly deteriorate further as time goes on. From a logical standpoint, it is better to simply end things quickly and let any repercussions from that play out in the short term than to drag things out into the long term.

You will perhaps be sad for a time, but over time you will forget and begin to carry on. Far better that than to inflict my growing misery upon you for years and decades to come, dragging you down with me. It is because I love you that I can not do this to you. You will come to see that it is a far better thing as one day after another passes during which you do not have to worry about me or even give me a second thought. You will find that your world is better without me in it.

I really have been trying to hang on, for more than a decade now. Each day has been a testament to the extent to which I cared, suffering unspeakable horror as quietly as possible so that you could feel as though I was still here for you. In truth, I was nothing more than a prop, filling space so that my absence would not be noted. In truth, I have already been absent for a long, long time.

My body has become nothing but a cage, a source of pain and constant problems. The illness I have has caused me pain that not even the strongest medicines could dull, and there is no cure. All day, every day a screaming agony in every nerve ending in my body. It is nothing short of torture. My mind is a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety, even with all of the medications the doctors dare give. Simple things that everyone else takes for granted are nearly impossible for me. I can not laugh or cry. I can barely leave the house. I derive no pleasure from any activity. Everything simply comes down to passing time until I can sleep again. Now, to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.

You must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same government has turned around and abandoned me. They offer no help, and actively block the pursuit of gaining outside help via their corrupt agents at the DEA. Any blame rests with them.

Beyond that, there are the host of physical illnesses that have struck me down again and again, for which they also offer no help. There might be some progress by now if they had not spent nearly twenty years denying the illness that I and so many others were exposed to. Further complicating matters is the repeated and severe brain injuries to which I was subjected, which they also seem to be expending no effort into understanding. What is known is that each of these should have been cause enough for immediate medical attention, which was not rendered.

Lastly, the DEA enters the picture again as they have now managed to create such a culture of fear in the medical community that doctors are too scared to even take the necessary steps to control the symptoms. All under the guise of a completely manufactured "overprescribing epidemic," which stands in stark relief to all of the legitimate research, which shows the opposite to be true. Perhaps, with the right medication at the right doses, I could have bought a couple of decent years, but even that is too much to ask from a regime built upon the idea that suffering is noble and relief is just for the weak.

However, when the challenges facing a person are already so great that all but the weakest would give up, these extra factors are enough to push a person over the edge.

Is it any wonder then that the latest figures show 22 veterans killing themselves each day? That is more veterans than children killed at Sandy Hook, every single day. Where are the huge policy initiatives? Why isn’t the president standing with those families at the state of the union? Perhaps because we were not killed by a single lunatic, but rather by his own system of dehumanization, neglect, and indifference.

It leaves us to where all we have to look forward to is constant pain, misery, poverty, and dishonor. I assure you that, when the numbers do finally drop, it will merely be because those who were pushed the farthest are all already dead.

And for what? Bush’s religious lunacy? Cheney’s ever growing fortune and that of his corporate friends? Is this what we destroy lives for

Since then, I have tried everything to fill the void. I tried to move into a position of greater power and influence to try and right some of the wrongs. I deployed again, where I put a huge emphasis on saving lives. The fact of the matter, though, is that any new lives saved do not replace those who were murdered. It is an exercise in futility.

Then, I pursued replacing destruction with creation. For a time this provided a distraction, but it could not last. The fact is that any kind of ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand. How can I possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I created continue to struggle? If they could see me sitting here in suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they would be outraged, and rightfully so.

I thought perhaps I could make some headway with this film project, maybe even directly appealing to those I had wronged and exposing a greater truth, but that is also now being taken away from me. I fear that, just as with everything else that requires the involvement of people who can not understand by virtue of never having been there, it is going to fall apart as careers get in the way.

The last thought that has occurred to me is one of some kind of final mission. It is true that I have found that I am capable of finding some kind of reprieve by doing things that are worthwhile on the scale of life and death. While it is a nice thought to consider doing some good with my skills, experience, and killer instinct, the truth is that it isn’t realistic. First, there are the logistics of financing and equipping my own operation, then there is the near certainty of a grisly death, international incidents, and being branded a terrorist in the media that would follow. What is really stopping me, though, is that I simply am too sick to be effective in the field anymore. That, too, has been taken from me.

Thus, I am left with basically nothing. Too trapped in a war to be at peace, too damaged to be at war. Abandoned by those who would take the easy route, and a liability to those who stick it out - and thus deserve better. So you see, not only am I better off dead, but the world is better without me in it

This is what brought me to my actual final mission. Not suicide, but a mercy killing. I know how to kill, and I know how to do it so that there is no pain whatsoever. It was quick, and I did not suffer. And above all, now I am free. I feel no more pain. I have no more nightmares or flashbacks or hallucinations. I am no longer constantly depressed or afraid or worried

I am free.

I ask that you be happy for me for that. It is perhaps the best break I could have hoped for. Please accept this and be glad for me.

Daniel Somers

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Wednesday, 26 June 2013 12:00

Excerpt: "The former superjudge has denied he already represents Snowden, but confirmed he defends "the right of freedom of expression and freedom of information."

Baltasar Garzón is Snowden's choice for legal representation. (photo: Miguel Rojo/AFP)
Baltasar Garzón is Snowden's choice for legal representation. (photo: Miguel Rojo/AFP)



WikiLeaks' Baltasar Garzón, the Man Edward Snowden Wants on His Side

By Guardian UK

26 June 13

 

Best known as the superjudge who ordered the arrest of General Pinochet, the crusading legal head of WikiLeaks has been approached by the NSA whistleblower to represent him

e are not familiar with the superstar judge in Britain. Our adversarial model of justice, in which evidence is gathered by the police and evaluated at trial by a supposedly neutral judge, pretty much precludes it. But in much of Europe, and wherever else in the world the inquisitorial system prevails, it is an independent prosecutor or examining magistrate who directs investigations, seeks out evidence, and interviews all concerned.

It is a role that can, when handled astutely, present the determined, charismatic and above all publicity-savvy jurist with a satisfyingly large stage on which to display their talents – and some do not shy from the opportunity.

One such is Baltasar Garzón, the celebrated – and controversial – Spanish human rights investigator who, as the legal head of anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, is considering a request for help from US whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Snowden is thought to be trying to get to a country – possibly in Latin America – that would not deport him to the US to face espionage charges. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has already been given asylum by Ecuador, and is sheltering in its London embassy. Garzón could act as a go-between.

The former superjudge has denied he already represents Snowden, but confirmed he defends "the right of freedom of expression and freedom of information – the same rights I defend [wherever] the release of information that reveals criminality is met with the persecution of those who expose it".

Garzón, now 57, is probably best known outside Spain for his spectacular coup in securing the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in 1998 in London, where the former Chilean military dictator had travelled for medical treatment. Pinochet was held for 18 months, but eventually released and allowed to return to Chile. Although Garzón ultimately failed to bring the ex-strongman to Spain to face charges of human rights violations for kidnapping and killing Spaniards in Chile, his attempt made headlines around the world.

At home, his crusading reputation was made in the 80s and 90s taking on Spain's toughest corruption and drug rings. He not only went after the violent Basque separatists ETA – but also the government, which was accused of deploying death squads to take out the group's leading members.

Garzón's judicial career in Spain was ended last year when he was banned from the bench for 11 years. The supreme court found him guilty of wiretapping conversations between defence lawyers and clients in a corruption probe involving the prime minister Mariano Rajoy's People's party. He had already been suspended since 2010 after a rightwing group accused him of violating a 1977 amnesty by reopening cases of alleged atrocities committed under the Franco dictatorship between 1936 and 1975.

He now spends little time in Spain, apparently preferring to deploy his talents – both legal and promotional – on an even wider stage.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | New Evidence Points to TWA 800 Coverup Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 June 2013 11:06

Boardman writes: "New evidence contradicts the U.S. government's official story and supports the conclusion that an American 747 jet passenger liner was brought down by an explosion outside the airplane, likely a missile."

The wreckage of TWA Flight 800. (photo: unknown)
The wreckage of TWA Flight 800. (photo: unknown)



New Evidence Points to TWA 800 Coverup

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

26 June 13

 

ew evidence contradicts the U.S. government's official story and supports the conclusion that an American 747 jet passenger liner was brought down by an explosion outside the airplane, likely a missile, which caused fuel tanks to explode destroying the aircraft, according to a group that includes credible professionals in aviation, investigation, media, and physics.

On June 19, this group formally petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to reopen its long but inconclusive investigation of the strange mid-air explosion that brought down TWA Flight 800 on July 17, 1996, killing everyone aboard, 230 people from 13 countries. NTSB chair Deborah Hersman declined to discuss the petition. Board spokesperson Kelly Nantel issued a statement indicating that the board would probably respond "within about 60 days."

The newest challenge to the long-distrusted official story of TWA Flight 800 comes from a group led by six experienced crash investigators, all of whom worked on the original TWA Flight 800 investigation from 1996 to 2000. The nameless group also includes a physicist, a documentary film producer, and a CBS News producer whose coverage of the 1996 story was suppressed by the network at the time. Also supporting the petition to re-open the investigation are a number of eyewitnesses to the explosions and several family members of the victims.

Epix Film Charges Cover-up, Evidence Suppression, Witness Intimidation

The petition to the NTSB is timed to help promote, and directly supported by, a new documentary, "TWA FLIGHT 800," that tells the story of how, "17 years later, inside investigators finally break their silence." The documentary premieres on July 17 on Epix, the premium cable channel started in 2009 by Viacom, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, and Lions Gate Entertainment.

Documentary co-producer Tom Stalcup is a physicist and co-founded the Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization in 1999 (www.flight800.org) to assure the integrity of the NSTB crash investigation, based on the belief that "the FBI unlawfully denied the National Transportation Safety Board access to forensic results and eyewitness interview documents" and continues to do so.

Focusing on whether TWA Flight 800 was brought down by an internal (i.e., gas tank malfunction or bomb) or external (i.e., missile) explosion, physicist Stalcup told Democracy NOW!:

The most significant piece of evidence that we have analyzed, that the NTSB has not analyzed, is the initial detonation that caused the crash. This was recorded by multiple FAA radar sites. And it was consistent [with] and corroborates the eyewitness reports. The eyewitnesses reported something going up, heading out down towards that airplane, a long distance, colliding with it in a perpendicular fashion, detonating near or at the aircraft….
And, yes, in fact, the radar evidence— the radar sites along Long Island picked up that exact event – supersonic debris exiting the right side of the— right side of the aircraft, consistent with the trajectory of that object.

Almost Everyone's First Thought in July 1996 Was Possible Terrorism

From the start, investigators and witnesses alike suspected the explosion was a terrorist attack, by missile or a bomb aboard the plane. As the CIA summed it up in 2008, "Investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) almost immediately focused on three possible causes: a bomb, a missile, or a mechanical failure."

Because of these suspicions, the FBI took the lead in the investigation, assisted by the CIA, operating on the assumption that it was a criminal investigation. Officially, the FBI came to categorize its investigation as "Re: UNKNOWN SUBJECT(S); EXPLOSION OF TWA FLIGHT #800; JULY 17, 1996; ACTS OF TERRORISM – INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS – EXPLOSIVE AND INCENDIARY DEVICES."

The NTSB, an independent federal agency established by Congress to investigate every civil aviation accident in the U.S., found itself in the unusual position of having to defer to the FBI. The FBI/NTSB working relationship quickly deteriorated, becoming less a collaboration than a culture clash. This failure of cooperation in 1996 contributed directly to widespread skepticism about official narratives, including the present challenge to the reliability of the investigation.

After more than a year, the FBI decided that there were no terrorists involved in bringing down TWA Flight 800. In a nationally televised news conference on November 18, 1997, the agency announced it was suspending its investigation. That news conference featured a CIA-produced animation of the end of Flight 800, "explaining" what the witnesses had seen, whether they thought they'd seen it or not.

You Didn't See What You Saw, You Saw What the CIA Says You Saw

Titled "What Did the Eyewitnesses See?," the CIA animation begins with a quick summary of the takeoff, explosion, and crash "into the Atlantic Ocean, nine miles off the coast of Long Island." Dozens of witnesses saw what looked to them like a missile. "Was it a missile? Did foreign terrorists destroy the aircraft?" the CIA narrator asks ominously. "CIA weapons analysts looked into this possibility."

"The CIA's conclusion: the eyewitnesses did not see a missile," the narrator states. He goes on to describe what different witnesses really saw, according to agency experts. [Excerpts of this animation are on YouTube, "TWA 800: CIA animation: 'What did the witnesses see?'"] The narrator finally concludes, falsely, "To date, there is no evidence that anyone saw a missile shoot down TWA Flight 800." [Emphasis in the original.]

What makes the narrator's statement false is the evidence he himself had just acknowledged – the accounts of witnesses. Those accounts, and the CIA's analysis of them, are all evidence, none of which has been tested in court or any other adversarial proceeding. There were at least 736 witnesses to at least part of the event and 258 of those witnesses saw something broadly consistent with a missile; of these, 38 described seeing something that closely resembled a missile rising from the ocean and looping down on the plane.

What If the Only Officially Sanctioned Conclusion Can't Be Proved?

With the FBI and CIA determining that there was no missile and no bomb, the last remaining possibility on the investigators' list was a mechanical failure of some sort, for which there was no immediately obvious evidence. Although the FBI slowly turned over much of its evidence to the NTSB, the air safety board still took more than four years to issue its report on TWA Flight 800. Even though that was one of the longest investigations the NSTB ever conducted, at a cost of about $40 million, it still could not reach a definitive conclusion.

Regarding the mid-air explosion that killed 230 people on TWA Flight 800, the NTSB concluded: "The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty…."

Despite years of unofficial challenges to the NTSB's final report on August 23, 2000, the safety board has not improved on its inconclusive conclusion. Officially, the board never closes an investigation, but the TWA Flight 800 investigation has apparently been inactive for 13 years. The 425-page final report is on the NTSB.gov web site. More than 17,000 supporting documents are available by request.

Almost Nobody Talks About the Navy's Role in the TWA 800 Crash

On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800 was flying over an area of the Atlantic Ocean where the U.S. Navy was conducting a live-fire exercise and had closed part of the airspace to commercial traffic, according to Kelly O'Meara, who was then a congressional aide to N.Y. Republican Rep. Michael Forbes.

Among the naval vessels taking part in the exercise were a number of surface ships and three submarines – USS Trepang, USS Wyoming, and USS Albuquerque. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, the nearest Navy surface ship did not attempt any rescue operation, but steamed rapidly away from the crash site. For the next two days, Navy divers worked the crash site while keeping others, including NTSB divers, from joining recovery operations.

According to Jack Cashill of WND (formerly World Net Daily), an anonymous crew member of the USS Albuquerque, whom he calls Mack, said he had loaded secret, "experimental missiles" on his submarine for that exercise. After TWA Flight 800 exploded, Mack told his wife that he hoped it had been a terrorist attack, since the most likely alternative seemed to be a Navy accident.

Cashill and James Sanders co-wrote the 2003 book, "First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," in which they argue that the Clinton White House orchestrated the multi-agency cover-up in order to protect his 1996 re-election. The authors conclude that "TWA Flight 800 was brought down by a Navy missile, whose intended target was a terrorist plane on a collision course with the passenger aircraft," according to Publishers Weekly.

Despite Conspiracy Theories, Legitimate Questions Remains Unanswered

The terrorist kamikaze plane is hardly the only conspiracy theory tied to TWA Flight 800, but the makers of the new Epix documentary don't theorize – they lay out what they consider to be the critical evidence as the basis for their call for an investigation that will address open questions.

"We are not speculating in the least," co-producer Stalcup told the N.Y. Daily News. "Based on the evidence, we can push [the NTSB's] conclusions aside. I think the whole world should listen."

The NSTB's inconclusive conclusion is only one issue that Stalcup and his collaborators want to see addressed. Others include:

  • What was the Navy doing out there that night? Why wasn't that investigated, or the results of any investigation made public?

  • Why did the FBI fail to record a single witness interview, preferring to have agents summarize what was said in their own words?

  • Why did the NSTB choose not to take testimony from any of the 700-plus witnesses to the explosion and crash?

  • Why did the NTSB choose not to take testimony from the helicopter pilot who was the closest witness to the explosion? Why did they avoid Major Fred Meyer, then an on-duty Major in the National Guard, a Viet-Nam helicopter veteran, who saw the takedown of TWA Flight 800 as a missile strike? "I'm a combat vet, I know what missiles look like. And I know what I saw," he told McClatchy's Washington Bureau.

  • Why did the NTSB consider only a missile that actually hit the plane, and not one that exploded in close proximity, even though the latter hypothesis fits more closely with the evidence?

  • Why did the NTSB consider only a missile fired by terrorists? Why did an NTSB spokesman tell Business Insurance magazine in October 1996 that "friendly fire has never been something we've considered, or believed?

How Welcome Would Whistleblowers Have Been in the FBI or NTSB in 1996?

The original investigators who are now breaking their silence want to explain that silence and the intimidation that enforced it. And they want to expose what they see as the investigation's incompetence and wrong doing:

  • Hank Hughes was an NTSB investigator for 42 years. "TWA 800 was a one-of-a-kind event. There was no instance in my entire career that was like it, from the standpoint of the manipulation of the investigation, lack of coordination, and for that matter, the willful denial of information," he told McClatchy.

  • Bob Young was an accident investigator for TWA and says the FBI manipulated the investigators and forced them to cover up facts.

  • Jim Speer, who was an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, had the FBI test a piece of TWA Flight 800 for explosive residue. When the piece tested positive, the FBI kept the piece, forced Speer to leave, and told him that the machine often produces "false positives." He later learned that the machine was highly reliable.

  • Rocky Miller was an accident investigator for the Association of Flight Attendants. He disputes even the inconclusive conclusion of the NTSB report blaming the wiring: "We never found any of that. We didn't find any evidence in the wiring on the aircraft that would have indicated that a spark occurred inside the center wing tank that would blow it up," he told Democracy NOW!

Media Sampling Suggests Some Caution About Believing Official Stories

Following the June 19 news conference to announce the petition and documentary, news coverage was limited but largely neutral. CBS This Morning gave the story almost 5 minutes featuring the CBS reporter who was the first reporter on the scene that night, by boat. The National Journal gave more space to the NTSB non-response response than any substance.

Forbes magazine ran a piece by a former NTSB board member who had approved the original report; he defended the report and said no one even complained to him about a cover-up. CNN's The Lead gave a forum to FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom, who supervised the original FBI investigation of TWA Flight 800. Kallstrom called the petition "preposterous" and personally attacked the petitioners, but did not address questions of substance. He was somewhat more responsive during Fox's 12-minute report, but eventually went to ducking questions and making personal attacks.

CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 gave the story four minutes, during which John King pressed Hank Hughes with exaggerated claims that Hughes said weren't his. He and two others had testified about the same problems to a Senate committee in 1997, but their testimony "fell on deaf ears," Hughes said. "There's no motive in this, other than we want to get it straight. It's a matter of personal integrity for us."

When Some Questions Aren't Asked, How Is an Investigation Complete?

One of the issues the FBI and the NTSB continuously fudge is the possibility of a missile. They consistently say they considered whether a missile hit the plane and found no evidence of a missile hitting the plane.

The counterclaim, which the FBI and the NTSB admit they did not investigate, is that a missile exploded near the plane, without hitting it.

In both scenarios, the missile sets off the gas tank explosion that destroyed the plane.

In pondering questions about the TWA Flight 800 explosion, it may help to keep this context in mind: if the Pentagon went to great lengths to cover up the friendly fire killing of football start Pat Tillman in Iraq, how much further might the Pentagon go before admitting the U.S. accidentally brought down an airliner full of civilians off Long Island?

How many decades did the Marines go before they stopped poisoning their own people at Camp Lejeune?

Sometimes the unthinkable is all too thinkable.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Immigration Reform Enters Its Death Spiral Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Tuesday, 25 June 2013 14:40

Rich writes: "A week ago, I thought there was still a chance, however remote, that immigration reform might make it through Congress, if only because the GOP would be on a 'demographic death spiral' without making some amends to a Hispanic electorate that refused to obey Mitt Romney's admonition that it 'self-deport.'"

Will immigration reform go to the House to die? (photo: AP)
Will immigration reform go to the House to die? (photo: AP)


Immigration Reform Enters Its Death Spiral

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

25 June 13

 

he universally respected, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office weighed in on the immigration-reform bill, estimating that it would reduce the federal deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next two decades. Supporters of the bill were ecstatic. Meanwhile, John Boehner promised that he wouldn't bring the bill to the floor unless a majority of Republicans supported it. Who blinks first?

A week ago, I thought there was still a chance, however remote, that immigration reform might make it through Congress, if only because (in the words of Senator Lindsey Graham) the GOP would be on a "demographic death spiral" without making some amends to a Hispanic electorate that refused to obey Mitt Romney's admonition that it "self-deport." I'm now convinced that immigration reform is dead, no matter how much Chuck Schumer declares otherwise. If Schumer's anti-reform adversary in the Senate, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, doesn't succeed in derailing the bill there, it is surely doomed in the House. The radical tea-party base of the party doesn't want it, period. As Rand Paul, once considered a possibly pro-reform vote in the Senate, now concludes, "There's no great groundswell of Republicans telling me to vote for this." Even a pro-reform Establishment figure like Jeb Bush has so much trouble making the case that he stumbled into arguing that immigrants are good for economic growth because they are "more fertile" than the rest of us. (Speak for yourself, white man!) As for the Congressional Budget Office estimate, why would the GOP respect those facts any more than any other facts on any policy issue, from climate change to economics? After all, the right's own Heritage Foundation, under the leadership of that intellectual powerhouse Jim DeMint, had already come up with junk math stating that immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, not save them $1 trillion. End of story and, by the way, end of Marco Rubio's presidential campaign.

Last week, the Obama administration announced it would begin providing arms to the anti-Assad forces in Syria after concluding that loyalist troops had used chemical weapons against the rebels. Is intervening now a good idea? Is it too little, too late? Or is any involvement in an internal, sectarian conflict a bad idea after the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq?

There are no glib answers to any of these questions, and the Obama administration's decision is no answer, either. It's a stall for time - or, more accurately, another stall for time. Here's what we do know: 93,000 people, many of them civilians, have been killed in the two years of fighting, and some 1.5 million people have been displaced. Here's what we don't know: what kind of American intervention, if any, would have made or will make a difference in what is essentially another Shia-Sunni civil war - and in this case one that potentially makes us an implicit ally of Al Qaeda in its battle against Hezbollah. Though one size doesn't fit all, our history in Afghanistan and Iraq does not augur well, and there is close to zero support for a new war among American voters besides. And, as Jeffrey Goldberg has reported at Bloomberg, there is once again a conflict between the Pentagon and State over the best intermediate course. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Martin Dempsey, has pushed back against John Kerry by arguing that Kerry's notion of a surgical strike at Assad, bombing his airfields (the same airfields used to launch those chemical weapons), is far from simple and potentially treacherous. ("To be safe, the U.S. would have to neutralize Syria's integrated air-defense system, an operation that would require 700 or more sorties," Goldberg writes.) Obviously the best way out of the horrific Syrian mess would be for Assad's most powerful backer, Vladimir Putin, to enable a political solution, but, as the Obama-Putin standoff at the G8 meeting this week reveals, that's not happening either. I'm not going to play armchair general and say that I know what the president should do in this intractable crisis, but it's precisely because there is no simple answer that I wholeheartedly support his caution. Most of those arguing full-speed-ahead are the same conservative and liberal hawks who misread the future in pushing intervention in Iraq.

The House approved a measure this week that would ban abortions after 22 weeks. This bill won't pass the Senate and certainly wouldn't get a presidential signature. But should pro-choice supporters be worried about it all the same?

The attempts to limit a woman's right to abortion are real and worrisome, particularly at the ground level of the states. But this doomed effort by the congressional GOP to push an unconstitutional countrywide abortion ban is bad news for the Republican Party akin to its flameout on immigration reform. Weren't the calmer heads in the GOP suggesting only yesterday that Republicans stop talking about abortion, rape, and contraception after their debacle with women voters in 2012? Hilariously, the House leaders think they can camouflage this new front in the war on women by drafting a female toady in Congress (Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee) to manage this draconian bill on the floor rather than the man, Trent Franks of Arizona, who actually masterminded it. Here's further proof, not that any is needed, of the right's self-immolating core conviction that women are stupid.

Mama Grizzly herself returned to her former employer Fox News this week after a mere five months apart. Are you surprised that Palin and Ailes got back together so fast? And who needs whom more?

Fox News still triumphs easily over MSNBC and CNN in the ratings, but its party is out of power, and when was the last time you heard its prime-time stars Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly make any news or even any noise? Ailes needs a freak show to get people excited about walking into his tent, and no one does that better than Palin. As for Palin, what else does she have to do? Celebrity and television airtime are her oxygen, far more than her political or ideological pursuits, and having exhausted her careers in both reality television and electoral politics, it was either Fox News or a Broadway stint in Chicago singing "We Both Reached for the Gun."

See Also: Immigration Bill Passes Key Hurdle in US Senate

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On? Print
Tuesday, 25 June 2013 14:31

Cassidy writes: "Gregory said that he wasn't taking a position on Snowden's actions - he was merely asking a question. I'm all for journalists asking awkward questions, too. But why aren't more of them being directed at Hayden and Feinstein and Obama, who are clearly intent on attacking the messenger?"

Lonnie Snowden holds a portrait of a young Edward Snowden. (photo: AP)
Lonnie Snowden holds a portrait of a young Edward Snowden. (photo: AP)


Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?

By John Cassidy, The New Yorker

25 June 13

 

s I write this, a bunch of reporters are flying from Moscow to Havana on an Aeroflot Airbus 330, but Edward Snowden isn't sitting among them. His whereabouts are unknown. He might still be in the V.I.P. lounge at Sheremetyevo International Airport. He could have left on another plane. There are even suggestions that he has taken shelter in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Moscow.

What we do know is that, on this side of the Atlantic, efforts are being stepped up to demonize Snowden, and to delegitimize his claim to be a conscientious objector to the huge electronic-spying apparatus operated by the United States and the United Kingdom. "This is an individual who is not acting, in my opinion, with noble intent," General Keith Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency, told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "What Snowden has revealed has caused irreversible and significant damage to our country and to our allies." Over on CBS's "Face the Nation," Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, "I don't think this man is a whistle-blower… he could have stayed and faced the music. I don't think running is a noble thought."

An unnamed senior Administration official joined the Snowden-bashing chorus, telling reporters, "Mr. Snowden's claim that he is focussed on supporting transparency, freedom of the press, and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen: China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Ecuador. His failure to criticize these regimes suggests that his true motive throughout has been to injure the national security of the U.S., not to advance Internet freedom and free speech."

Continue reading: Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?

See Also: Excerpts From Snowden's Letter Requesting Asylum in Ecuador

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 Next > End >>

Page 3091 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