Huh

Hope everything’s okay (my cousin works at the support center):

NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) — U.S. Naval facilities in both Northeast and South Philadelphia have been evacuated due to an unspecified threat.

The evacuation was ordered around 11 a.m. at the Naval Support Activity Center in Northeast Philadelphia, located at 700 Robbins Street in the Lawndale section of the city.

At the same time, the Naval Shipyard in South Philadelphia was also being evacuated.

The Philadelphia Ordinance Disposal responded to the Northeast Philadelphia facility.

The all-clear has since been given at the Naval Support Activity Center.

The Naval Shipyard is still being evacuated.

[…]The threat level has been raised to the highest level at this time.

Some anti-abortion types are really domestic terrorists

Drexel law professor David S. Cohen was on radio with me to discuss his book Living in the Crosshairs that studies abortion providers and those who harass them. Cohen interviewed nearly 90 people in 35 states and concluded that those who attack centers like Planned Parenthood should be considered domestic terrorists. Alan and Cohen discussed why… Continue reading “Some anti-abortion types are really domestic terrorists”

The great game

The key actor who has catalyzed a global defiance today of #America as Sole Superpower is Vladimir #Putin Russia’s President. The US #oil strategy had inflicted far more damage on the US than on Russia. Putin challenged the very foundations of the US-domi

I don’t pretend to understand American empire or why the U.S. does anything at all. I don’t have any special knowledge. But for some reason, I’ve never believed the U.S. version of what’s happening in Ukraine.

I look at this stuff now and think, Well, there may be activity on Russia’s borders or inside Ukraine, but maybe not. Those two soldiers may be Russian and may be on active duty, but I cannot draw any conclusion.

I do not appreciate having to think this way—not as a reader and not as a former newsman. I do not like reading Times editorials, such as Tuesday’s, which institutionalizes “Putin’s war” and other such tropes, and having to say, Our most powerful newspaper is into the created reality game.

A few things can be made clear in all this. Straight off the top it is almost certain, despite a logical wariness of presented evidence, that Russia has personnel and weapons deployed along its border and in Ukraine.

I greatly hope so, and whether they are on duty or otherwise interests me not at all.

First of all, it is a highly restrained approach to a geopolitical circumstance that Moscow recognizes as dangerous, Washington does not seem to and Kiev emphatically does not. In reversed circumstances, a troubled nation would have long back turned into an open conflict between two nuclear powers. Fig leafs have their place.

I have written before on the question of spheres of influence: They are to be observed if not honored. Stephen Cohen, the Russianist scholar, prefers “spheres of security,” and the phrase makes the point plainly. Russia cannot be expected to abandon its interests as Cohen defines them, and considering what is at issue for Moscow, the response is intelligently measured.

Equally, Moscow appears to recognize that without any equilibrium between the Russian-tilted east and the Western-tilted west, Ukraine will be a bloodbath. Irresponsible as it has proven, and with little or no control over armed extreme rightist factions, Kiev cannot be allowed even an attempt to resolve this crisis militarily.

One has to consider how these things are conventionally done. I had a cousin who piloted helicopters in Vietnam long ago. When we spread the conflict to Laos and Cambodia he flew in blue jeans, a T-shirt, sneakers and without dog tags. “If you go down, we don’t know you,” was the O.D.

A directly germane case is Angola in the mid-1970s. When the Portuguese were forced to flee the old colony, the CIA began supplying right-wing opportunists in the north and south with weapons, money, and agency personnel. Only in response did Cuba send troops that quickly proved decisive. I remember well all the howls of “aggression”—all of them hypocritical rubbish: American efforts to subvert the movement that still governs Angola peaceably continued for a dozen more years.

The Times editorial just noted is headlined, “Vladimir Putin Hides the Truth.” This is upside-down-ism at its very worst.

It is not easy to put accounts of the Ukraine crisis side by side to compare them. Think of two bottles of unlabeled wine in a blind taste test. Now read on.

I do not see how there can be any question that Moscow’s take on Ukraine and the larger East-West confrontation is the more coherent. Read or listen to Putin’s speeches, notably that delivered at the Valdai Discussion Club, a Davos variant, in Sochi last October. It is historically informed, with a grasp of interests (common and opposing), the nature of the 21st century environment and how best outcomes are to be achieved in it.

Altogether, Moscow offers a vastly more sophisticated, coherent accounting of the Ukraine crisis than any American official has or ever will. This is for one simple reason: Neither Putin nor Lavrov bears the burden American officials do of having to sell people mythical renderings of how the world works or their place in it.
Continue reading “The great game”

Was Invading Iraq the Right Thing to Do?

Here’s a graphic of the results of a new Quinnipiac poll ….

 

Poll

Jay Bookman at the AJC…

It’s not a surprise that Republicans remain more supportive than most Americans of a war initiated and led by a Republican administration. But the scale of the divergence between Republicans and their fellow Americans is pretty stunning. To this day, and by more than a two-to-one ratio, Republicans still believe that the war was a good idea.

Or at least they say they believe that. Given the blowback from the war, I have to think that some of those 62 percent are acting out of sheer cussedness in refusing to admit the mistake to a pollster. But Republican pollsters are probably producing similar numbers in their own internal surveys, which helps to explain the awkward straddling act by their candidates. It tells you a lot about what the GOP base will be demanding from a potential nominee.

And that is not good news for Rand Paul.

In my unscientific polling around social media, many of my Right of Center friends in the sea of Red I live in prefer really not to discuss this particular topic much. If they do, there is some kind of twisted logic that it was all Hillary’s fault… or something.

 

 

 

The True Benghazi Outrage …

One of the more perplexing things regarding the Benghazi hearings was questions regarding the mission’s purpose in Benghazi. The mission performed no diplomatic functions as entertaining dignitaries or issuing passports. Why would a long time American diplomat be assigned to such dangerous post in war torn Libya? Why were there far more CIA personnel in the area than State Department personnel in the area?

Marcy Wheeler ….

What did the CIA know and when did they know it?

That’s the real question that ought to be raised by a recently declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The August 2012 document describes how the U.S. ended up on the same general side in the Syrian Civil War as Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor to ISIS. “AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning,” the report explained. Meanwhile, “[w]estern countries, the Gulf states, and Turkey are supporting” rebel efforts against the Assad regime in a proxy war, putting them on the same side as, if not working together with, the terrorists now overrunning Iraq.

Some outlets have concluded that this means “the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad.”

But as Juan Cole counters, the report that western powers supported rebels “doesn’t say that the US created sectarian groups and it does not say that the US favors al-Qaeda in Syria or the so-called ‘Islamic State of Iraq.’” Cole continues, ”It says that those powers (e.g. Turkey and the Gulf monarchies) supporting the opposition wanted to see the declaration of a Salafi (hard line Sunni) breakaway statelet, in order to put pressure on the al-Assad regime.”

In a nutshell, Cole Aagues that the U.S. didn’t support Al-Qaeda in Syria directly. But its allies certainly did.

Two months after the report laying out AQI support for the rebels — another of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch shows — the DIA provided a detailed description of how weapons got shipped from Benghazi to Syria, presumably for rebel groups. “During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the [Qaddafi] regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012,” the report explained, “weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria.”

The report obtained by Judicial Watch says that the weapons shipments ended in “early September of 2012.” But note what event this second report conspicuously does not mention: The Sept. 11 attack on the State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi at the same time that the flow of weapons stopped ….

Read the rest. It is fascinating.

 

How much of your life has America been at war?

I ran across this interesting tidbit in the Washington Post. It was regarding a recent commencement speech given by Martha Radditz…

The speaker was ABC journalist Martha Raddatz, and the point is the key one in the intro: The graduates have spent half their lives with America at war.

It’s a startling idea, but an incorrect one. The percentage is almost certainly much higher than that.

It included a chart to determine the amount of wartime for one’s age. I was born in 1960, so according to the chart 44.6% of my lifetime America has been at war. Indeed, anyone born after 1985 more than half of their life America has been at war.

But that state of war, we are told (I am too young to know better) feels different than America during World War II or, particularly for the college-aged, Vietnam. Moreso than those wars, war today is distant, fought on our behalf.

That’s Raddatz’s other, perhaps more important point: Young Americans have lived in a country at war for almost their whole lives, but they have to be reminded of it.

“Craig-splaining” …

Holidays can bring family and friends together for celebration. Memorial Day is no different with BBQ parties on the patios of America. We love them here in Georgia. Even if our politics are left of center and our slobby, right winged relatives with “Duck Dynasty” t-shirts show up ready to lob the usual politically charged insults (usually without bringing a covered dish, rude.) It starts quietly with a few “libtard” comments thrown around, then goes to the full blown “worshiping your messiah” (referring to the POTUS.) Of course, it never occurs to these relatives that one might be in disagreement with some policies of the POTUS. Doesn’t matter. These relatives just think that people on the left are controlled by the “librul media.”

My friend, Craig, has a great way of “splaining” things to people in the Right Wing. Below is an essay that “Craig-splains” events in Ramadi so people on the Right can understand… maybe. It might help remind a lefty of some of the pertinent facts regarding the situation there…

If you draw a circle around the irregular boundaries of Iraq and throw a dart directly at the bullseye, you will hit the city of Ramadi, strategically located on the Euphrates River, capping the only road to Syria. Prior to 2003, it was a hustling-bustling oasis of economic prosperity and a spring of optimism and advancement. Population-wise, it was an anomaly of Iraq, not a microcosm – while the country of Iraq was roughly 70% Shia ruled by Sunni Saddam and the 20% Sunni population, Ramadi was 95% Sunni. But it wasn’t 95% Saddam loyalists.

Ramadi was made up of closely-knit Sunni tribal groups whose values and culture transcended the Sunni/Shia divide. While the Ramadi men made up a large portion of Saddam’s military, they were not fans. In particular, they opposed the excesses of his abusive rule, demonstrating in the streets against him in 1995 after he executed three military officers and a popular Iraqi air force general – all from the tribes of Ramadi – because they had dared to speak out against him.

Over the past few days, the city of Ramadi has fallen to the terrorist group ISIS. Using tactics designed to instill paralyzing fear and hopelessness so great that its victims believe it’s useless to resist, ISIS has invaded Ramadi, inundating us with images of American-trained and American-armed men succumbing to terror, casting-aside US-taxpayer-purchased weapons for the later use by ISIS, as they cowardly run to helicopters to be airlifted to safety. More than 500 people from Ramadi have been killed and hundreds more have fled the violence.

Bless their hearts. The people of Ramadi can’t catch a break.

The only thing that could be worse than what just happened, is if a stronger force than ISIS had invaded Ramadi and killed 9,000 people and caused tens of thousands of people to leave everything behind and flee the violence.

Like we did. A mere dozen years ago. In 2003.

We in America need to once-and-for-all decide who “the terrorists” are. Are they the people who invade and seek to impose their will on the conquered through a campaign of fear and lies and unspeakable violence? Or, are they the people on the inside who fight to defend their country and repel the invaders?

Because we Americans have been both. And we have done both, specifically in the exact same city of Ramadi.

We can ~not~ be the world’s leader in values; be the shining city on the hill lighting the paths of liberty and justice; be the global beacon of hope and freedom; or, be safe from terrorism in our own country, as long as we are defining “terrorists” as those who disagree with us – regardless of whether we are right or wrong – and defining “terrorism” as fighting against us, whether we are the justified defenders or the illegal and immoral invaders.

At the beginning of Bush’s 2003 completely-unjustified military assault on the Iraqi people, his administration arrogantly announced that we would not be keeping an official body count of the “enemy” lives we took. But the Iraqi body count has been studied by numerous organizations over the years, with counts for the period of 2003 – 2006 ranging from a low of 150,000 Iraqis dead to more than a million, depending on the level of detail in the study.

Recent studies show the count to be around 500,000 Iraqis dead, for the period between the 2003 invasion through the 2011 withdrawal, a number which includes the tens of thousands of Iraqis indiscriminately slaughtered by Bush’s initial Shock & Awe campaign and the multiplied thousands of unarmed innocent women, children, and non-combatant men. But that number does not include the untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis seriously injured and maimed; the mothers mourning the loss of innocent sons; men broken over the loss of their families; orphans crying at night for the comfort of their parents’ arms; refugees by the millions who left behind all worldly possessions and the unmarked graves of family members as they fled to uncertain and risky futures into the inhospitable desert and unstable country of Syria.

And we’re just going to say, “ooops”? “Sorry for decimating your country and massacring your families – in hindsight we were mistaken; but, love us anyway, because you’re better off without that mean ol’ Saddam.”

There wasn’t an al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) organization in Ramadi before we invaded; there were no ISIS members. We instigated the violence in the Sunni Triangle cities of Fallujah and Ramadi in early 2003 when we massacred 100 civilians in Fallujah, including women and children, who were protesting our invasion. We de-stabilized the area by disbanding the Iraqi army, creating chaos and anarchy and severe unemployment among the men who were serving in the army. With Bush’s honeypot theory, we expressly invited outside terrorists to come in and organize the Sunni insurgency against us, with Bush proudly proclaiming “we’re fighting them over here so we don’t have to fight them at home.”

And with our inability to distinguish between the terrorists we had invited and the civilians who lived there, we repeatedly slaughtered unarmed innocents, driving otherwise peaceful people into the camp of the insurgents. The results of our actions in 2003, led to the formation of AQI in 2004 which changed its name to ISIS in 2006 and morphed into its present state of power and increased numbers after combining with the harvest of Bush’s seeds of democracy which were carried on the winds of change to the fertile ground of Syria.

If Russia had invaded the US and quickly established control over our government and military, would we individual gun owners be “terrorists” because we hid behind our mini-blinds and fired on the Russian invaders and used our red plastic containers full of lawnmower gas to improvise devices which would explode under vehicles carrying Russian invaders?

Of course not. And neither were the Iraqis “terrorists,” just because they fought against Americans who had invaded their country under no recognizable justification. Yet we tortured and killed and Gitmoed Iraqis “picked up on the battlefield” who were merely defending their country from illegal invaders.

And if Russia had killed our families, who among us would not have dedicated the remainder of our lives to the mission of inflicting maximum misery on Russians?

It’s currently en vogue among the same conservatives who supported Bush’s abjectly immoral invasion of Iraq and who high-fived over the unbridled destruction unleashed by Bush’s Shock & Awe campaign on the Iraqi people, to wring their hands and cry and say “Christianity is under attack” and “the only religion left that can be discriminated against is Christianity” and “Arabs hate us because we love Jesus.”

But just do what Jesus said and put yourselves in the shoes of others. Would YOU love us, if we had done to you what we have done to them?

Now, one can be prepared for such occurrences in advance. I like that “Red Dawn” reference, eh? Wolverines!

Have a wonderful Memorial Day.
(Essay reprinted by permission from Craig Hardegree© 05/23/2015)

The killing of Osama bin Laden

Líder yihadista - Osama Bin Laden

UPDATE: NBC News confirms two parts of Hersh’s story.

Not that I’m really surprised, but they wonder why we don’t believe anything the government tells us? Seymour Hersh with an alternate version that was flat-out murder.

Within weeks of the raid, I had been told by two longtime consultants to Special Operations Command, who have access to current intelligence, that the funeral aboard the Carl Vinson didn’t take place. One consultant told me that bin Laden’s remains were photographed and identified after being flown back to Afghanistan. The consultant added: ‘At that point, the CIA took control of the body. The cover story was that it had been flown to the Carl Vinson.’ The second consultant agreed that there had been ‘no burial at sea’. He added that ‘the killing of bin Laden was political theatre designed to burnish Obama’s military credentials … The Seals should have expected the political grandstanding. It’s irresistible to a politician. Bin Laden became a working asset.’ Early this year, speaking again to the second consultant, I returned to the burial at sea. The consultant laughed and said: ‘You mean, he didn’t make it to the water?’

The retired official said there had been another complication: some members of the Seal team had bragged to colleagues and others that they had torn bin Laden’s body to pieces with rifle fire. The remains, including his head, which had only a few bullet holes in it, were thrown into a body bag and, during the helicopter flight back to Jalalabad, some body parts were tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains – or so the Seals claimed. At the time, the retired official said, the Seals did not think their mission would be made public by Obama within a few hours: ‘If the president had gone ahead with the cover story, there would have been no need to have a funeral within hours of the killing. Once the cover story was blown, and the death was made public, the White House had a serious “Where’s the body?” problem. The world knew US forces had killed bin Laden in Abbottabad. Panic city. What to do? We need a “functional body” because we have to be able to say we identified bin Laden via a DNA analysis. It would be navy officers who came up with the “burial at sea” idea. Perfect. No body. Honourable burial following sharia law. Burial is made public in great detail, but Freedom of Information documents confirming the burial are denied for reasons of “national security”. It’s the classic unravelling of a poorly constructed cover story – it solves an immediate problem but, given the slighest inspection, there is no back-up support. There never was a plan, initially, to take the body to sea, and no burial of bin Laden at sea took place.’ The retired official said that if the Seals’ first accounts are to be believed, there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case.

Go read the whole ghastly thing.

Snowden was right

Edward-Snowden-Platon-Wired-Magazine-04

Glad to see the courts agree with him:

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the telephone metadata collection program, under which the National Security Agency gathers up millions of phone records on an ongoing daily basis, is illegal under the Patriot Act.

The government has argued it has the power to carry forward with the program under a section of the Patriot Act, which expires in June. Lawmakers are locked in a debate on whether or how to renew the authority, which was first passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, but has been renewed by both Presidents Bush and Obama in the intervening years.
Continue reading “Snowden was right”