Posts Tagged ‘war on terror’

Government Encroachments into Internet Freedom and Privacy

Evans Liberal Politics
September 28, 2010

 

Government Encroachments
into Internet Freedom and Privacy


Evans Liberal Politics, September 28, 2010, compiled and with commentary by Paul Evans:

Lately there have been a lot of efforts by the government — all in the name of fine-sounding programs such as counter-terrorism or cybersecurity or protecting copyright holders’ rights — to limit the freedom of the internet, and decrease our privacy online. This really got going under Bush, but, sadly, the efforts have only increased under Barack Obama.

Why Pay More? $7.49.COM Domains from GoDaddy.com - 336x280

Are you one of those people who are concerned with online privacy? I’m laughing at you and so is the government. I’ve found that, the more you get these privacy disclosure forms from various organizations – your bank, government agencies, etc. – the less privacy there actually is. The Patriot Act has taken away our fundamental freedoms here, at least in terms of privacy. I won’t bother going over what the NSA is doing, collecting ALL electronic communications and sorting them by keyword in a huge database, with certain keywords triggering human analysis. NSA isn’t the only one doing this, folks. Microsoft collects all your emails and stores them in a another huge datebase, sorted by keyword, and as far the F.B.I. is concerned, since 2006, everyone who has ever connected with the internet has an untouchable, untraceable F.B.I. ‘cookie’ stored on their computer, to track your activity. The F.B.I. has now also asked ISP’s to track your online browsing activity and store the records for two years (February, 2010).

Don’t look over your shoulder!

As for me, as a member of the press, thanks to the Patriot Act, ALL of my emails, internet activities and phone conversations, including cell phone conversations, are subject to human analysis by the NSA. I’m the proverbial little goldfish swimming around in the bowl and hoping I can get away with a few music torrent downloads…. I’m not actually asking for privacy, I no longer expect it in today’s world, (but it would have been nice, wouldn’t it?)

We’re Counting on You!
If You Enjoy Evans Liberal Politics
Please Share Us with Your Friends & Contacts!


In my article, "Inspirational liberal political quotes & speeches," I provide a quotation by John Seabrook, a journalist working at the New Yorker, who speaks to the heart of the matter:

“The net poses a fundamental threat not only to the authority of the government, but to all authority, because it permits people to organize, think, and influence one another without any institutional supervision whatsoever.” — John Seabrook – American journalist, staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 – Source: “My First Flame,” New Yorker, 6 June 1994

Even in 1994, when the internet was brand new and in its infancy, some people saw that there would be a fight about our freedom to use the internet as we wished, because it is a huge threat to entrenched power, providing as it does a way for all ordinary Americans to communicate and share information freely and without constraint. In the last few days we have seen further erosion of the freedom of the internet, and this is a sad, really terrible situation for all of us — for everyone who cherishes freedom and hopes for a better future for ordinary Americans. Without discussion, I am going to just post some of the latest horror stories:

U.S. should be able to shut Internet, former CIA chief says


Your Friends & Mine



image of the seal of the National Security Administration as a link to their official website

U.S. should be able to shut Internet, former CIA chief says, Reuters on The Los Angeles Times, September 26, 2010, by Reuters:

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) – Cyberterrorism is such a threat that the U.S. president should have the authority to shut down the Internet in the event of an attack, Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said.

Hayden made the comments during a visit to San Antonio where he was meeting with military and civilian officials to discuss cyber security. The U.S. military has a new Cyber Command which is to begin operations on October 1.

Hayden said the president currently does not have the authority to shut down the Internet in an emergency.

“My personal view is that it is probably wise to legislate some authority to the President, to take emergency measures for limited periods of time, with clear reporting to Congress, when he feels as if he has to take these measures,” he said in an interview on the weekend.

“But I would put the bar really high as to when these kinds of authorities might take place,” he said.

He likened cyberwarfare to a “frontier.” ….

Government Seeks Back Door Into All Our Communications


Government Seeks Back Door Into All Our Communications, Common Dreams.org, September 27, 2010, by Seth Schoen, Electronic Freedom Foundation:

The New York Times reported this morning on a Federal government plan to put government-mandated back doors in all communications systems, including all encryption software. The Times said the Obama administration is drafting a law that would impose a new “mandate” that all communications services be “able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages” — including ordering “[d]evelopers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication [to] redesign their service to allow interception”.

in a world of espionage and data gathering, here are spy men made up entirely of '1's' and '0's', or in other words, data men

Throughout the 1990s, EFF and others fought the “crypto wars” to ensure that the public would have the right to strong encryption tools that protect our privacy and security — with no back doors and no intentional weaknesses. We fought in court and in Congress to protect privacy rights and challenge restrictions on encryption, and to make sure the public could use encryption to protect itself. In a 1999 decision in the EFF-led Bernstein case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that

[w]hether we are surveilled by our government, by criminals, or by our neighbors, it is fair to say that never has our ability to shield our affairs from prying eyes been at such a low ebb. The availability and use of secure encryption may offer an opportunity to reclaim some portion of the privacy we have lost. Government efforts to control encryption thus may well implicate not only the First Amendment rights of cryptographers intent on pushing the boundaries of their science, but also the constitutional rights of each of us as potential recipients of encryption’s bounty.

For a decade, the government backed off of attempts to force encryption developers to weaken their products and include back doors, and the crypto wars seemed to have been won. (Indeed, journalist Steven Levy declared victory for the civil libertarian side in 2001.) In the past ten years, even as the U.S. government has sought (or simply taken) vastly expanded surveillance powers, it never attempted to ban the development and use of secure encryption.

Now the government is again proposing to do so, following in the footsteps of regimes like the United Arab Emirates that have recently said some privacy tools are too secure and must be kept out of civilian hands.

As the Internet security community explained years ago, intentionally weakening security and including back doors is a recipe for disaster. “Lawful intercept” systems built under current laws have already been abused for unlawful spying by governments and criminals. Trying to force technology developers to include back doors is a recipe for disaster for our already-fragile on-line security and privacy. And like the COICA Internet censorship bill, it takes a page from the world’s most repressive regimes’ Internet-control playbook. This is exactly the wrong message for the U.S. government to be sending to the rest of the world.

The crypto wars are back in full force, and it’s time for everyone who cares about privacy to stand up and defend it: no back doors and no bans on the tools that protect our communications.

Survey of Intelligence and Privacy News:


UPDATE: See White House Wants to Wiretap Internet Communications, AFP on AlterNet, September 27, 2010, by Agence France-Presse: "The Obama administration is drawing up legislation to make it easier for US intelligence services to eavesdrop on the Internet, including email exchanges and social networks."

Recommended: The Obama administration’s war on privacy, Salon, September 27, 2010, by Glenn Greenwald.

Gonna move some money around? See Money transfers could face anti-terrorism scrutiny, The Washington Post, September 27, 2010, by Ellen Nakashima.

See U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet, The New York Times, September 27, 2010, by Charlie Savage.

Many privacy resources and solutions are available at Privacy Solutions, Center for Internet Freedom.

You will find many helpful free downloads and solutions to common computer problems including issues related to PC security and privacy on my own Free Useful Software page. Check it out!

See U.S. mounting first test of cyber-blitz response plan, Reuters, September 28, 2010, by Jim Wolf:

(Reuters) – The United States is launching its first test of a new plan for responding to an enemy cyber-blitz, including any attack aimed at vital services such as power, water and banks.

Thousands of cyber-security personnel from across the government and industry are to take part in the Department of Homeland Security’s Cyber Storm III, a three- to four-day drill starting Tuesday.

The goals are to boost preparedness; examine incident response and enhance information-sharing among federal, state, international and private-sector partners.

“At its core, the exercise is about resiliency — testing the nation’s ability to cope with the loss or damage to basic aspects of modern life,” said a release made available at DHS’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington.

The simulation tests the newly developed National Cyber Incident Response Plan, a coordinated framework ordered by President Barack Obama.

See The Fine Balance Between Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom, The Epoch Times, June 29, 2010, by Joshua Phillip.

See Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in “Online Infringement” Bill, Electronic Freedom Foundation, September 21, 2010, by Richard Esguerra: this bill may directly affect Evans Liberal Politics ability to continue to bring our viewers free music to listen to on our Playlist of Rock and Pop Hits, now up to 195 tracks, completely free for our viewers, and a lot of fun.

Read GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM AND THE RULE OF LAW II, Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from March 2, 2010, by the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Visit the Center for Democracy & Technology: Keeping the Internet Open, Innovative and Free.

Read about the Electronic Freedom Foundation and visit their blog.

Visit Save the Internet.com and read about why internet neutrality is such an important issue for all of us.

Why aren’t I surprised: See Cheating Rampant on FBI Domestic Spying Test, Talking Points Memo, September 27, 2010, by Ryan J. Reilly.

Also in the news: See Are We Secretly Fighting a Cyberwar Against Iran?, AlterNet, September 27, 2010, by Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation: “Stuxnet, a virus (or ‘worm’) affecting Iran’s nuclear facilities, appears to be a case of sabotage. If the United States is behind it, then Obama is already at war with Iran.”

Don’t really care about all this stuff? Just want to watch the latest Lady GaGa video? Well, all the warning signs are here…. You know, history shows us that most of the time, we don’t really care enough to change the status quo — until they come for us, and then it’s too late, isn’t it? ~ Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans.

InformIT (Pearson Education)

*****

Music to Get Paranoid With:


thumbnail of a seagull in flight against a clear blue sky with the label 'Bad Company' serves as a link to Bad Company's haunting song 'Seagull' which is very thoughtful "Seagull:" Bad Company performs their thoughtful, haunting song live in 1976 — "Is this really the end of the world?" — 3:50

thumbnail of a set of bright pink headphones on a black background "These Times:" by Peter MacIntyre, from a nice guy who works at a camera shop in Arizona, and says, “this song is about the crazy times we live in, recession, depression, job loss, etc.”, © 2008. Have a listen! - 3:47

thumbnail link to blues rocker Walter Trout performing his hit They Call Us the Working Class "They Call Us the Working Class:" blues rocker Walter Trout performs his hit “They Call Us the Working Class …but we ain’t workin’ any more. – a really great sound and a really great message. See Walter Trout mp3′s on Amazon.com4:48

custom cover art for The Alan Parsons Project performing their seminal hit Eye In the Sky live in 1995 "Eye In the Sky:" The Alan Parsons Project performing their seminal hit live in 1995. If you haven’t heard this before, don’t get freaked! Put it together! Hey it’s on the dollar bill. The NSA thinks it’s the “eye in the sky”. But don’t you think the real Eye In the Sky is God? Who do you think really built the pyramids, anyway…. that might give you a clue. — 7:03

U2 performs 'Zoo Station,' a song not so well known but sounding great, performed live on 08/16/1992 at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium - Washington, D.C. "Zoo Station:" U2 performs ‘Zoo Station,’ a song not so well known but sounding great, performed live on 08/16/1992 at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium – Washington, D.C. — 4:31

Bob Dylan and Paul Simon sing together Live in Portland in 1999, with 'The Sound of Silence,' perhaps Simon and Garfunkel's biggest hit "The Sound of Silence:" Bob Dylan and Paul Simon team up live and unplugged in Portland, from 1999. Here’s a link to the video. — 7:07

a thumbnail of a purple 'all seeing eye' against a black background serves as a link to launch the song 'I Ran' by A Flock of Seagulls "I Ran (So Far Away):" The late eighties group A Flock of Seagulls sings their biggest hit, which for me speaks of how far I ran from Christ’s love until I could not escape it. 5:12

Why Pay More? $7.49 .COM Domains from GoDaddy.com 468x60

Check out Paul’s Playlist of 193 Rock and Pop Hits, and have fun with all the artists you love while you surf the web.


NEW! For our readers: Check out our 37 song "Only Classic Rock Playlist", now on its own page!


Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Can you help us today? If you value liberal and progressive ideas and politics, please simply share Evans Liberal Politics with friends and contacts to keep free, independent and liberal journalism alive. Thanks in advance.

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

Media Matters: Fox News thinks you’re all idiots

Evans Liberal Politics
September 10, 2010

 

Media Matters: Fox News thinks you’re all idiots

 

Media Matters: Fox News thinks you’re all idiots, Media Matters for America, September 10, 2010, by Ben DiMiero, quoted verbatim:

Though the conservative media are fueled by overhyped, often-false, phony “scandals,” every so often a story comes along that is so mind-bogglingly absurd that it exposes in no uncertain fashion the entire conservative media for what it is: a propaganda machine far more interested in pushing pre-determined narratives than conveying accurate information.

Click the Evans Liberal Politics
Getaway Car to Visit Paul’s
Playlist of Rock & Pop Hits
* #1 Rated by Google *


photo link of Paul's 2002 Honda CR-V at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Arboretum serves as a link to Paul's Playlist of 182 Rock, Pop and Electronic Hits

For much of the summer, conservatives have been aggressively working to blur the lines between the radicals who attacked us on September 11 and the moderate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in order to claim his planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan is some sort of “victory mosque.” This week, when conservatives were not busy trying to equate Rauf with lunatic pastor Terry Jones and his plan to burn Qurans, they were suggesting that Rauf literally commands the forces of Al Qaeda.

On Wednesday, Rauf went on CNN’s Larry King Live and warned of the dangers of perceived anti-Islam sentiment in the United States, especially as it relates to his Park51 project. Specifically, Rauf said that outspoken opposition to his project creates “danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security.” Before we get to the resulting epic conservative freak-out, it’s important to point out that Rauf’s comments track closely with comments from national security experts — including Gen. David Petraeus — who have repeatedly warned of the security implications of anti-Muslim protests.

Undeterred by reality, conservatives claimed Rauf was “threatening” America when he made this entirely non-controversial statement of fact.

Fox Nation broadcast as its top story that “Imam Threatens U.S., Says If Mosque Moves, Terror Will ‘Explode.’” Pam Geller — whose anti-Muslim bigotry leads her to view the world as a Magic Eye book filled with hidden Islamic crescents –announced in a headline that “Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America.” Jim Hoft claimed in a post about Rauf’s “threat” that the “radical” Rauf “warned that if America did not get down on its knees and allow the victory mosque to be built on the bones of dead Americans that …’They will attack.’” Hoft instructed Rauf to ”take your victory mosque and shove it.”

Rush LimbaughCharles Krauthammer and Media Research Center’s Brent Baker speculated that Rauf may be engaging in “blackmail.” Fox News hosted Debra Burlingame to say that Rauf had given an “ultimatum” and that his comments represented a “form of extortion.” Fox also gave a 9-11 firefighter a platform to smear Rauf as a “tax-evading, terrorist sympathizing, Armani-wearing slumlord” who is “try[ing] to extort America” and “wants to build a Tower of Triumph on the graveyard of my friends.” Bill O’Reilly fearmongered that Rauf’s warning about violence may be a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

This morning, the Fox & Friends hosts (and the accompanying on-screen text) referred to Rauf’s comments as a “threat” at least ten times. Gretchen Carlson interpreted his “troubling” statement as “If you move it now, we’re gonna attack you.”

The lone voice of sanity in the conservative wilderness was Chris Wallace, who twice stated that he did not hear Rauf’s comments as a “threat.” As always, this acknowledgment of reality made him the exception, not the rule.

There is no gray area here: by pushing this story, conservative media figures have revealed — as they do pretty much every week — that they are either completely oblivious to reality, or they think their viewers/listeners/readers are. And they do this all the time — remember the forty-eight hours during the 2008 presidential campaign when conservatives decided to pretend Barack Obama had compared Sarah Palin to a pig when he said “you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig” to describe McCain’s policies?

When the top-rated cable news organization in the country joins with leading conservative bloggers and radio hosts to smear someone as “threatening” to attack America for stating something that is widely agreed-upon by security experts, their dishonesty should be news. Unfortunately, since media conservatives seem to have a knack for escaping consequences for their serial mendacity, their role in the unwarranted demolition of Rauf’s character will likely disappear down the memory hole.

The damage will already be done, and conservatives’ perpetual dishonesty machine will roll on.

See Burning the Koran: Is it Legal? Looking to Flag Burning Cases for Answers, ABC News, September 10, 2010, by Ariane DeVogue.

See ‘News Bias’ and the Media Battle over the Meaning of 9/11, AlterNet, September 10, 2010, by Rory O’Connor.

See If Rauf “threaten[ed] America,” then so did Gen. Petraeus, Media Matters for America Research, September 9, 2010, by Research.

See Right wing compares book burning to building a community center, Media Matters for America Research, September 8, 2010, by Research.

See Obama calls on Americans to unite, not divide, over Islam, Agence France-Presse on The Raw Story, September 10, 2010, by AFP.

See Pastor Jones Calls Off International Burn-a-Koran Day But Claims the “Iman” Lied to Him, Now What?, OpEdNews, September 9, 2010, by Kevin Gosztola.

See Koran-burning pastor ‘has gone mad’ and ‘needs help,’ daughter says, Reuters on The Raw Story, September 10, 2010, by David Alexander and Ben Gruber.

TigerDirect Best Sellers

Check out Paul’s Playlist of 185 Rock and Pop Hits, and have fun with all the artists you love while you surf the web.


Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

Blackwater Mercenaries Won Contracts with 30 False Companies

Evans Liberal Politics
September 5, 2010

 

Blackwater Mercenaries Won Contracts
with 30 False Companies

 

30 False Fronts Won Contracts for Blackwater, © The New York Times, September 3, 2010, by James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, excerpt quoted verbatim:

WASHINGTON — Blackwater Worldwide created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq, according to Congressional investigators and former Blackwater officials.

Spiritual Cinema Circle

While it is not clear how many of those businesses won contracts, at least three had deals with the United States military or the Central Intelligence Agency, according to former government and company officials. Since 2001, the intelligence

agency has awarded up to $600 million in classified contracts to Blackwater and its affiliates, according to a United States government official.The Senate Armed Services Committee this week released a chart that identified 31 affiliates of Blackwater, now known as Xe Services. The network was disclosed as part of a committee’s investigation into government contracting. The investigation revealed the lengths to which Blackwater went to continue winning contracts after Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in September 2007. That episode and other reports of abuses led to criminal and Congressional investigations, and cost the company its lucrative security contract with the State Department in Iraq.

The network of companies — which includes several businesses located in offshore tax havens — allowed Blackwater to obscure its involvement in government work from contracting officials or the public, and to assure a low profile for any of its classified activities, said former Blackwater officials, who, like the government officials, spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that it was worth “looking into why Blackwater would need to create the dozens of other names” and said he had requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Blackwater officers misled the government when using subsidiaries to solicit contracts.

The C.I.A.’s continuing relationship with the company, which recently was awarded a $100 million contract to provide security at agency bases in Afghanistan, has drawn harsh criticism from some members of Congress, who argue that the company’s tarnished record should preclude it from such work. At least two of the Blackwater-affiliated companies, XPG and Greystone, obtained secret contracts from the agency, according to interviews with a half dozen former Blackwater officials.

A C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said that Xe’s current duties for the agency were to provide security for agency operatives. Contractors “do the tasks we ask them to do in strict accord with the law; they are supervised by C.I.A. staff officers; and they are held to the highest standards of conduct” he said. “As for Xe specifically, they help provide security in tough environments, an assignment at which their people have shown both skill and courage.”

Congress began to investigate the affiliated companies last year, after the shooting deaths of two Afghans by Blackwater security personnel working for a subsidiary named Paravant, which had obtained Pentagon contracts in Afghanistan. In a Senate hearing earlier this year (PDF), Army officials said that when they awarded the contract to Paravant for training of the Afghan Army, they had no idea that the business was part of Blackwater. ….

Read the full article, here.

Check Out the Best Guide to Politics on the Web!
The Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web


Evans Liberal Politics Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web

Find Out Where to find the Truth in Politics!


See Iraq Withdrawal? Obama and Clinton Expanding US Paramilitary Force in Iraq, The Nation on Evans Liberal Politics, July 25, 2010, by Jeremy Scahill.

See ‘An Absolute Bargain’: Blackwater Settles Massacre Lawsuit by Paying Families of Dead Iraqis $100,000 Each, AlterNet on Evans Liberal Politics, January 9, 2010, by Jeremy Scahill.

See Scahill and Olbermann on Blackwater: Murderous Crusaders for Christ, Evans Liberal Politics, November 28, 2009, by Joshua Holland.

See Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died, The New York Times on Evans Liberal Politics, November 11, 2009, by Mark Mazzetti and James Risen.

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!


Paul's Playlist of the best streaming rock, pop and electronic music

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Mass Assassinations Lie at the Heart of America’s Military Strategy in the Muslim World

Evans Liberal Politics
August 30, 2010

 

Mass Assassinations Lie at the Heart
of America’s Military Strategy in the Muslim World

 

Mass Assassinations Lie at the Heart of America’s Military Strategy in the Muslim World, AlterNet, August 24, 2010, by Fred Branfman, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Greatly expanded U.S. military Special Ops teams, U.S. drone strikes and private espionage networks run by former CIA assassins create a threat to our security.


[General McChrystal says that] “for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.” — “The Runaway General,” Rolling Stone, 6/22/10.

The truth that many Americans find hard to take is that that mass U.S. assassination on a scale unequaled in world history lies at the heart of America’s military strategy in the Muslim world, a policy both illegal and never seriously debated by Congress or the American people. Conducting assassination operations throughout the 1.3 billon-strong Muslim world will inevitably increase the murder of civilians and thus create exponentially more “enemies,” as Gen. McChrystal suggests — posing a major long-term threat to U.S. national security. This mass assassination program, sold as defending Americans, is actually endangering us all. Those responsible for it, primarily General Petraeus, are recklessly seeking short-term tactical advantage while making an enormous long-term strategic error that could lead to countless American deaths in the years and decades to come. General Petraeus must be replaced, and the U.S. military’s policy of direct and mass assassination of Muslims ended.

Click the Old
CIA E. Street Sign
to Visit Paul’s Playlist
of 183 Rock & Pop Hits
* #1 Rated by Google *


photo of the CIA's old 2430 East Street Headquarters sign serves as a link to Paul's Playlist of 183 hot rock and pop hits, rated number one by Google

The U.S. has conducted assassination programs in the Third World for decades, but the actual killing — though directed and financed by the C.I.A. — has been largely left to local paramilitary and police forces. This has now has changed dramatically.

What is unprecedented today is the vast number of Americans directly assassinating Muslims — through greatly expanded U.S. military Special Operations teams, U.S. drone strikes and private espionage networks run by former CIA assassins and torturers. Most significant is the expanding geographic scope of their killing. While CENTCOM Commander from October 2008 until July 2010, General Petraeus received secret and unprecedented permission to unilaterally engage in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, former Russian Republics, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, the Horn of Africa, and wherever else he deems necessary.

Never before has a nation unleashed so many assassins in so many foreign nations around the world (9,000 Special Operations soldiers are based in Iraq and Afghanistan alone) as well as implemented a policy that can be best described as unprecedented, remote-control, large-scale “mechanized assassination.” As the N.Y. Times noted in December 2009: “For the first time in history, a civilian intelligence agency is using robots to carry out a military mission, selecting people for killing in a country where the United States is not officially at war.”

This combination of human and technological murder amounts to a worldwide “Assassination Inc.” that is unique in human affairs.

The increasing shift to direct U.S. assassination began on Petraeus’s watch in Iraq,where targeted assassination was considered by many within the military to be more important than the “surge.” The killing of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was considered a major triumph that significantly reduced the level of violence. As Bob Woodward reported in The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008:

“Beginning in about May 2006, the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence agencies launched a series of top secret operations that enabled them to locate, target and kill key individuals in extremist groups.

A number of authoritative sources say these covert activities had a far-reaching effect on the violence and were very possibly the biggest factor in reducing it.

Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) responsible for hunting al Qaeda in Iraq, (conducted) lightning-quick and sometimes concurrent operations When I later asked the president (Bush) about this, he offered a simple answer: ‘JSOC is awesome.’” [Emphasis added.]

Woodward’s finding that many “authoritative sources” believed assassination more important than the surge is buttressed by Petraeus’ appointment of McChrystal to lead U.S. forces in Afghanistan. McChrystal’s major qualification for the post was clearly his perceived expertise in assassination while heading JSOC from 2003-’08 (where he also conducted extensive torture at “Camp Nama” at Baghdad International Airport, successfully excluding even the Red Cross).

Another key reason for the increased reliance on assassination is that Petraeus’ announced counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan obviously cannot work. It is absurd to believe that the corrupt warlords and cronies who make up the “Afghan government” can be transformed into the viable entity upon which his strategy publicly claims to depend — particularly within the next year which President Obama has set as a deadline before beginning to withdraw U.S. troops. Petraeus is instead largely relying on mass assassination to try and eliminate the Taliban, both within Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The centrality of assassination to U.S. war plans is revealed by the fact that it was at the heart of the Obama review of Afghan policy last fall. The dovish Biden position called for relying primarily on assassination, while the hawkish McChrystal stance embraced both assassination and more troops. No other options were seriously considered.

A third factor behind the shift to mass assassination is that Petraeus and the U.S. military are also determined to attack jihadi forces in nations where the U.S. is not at war, and which are not prepared to openly invite in U.S. forces. As the N.Y. Times reported on May 24, “General Petraeus (has argued) that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.”

Check Out the Best Guide to Politics on the Web!
The Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web


Evans Liberal Politics Guide to Liberal News and Politics on the Web

Find Out Where to find the Truth in Politics!


The most significant aspect of this new and expanded assassination policy is President Obama’s authorizing clandestine U.S. military personnel to conduct it. The N.Y. Times has also reported:

In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists (Military) Special Operations troops under secret “Execute Orders” have conducted spying missions that were once the preserve of civilian intelligence agencies.

Particularly extraordinary is the fact that these vastly expanded military assassination teams are not subject to serious civilian control. As the N.Y. Times has also reported, Petraeus in September 2009 secretly expanded a worldwide force of assassins answerable only to the military, without oversight by not only Congress but the president himself:

The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents. The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa. Unlike covert actions undertaken by the C.I.A., such clandestine activity does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress. [Emphasis added]

Although sold to the American public and Congress as targeted, selective assassination aimed only at a handful of “high value” insurgent leaders, the program has in fact already expanded far beyond that. As personnel and aircraft devoted to assassination exponentially increase, so too do the numbers of people they murder, both “insurgents” and civilians.

While it is reasonable to assume that expanding the number of Special Operations commandos to its present worldwide level of 13,000 will result in increasing assassinations, the secrecy of their operations makes it impossible to know how many they have murdered, how many of those are civilians, and the effectiveness of their operations. It is not known, for example, how many people U.S. military assassins murder directly, and how many they kill indirectly by identifying them for drone strikes. Much of their activity is conducted, for example, in North Waziristan in northwest Pakistan which, as the N.Y. Times reported on April 4 “is virtually sealed from the outside world.”

More information, however, has emerged about the parallel and unprecedented mass mechanized assassinations being carried out by the C.I.A. drone programs. It is clear that they have already expanded far beyond the official cover story of targeting only “high-level insurgent leaders,” and are killing increasing numbers of people.

The CIA, of course, is no novice at assassination. Future CIA Director William Colby’s Operation Phoenix program in South Vietnam gave South Vietnamese police quotas of the number of civilians to be murdered on a weekly and monthly basis, eventually killing 20-50,000 people. CIA operatives such as Latin American Station Chef Duane “Dewey” Clarridge also established, trained and operated local paramilitary and death squads throughout Central and Latin America that brutally tortured and murdered tens of thousands of civilians, most notably in El Salvador where CIA-trained and -directed killers murdered Archbishop Romero and countless other Salvadorans.

But the present CIA assassination program in Pakistan and elsewhere is different not only because it is Americans who are themselves the assassins, but because of the unprecedented act of conducting mechanized mass assassination from the air. The CIA, as as Nick Turse has reported for TomDispatch.com, is exponentially increasing its drone assassination program:

“(Drone) Reapers flew 25,391 hours (in 2009). This year, the air force projects that the combined flight hours of all its drones will exceed 250,000 hours. More flight time will, undoubtedly, mean more killing.”

Read the rest of the article, here.

InformIT (Pearson Education)

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 183 Rock and Pop Hits!


Paul's Playlist of the best streaming rock, pop and electronic music

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

The US Has Lost in Afghanistan — We Have to Come to Grips with What That Means

Evans Liberal Politics
August 22, 2010

 

The US Has Lost in Afghanistan –
We Have to Come to Grips with What That Means

 

The US Has Lost in Afghanistan — We Have to Come to Grips with What That Means, AlterNet, August 16, 2010, by Conn Hallinan of Foreign Policy in Focus, photo by Steve Evans, quoted verbatim:

There never was a goal set by NATO and Afghanistan that was achievable; because their blood and capital are finite.

Wars are rarely lost in a single encounter; Defeat is almost always more complex than that. The United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have lost the war in Afghanistan, but not just because they failed in the battle for Marjah or decided that discretion was the better part of valor in Kandahar. They lost the war because they should never have invaded in the first place; because they never had a goal that was achievable; because their blood and capital are finite.

a bright blue Afghan mosque with flowers in the foreground hightlights this AlterNet article on how we are losing the war in Afghanistan

The face of that defeat was everywhere this past month.

According to the Afghanistan Rights Monitor, “In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since the demise of the Taliban regime in late 2001.”

A recent U.S. government audit found that despite $27 billion spent on training, fewer than 12 percent of Afghan security forces were capable of operating on their own.

Some 58 percent of the American public think the war is “a lost cause,” and 60 percent think the United States should begin to withdraw in July 2011. Only Republican votes in Congress saved the Obama administration’s request for $33 billion to fuel the war in the coming fiscal year. The war is currently hemorrhaging money at a rate of $7 billion a month.

The British public — the United Kingdom is the second largest armed contingent in Afghanistan — opposes the war by 72 percent, and other coalition forces are quickly abandoning the effort in the war-torn Central Asian nation. Poland announced it would withdraw its 2,600 troops in 2012. The Dutch will be out this August. The Canadians in 2011. The Australians, along with the rest of the NATO allies, declined a plea in July to send more combat troops.

In a sign of the dire circumstances of the war effort, twice in this past month, Afghan soldiers turned their guns on NATO soldiers.

A poll by the International Council on Security and Development reaffirms that the NATO alliance is failing to win over Afghan civilians, a cornerstone of success in the current strategy employed in Afghanistan. The poll found that in the two provinces currently at the center of the war — Helmand and Kandahar — 75 percent of Afghans believe foreigners disrespect their religion and traditions; 74 percent think working for foreign forces is wrong; 68 percent believe NATO will not protect them; and 65 percent think Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar should be part of the government.

The Arithmetic of Defeat


So does one calculate the arithmetic of defeat. But “defeat” does not mean the war is over. Indeed, the moment when it becomes obvious that victory is no longer an option can be the most dangerous time in a conflict’s history. The losers may double down, as the French and the United States did in Vietnam. They may lash out in a frenzy of destruction, as the United States did in Laos and Cambodia. Or they may poison the well for generations to come by dividing people on the basis of ethnicity, religion and tribe, as the British did when their empire began to disintegrate.

Faced with rising opposition at home, increased casualties on the battlefield, and growing isolation from its allies, the United States is casting about for a way to salvage the Afghan disaster, and coming up with schemes that may end up destabilizing not only Afghanistan, but much of Central and South Asia.

The most radical of these schemes is being floated by the former U.S. ambassador to India, Robert Blackwell, a neoconservative mainstay and currently a lobbyist for India. Blackwell proposes partitioning Afghanistan into two countries: an independent, Pashtun-dominated south, and a northern and western section where Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras make up the majority. According to the scheme, “Pashtunistan” would be kept in line by armed drones and 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. Special Forces.

Such an independent country would almost certainly destabilize Pakistan’s Northern Frontier and Tribal areas, where 40 million Pashtuns currently reside. Many of those Pashtuns have never accepted the 1893 Durand Line that the British used to divide Afghanistan from what was then India.

Pashtunistan would also be a template for an independent Baluchistan, further dismembering Afghanistan — certainly something the Indian Army would be delighted with — and serve as a rallying cry for marginalized ethnic groups all over the region, including those in Kashmir, China, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, Russia, and areas in northern India.

It is not clear how much support the partition plan has, given the deep opposition of countries like Pakistan and China, but Blackwell has sprung the genie, and getting it back into the lamp will not be easy.

Spiritual Cinema Circle

A second proposal — to create an army of local militias to fight the Taliban — is already underway, in spite of the disastrous experience with similar armed groups during the Soviet occupation. Those militias turned into warlord armies, which shook down local residents, protected the growing drug trade, and fought over tribal turf.

U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus insists that the armed groups will not be “militia,” but more like police — uniformed, armed, and paid by the government of President Hamid Karzai. But given that the Kabul government has virtually no presence outside the capital, how these groups will be controlled is not obvious. Furthermore, if for some reason these militias do confront the Taliban, they will be outgunned by more experienced guerilla fighters.

A June 9 incident in Kandahar is a case in point. The Taliban attacked a local militia that had gathered to celebrate a wedding, killing 40 and wounding 87. The unit had been recruited by U.S. Special Forces, which promised weapons and ammunition. But according to the New York Times, when militia commander, Mohammed Nabi Kako went to the Special Forces, the commander fobbed him off to the Karzi regime, which turned down his request — whether from fear of forming independent militias, or plain old corruption is not clear. When the Taliban attacked, the militia couldn’t defend itself.

The United States has a long track record of recruiting local people to fight and then abandoning them. The Montagnards in Vietnam’s highlands and the Hmong in Laos come to mind.

The model that has the most parallels with the situation in Afghanistan, however, is Guatemala, where the United States helped the military dictatorship create village militias to fight insurgents. If the militias did not fight the guerillas, the Guatemalan Army slaughtered the villagers. If the militias did fight, the villagers became targets in the long-running civil war.

Indeed, an argument can be made that the very idea of militias violates the Geneva Conventions against using civilians to fight in a war, although the United States could finesse that argument by claiming the militia members are “uniformed.” What is certain is that entire villages will be pulled into the war by making them targets for retaliation by a more experienced and better-armed Taliban.

However, the most obvious use for the militias will be to protect the vast drug trade that has made Afghanistan the source of 90 percent of the world’s opium. It is a trade that corrupts not only Afghans, but the police and military of surrounding countries. Indeed, it is a poisonous chain that leads into the heart of Europe, leaving dead and maimed in its path. More than 30,000 addicts die of heroin overdoses each year in Russia alone.

Arbitrary partitions and local militias will not salvage the war for the United States and NATO. The only way out is to cut a deal with the people we are fighting. That will not be easy. The Taliban offered a reasonable peace plan in 2007, and it was turned down. Given the obvious collapse of the allied effort, why should the Taliban want to negotiate? But the Pakistanis say the deal is doable, and of all the counties in the region, Islamabad has the closest ties to the mélange of groups waging war in Afghanistan.

We have lost the war. It is time to recognize reality and start talking.

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist. He also writes the blog, Distpatches from the Edge.

UPDATE: See Karzai: Private contractors ‘looting and stealing,’ working with terrorists, The Raw Story, August 22, 2010, by Daniel Tencer, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday defended his decision to ban private security contractors from operating in public in Afghanistan, saying many of the organizations tasked with providing security are engaging in terrorist activities, working with “Mafia-like” organizations and “looting and stealing from the Afghan people.”

Karzai also speculated that some groups may be acting as security contractors during the day and as terrorist groups “at nighttime.”

Last week, Karzai gave security contractors working in Afghanistan four months to cease operations In an interview with Christiane Amanpour on ABC’s This Week, the Afghan president said the move was necessary because the for-profit contractors were destabilizing the country’s fight against militants.

UPDATE: See As public sours on war, GOP senator backs Afghan pullout deadline, The Raw Story, August 22, 2010, by David Edwards.

See Opposition to Afghanistan conflict not just a liberal issue anymore, The Hill, August 20, 2010, by Sean J. Hill, excerpt quoted verbatim:

A majority of voters want the conflict to end quickly — no matter their party affiliation, according to recent polls.

…SNIP….

North Carolina Senate candidate Elaine Marshall (D) opposed the surge of troops to Afghanistan and wants American forces to withdraw from the country in an orderly fashion.

“We’re spending billions to train a corrupt police force there, and here at home we’re laying off policemen and firefighters,” she said in a statement. “We’re hiring teachers over there, and here we’re sending teachers to the unemployment lines. If there’s a country we need to rebuild, it’s America.”

Democratic strategist Jim Spencer, who has consulted for Marshall, said her position is no longer considered liberal or left-wing. “It’s a very mainstream message, it’s not a left-wing message at all,” he said.

See The Great Myth: Counterinsurgency, Dispatches from the Edge, July 25, 2010, by Conn Hallinan.

See Petraeus’ risky militia maneuver for Afghanistan, Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2010, Editorial.

See FACTBOX-Security developments in Afghanistan, Aug 22, Reuters, August 22, 2010, by Andrew Hammond and Sayed Salahuddin.

See NATO not winning Afghan hearts and minds: poll, Reuters, July 17, 2010, by Adrian Croft.

See Plan B for Afghanistan.

See Review: The Most Dangerous Place, Financial Times, July 18, 2010, Editorial. On the northwestern tribal provinces of Pakistan.

Visit ReThinkAfghanistan.com, and see the new videos.

InformIT (Pearson Education)

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 180 Rock and Pop Hits!


Paul's Playlist of the best streaming rock, pop and electronic music

Our Playlist is #1 Rated by Google

Why The Unfolding Disaster in Pakistan Should Concern You

Evans Liberal Politics
August 20, 2010

 

Why The Unfolding Disaster in Pakistan Should Concern You

 

Why The Unfolding Disaster in Pakistan Should Concern You, Robert Reich.org, August 19, 2010, by Robert Reich, photo by permission of Steve Evans, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

The human tragedy unfolding in Pakistan right now demands our full attention.

Flooding there has already stranded 20 million people, more than 10 percent of the population. A fifth of the nation is underwater. More than 3.5 million children are in imminent danger of contracting cholera and acute diarrhea; millions more are in danger of starving if they don’t get help soon. More than 1,500 have already been killed by the floods.

Photo of a mosque and worshippers in Pakistan

This is a human disaster.

It’s also a frightening opening for the Taliban.

Yet so far only a trickle of aid has gotten through. As of today (Thursday), the U.S. has pledged $150 million, along with 12 helicopters to take food and material to the victims. (Other rich nations have offered even less – the U.K., $48.5 million; Japan, $10 million, and France, a measly $1 million. Today (Thursday), Hillary Clinton is speaking at the UN, seeking more.)

This is bizarre and shameful. We’re spending over $100 billion this year on military maneuvers to defeat the Taliban in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Over 200 helicopters are deployed in that effort. And we’re spending $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan.

More must be done for flood victims, immediately.

Beyond helping to prevent mass disease and starvation we’ll also need to help Pakistan rebuild. Half of the nation’s people depend on agriculture for their livelihood, and a large portion of the nation’s crops and agricultural land have been destroyed. Roads, bridges, railways, and irrigation systems have been wiped out.

Last year, Congress agreed to a $7.5 billion civilian aid package to Pakistan to build roads, bridges, and schools. That should be quadrupled.

While they’re at it, Congress should remove all tariffs on textiles and clothing from Pakistan. Textiles and clothing are half Pakistan’s exports. More than half of all Pakistanis are employed growing cotton, weaving it into cloth, or cutting and sewing it into clothing. In the months and years ahead, Pakistan will have to rely ever more on these exports.

Yet we impose a 17 percent tariff on textiles and clothing from Pakistan. If we removed it, Pakistan’s exports would surge $5 billion annually. That would boost the wages of millions there.

That tariff also artificially raises the price of the clothing and textiles you and I buy. How many American jobs do we protect by this absurdity? Almost none. Instead, we’ve been importing more textiles and clothing from China and other East Asian nations. China subsidizes its exports with an artificially-low currency.

If you’re not moved by the scale of the disaster and its aftermath, consider that our future security is inextricably bound up with the future for Pakistan. Of 175 million Pakistanis, some 100 million are under age 25. In the years ahead they’ll either opt for gainful employment or, in its absence, may choose Islamic extremism.

We are already in a war for their hearts and minds, as well as those of young people throughout the Muslim world.

Right now, Islamic insurgents are using the chaos as an opportunity, attacking police posts in Pakistan’s northwest while police have been occupied in rescue and relief work. Meanwhile, lacking help and losing hope, many Pakistanis are becoming increasingly hostile toward President Asif Ali Zardari.

And, of course, Pakistan has the bomb.

What can you do? Government efforts are important but so is private giving. Check the New York Times’s Lede blog for organizations providing disaster relief. The Oxfam website has lots of good information about who’s doing what, and how effectively.

See Pakistan says militants exploiting flood chaos, Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2010, by Alex Rodriguez: Militants are regrouping in the northwest, hardest hit by the monsoon floods, officials say. Sen. Kerry visits the area, increasing U.S. aid to $150 million.

“Ground Zero Mosque” Is the New “Death Panels” (Updated)

Evans Liberal Politics
August 17, 2010

 

“Ground Zero Mosque”
Is the New “Death Panels” (Updated)

 

“Ground Zero Mosque” Is the New “Death Panels”, The Huffington Post, August 16, 2010, by Jeffrey Feldman, excerpt quoted verbatim:

By now, the right-wing political chop-shop has convinced an embarrassingly large chunk of the country that a “YMCA”-type project planned for lower Manhattan is the equivalent of Osama bin Laden landing on the shores of the Potomac.

OCInkjet.com 250x250 banner,<br /> image is updated by season.

Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, scoffed at this right-wing idiocy in an eloquent speech about religious freedom. President Obama followed suit.

But while Mayor and President had their hearts in the right place, the very idea that the Cordoba House hysteria is about “religion” is not really accurate. The fact that the public debate has been framed around a “Ground Zero mosque” flows not from the facts of the project, but from a cynical right-wing effort to turn a benign and welcome addition to lower Manhattan into something that could be viewed as threatening and sinister (a.k.a., a wedge issue).

“Ground Zero Mosque” is the new “death panels.” Or is it the new “gay marriage”? Take your pick — there’s plenty of right-wing wedge issues to go around and they all have one thing in common: their goal is to whip up enough fear to keep people from working together to solve the real problems we all face together.

The large issue at stake here, in other words is not freedom of religion, but mass hysteria. Rather than just wrap Cordoba House in the First Amendment, President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg might have done better if they had dusted off their dog-eared copies of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.

Familiar Themes


Cordoba House is not some sudden and new issue, but the latest attempt by the Republican Party to displace meaningful political debate with pitch-fork-and-torches style mass hysteria.

The themes of these newest wave of delirium are familiar: Muslim conspiracy; infiltration by foreign terrorists; Liberal collusion.

Are we a nation ruled by mass hysteria — a nation that sees conspiracy behind every unfamiliar face? Or are we a nation that raises above the tyranny of the mob roused to rid the village of those in league with the Devil? Those are the questions that the Mayor and President should have asked, but nobody seems to be asking them.

When mass hysteria has been allowed in the past to drive public policy it lead inexorably to shameful results that destroyed lives and weakened democratic society.

Read the full article here.

Obama Reframes Mosque Debate


Obama Reframes Mosque Debate, The Huffington Post, August 16, 2010, by Chris Weigant, excerpt quoted verbatim:

By now, the right-wing political chop-shop has convinced an embarrassingly large chunk of the country that a “YMCA”-type project planned for lower Manhattan is the equivalent of Osama bin Laden landing on the shores of the Potomac.

Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, scoffed at this right-wing idiocy in an eloquent speech about religious freedom. President Obama followed suit.

But while Mayor and President had their hearts in the right place, the very idea that the Cordoba House hysteria is about “religion” is not really accurate. The fact that the public debate has been framed around a “Ground Zero mosque” flows not from the facts of the project, but from a cynical right-wing effort to turn a benign and welcome addition to lower Manhattan into something that could be viewed as threatening and sinister (a.k.a., a wedge issue).

“Ground Zero Mosque” is the new “death panels.” Or is it the new “gay marriage”? Take your pick — there’s plenty of right-wing wedge issues to go around and they all have one thing in common: their goal is to whip up enough fear to keep people from working together to solve the real problems we all face together.

Lesser noticed narrative: the mosque debate is dividing the right


UPDATE: See Hate Radio Host Mark Levin Attacks Gov. Chris Christie Over Mosque Comments: ‘Absolutely Dead Wrong’, Think Progress, August 17, 2010, 5:50 p.m., by George Zornick, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Yesterday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) warned fellow Republicans to stop “overreacting” to the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. He said that while some degree of “deference” must be shown to some 9/11 families who don’t want the center nearby, “it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans.”

Even though Christie included obligatory digs at Democrats and President Obama for somehow “playing political football” with the issue, his comments were still apparently too much for right-wing hate radio host Mark Levin. He unleashed on Christie last night during his radio show, and called the governor “absolutely dead wrong” and questioned Christie’s conservative credentials.

See Mosque Debate is a Red Herring, The Washington Examiner, August 16, 2010, by Gene Healy.

Spiritual Cinema Circle

Follow Evans Liberal Politics and Paul Evans on
Twitter logo link for Evans Liberal Politics on Twitter

Follow Paul Evans on
Facebook logo link to follow Paul Evans on Facebook

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?
Please consider making a $5 or $10 donation to Evans Liberal Politics. We bring you the news and all things liberal for free out of love of people and liberalism, but a fellow has to eat! See Help a Christian Family in Need. The button to donate via PayPal is located at the top right of every page (or use this handy link), and your kind help is greatly appreciated.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 177 Rock and Pop Hits!


Paul's Playlist of the best streaming rock, pop and electronic music

#1 Rated by Google

Obama confirms plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq

Evans Liberal Politics
August 3, 2010

 

Obama confirms plan
for US troop withdrawal from Iraq

 

Obama confirms plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, BBC News, August 2, 2010, by BBC News, excerpt quoted verbatim:

President Obama: “Our commitment in Iraq is changing from a military effort”

US President Barack Obama has confirmed the end of all combat operations in Iraq by 31 August.

OCInkjet.com 250x250 banner,<br /> image is updated by season.

Some 50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.

Mr Obama proclaimed that the end of operations would arrive “as promised and on schedule”.

It comes amid a dispute between the US and Baghdad over the latest casualty numbers in Iraq.

Struggle for Iraq

    * Coalition questions
    * Iraq: Key facts and figures
    * Death toll dispute highlights concerns
    * Q&A: Parliamentary polls

The thrust of Mr Obama’s speech was the fulfilment of his campaign promise to end the Iraq war, which was a defining characteristic of his 2008 candidacy.

Mr Obama made his announcement in a speech to the national convention of the Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta, Georgia.

The remaining 50,000 troops will stay in the country in order to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide civilians with ongoing security, said Mr Obama.

An agreement negotiated with the Iraqis in 2008 states that these troops must be gone from the country by the end of next year.

But the president warned the US had “not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq”.

He added: “But make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing – from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats.”

Meanwhile, according to the US military, 222 people died in attacks last month. Baghdad says 535 lost their lives – which would make July the deadliest month in the country for more than two years.

The US released its own figure after Baghdad’s estimate prompted concern that insurgents were exploiting a post-election power vacuum – and would wreak more havoc as the US withdrew more troops. ….

Read the full article here.

See Death toll dispute highlights Iraq security concerns, August 2, 2010, by BBC News.

See The US Must Capture the Heart of the Afghans, The Huffington Post, August 3, 2010, by Ehsan Azari Stanizai.

Also see Pakistan’s Zardari says war with Taliban being lost, Reuters, August 3, 2010, by John Irish and Daniel Flynn.

Middle East Afghanistan – Iraq News Audio Update



President Obama today reaffirmed that American troops will cease combat operations in Iraq by the end of the month and leave altogether in a year "Obama Reaffirms Iraq Withdrawal Timetable:" Obama said again that American troops will cease combat operations within a month, with the withdrawal of an additional 20,000 troops. — Voice of America — 3:03

thumbnail of a photo of a small group of Afghanistan villagers is a linke to audio about an exit plan for Afghanistan "Afghanistan exit strategy remains a sticking point:" PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer — 10:55

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 159 Rock and Pop Hits!


Paul's Playlist of the best streaming rock, pop and electronic music

#1 Rated by Google