American torture: Gul Rahmân and Dick Cheney

By Infidel753 

I don't actually know who Gul Rahmân was, and neither do most Americans, which is unfortunate. One salient fact about him is known, however -- he was not a terrorist. Nevertheless, due to an error, he was apparently arrested on suspicion of being one. He later died under torture in CIA custody.

Take a moment to let that sink in. An innocent man died under torture, torture inflicted by Americans, as part of a program officially sanctioned by the American government at the time.

The horror of the situation goes beyond that, however.  Here is part of an interview with Dick Cheney, in which the case came up: 

CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you, what do you say to Gul Rahman, what do you say to Sulaiman Abdula, what do you say to Khalid al-Masri? All three of these folks were detained, they had these interrogation techniques used on them. They eventually were found to be innocent. They were released, no apologies, nothing. What do we owe them? 

DICK CHENEY: Well -- 

CHUCK TODD: I mean, let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity. 

DICK CHENEY: -- right. But the problem I had is with the folks that we did release that end up back on the battlefield. Of the 600 and some people who were released out of Guantanamo, 30% roughly ended up back on the battlefield. Today we're very concerned about ISIS. Terrible new terrorist organization. It is headed by named Baghdadi. Baghdadi was in the custody of the U.S. military in Iraq in Camp Bucca. He was let go and now he's out leading the terror attack against the United States. I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent. 

CHUCK TODD: 25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be innocent. They were released. 

DICK CHENEY: Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are -- 

CHUCK TODD: Well, I'm asking you. 

DICK CHENEY: -- you going to know? 

CHUCK TODD: Is that too high? You're okay with that margin for error? 

DICK CHENEY: I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.

And there you have it. Leave aside the consensus, among most who understand the issue, that torture almost never produces reliable or useful information. Cheney has "no problem" with using torture even though a quarter of the victims were innocent, even though at least one innocent person (and I certainly don't believe he was the only one) died under torture. This is a former Vice President of the United States, but the words coming out of his mouth sound better suited to Lenin or Himmler.

Cheney justifies the use of torture on the basis of the 9/11 attack, which was indeed a horrific atrocity. The problem is that almost every regime we have ever condemned for using torture could advance a comparable argument. North Vietnam, for example, lost a lot more than 3,000 innocent civilians to American bombing during the war in which it tortured John McCain. There are certain lines which a civilized state doesn't cross, even under that kind of provocation. Such standards are what distinguish us from a communist dictatorship or a fascist gangster-state.

Or used to.

McCain, the only Republican to really distinguish himself honorably in the wake of the torture report's release, understands this. The many members of his party who continue to defend the program and attack its detractors do not.

And this means that I owe some people an apology. In the past I've been very critical of bloggers who compared the Republican party to the Nazis. I believed that they were weakening a strong case against the Republicans by making an absurdly overblown comparison. Yes, there is much evil in the Republican Party, but comparing them to the Nazis was going much too far, offensively so.

Those bloggers were right. I was wrong. Not that the Republicans are guilty of everything the Nazis were guilty of, of course, but if a politician of Cheney's stature can defend torture, even torture of the innocent, and if a broad range of political figures from the party can continue to support that position, then yes, they are straying onto the same ideological turf.

These people have no idea what they've done. This program, and the continued defense of it by a major part of our political establishment, have done damage to our country's moral authority and global standing that can probably never be repaired.

A lot of ordinary Americans don't yet understand it either. As commenter Tommykey observed in response to last weekend's link round-up over at my blog: 

Of course, my Facebook feed was filled with people posting pictures of the Twin Tower burning with captions like "Waterboarding is fine with me" or some variations of approval for torture juxtaposed with a picture of 9/11, as if that automatically justifies it.

And, of course, from Pakistan to Morocco there are probably millions of people reading the revelations of the torture report and thinking, "Terrorist attacks on the United States are fine with me -- now."

(Cross-posted at Infidel753.)

Obama's cautious pragmatism is the best approach for dealing with Syria and ISIS

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot of talk today, the Friday before a long weekend, about President Obama's remark that "we don't have a strategy yet" regarding ISIS and the deteriorating situation in Syria and Iraq. The remark has identified as a "gaffe" by the press, Republicans jumped all over it (because they'll do or say anything to score political points at the president's expense), and the White House has gone into damage-control mode (because of course).

Now, to be sure, it was an inartful way of explaining the situation. The president was clearly talking about what to do about ISIS, not broadly about the region, but that hardly came across clearly. But it makes sense not to know quite what to do at this point. It's easy to be an armchair militarist like John McCain or Bill Kristol, much harder to the one who has to make the tough decisions, decisions that will result in significant loss of life, particularly when there are no clear answers to a problem that in and of itself is difficult to understand. How far do you go in dealing militarily with ISIS? Do you put troops on the ground? Do you rely solely on airstrikes, or on airstrikes with support for allies on the ground? But, then, who are those allies? ISIS is at war with Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime, but that regime is hardly an American ally. Does the U.S. really want to get into yet another protracted war in Iraq, one with no clear outcomes? And what would airstrikes against ISIS accomplish anyway, particularly without clear allies on the ground?

And so on, and so on.

At a time like this, as most times, caution is a virtue, and President Obama's cautiousness, which very much defines who he is and how he governs, stands in stark, pragmatic contrast to the "bomb bomb bomb" recklessness of Republicans. Besides, it's not like the president has been soft on America's enemies -- just consider the extra-judicial drone war that he has been waging against various threats throughout the Middle East. Indeed, as Peter Beinart writes at The Atlantic, and I think he's right on this, President Obama is both a hawk and a dove, or neither, or somewhere in between: 

So was Obama more dovish than Clinton or more hawkish? The answer is both. On the one hand, Obama has shown a deep reluctance to use military force to try to solve Middle Eastern problems that don't directly threaten American lives. He's proved more open to a diplomatic compromise over Iran's nuclear program than many on Capitol Hill because he’s more reticent about going to war with Tehran. He's been reluctant to arm Syria's rebels or bomb Basher al-Assad because he doesn't want to get sucked into that country's civil war. After initially giving David Petraeus and company the yellow light to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, he's wound down America's ground war against the Taliban. Even on Libya, he proved more reluctant to intervene than the leaders of Britain and France.

On the other hand, he's proven ferocious about using military force to kill suspected terrorists. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he's basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don't focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don't really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air. Compared with George W. Bush, he's dramatically expanded drone strikes, even though they're unilateral, legally dubious, and morally disturbing. And, as promised, he sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden without Pakistan's permission, even though his vice president and secretary of defense feared the risks were too high. When it comes to the Middle East, in other words, Obama is neither a dove nor a hawk. He's a fierce minimalist.

A minimalist. A cautious pragmatist, I'd say. And therein lies his strategy for dealing with the region, with ISIS, and with other such problems facing the United States, and indeed his strategy for dealing with pretty much everything. It's not good enough for Republicans, but, then, nothing he does is ever good enough for Republicans. And it's not really good enough for the media either, because it's not a clear, simplistic strategy, or, rather, not a clear, simplistic worldview. In contrast to the "bomb first, think later, if ever" approach preferred by McCain, Kristol, and their ilk, as well as to the "America as global hegemon" worldview espoused by Kristol and his neocon ilk and embraced by the likes of Dick Cheney, President Obama's approach is really the only approach that makes sense, and that could actually produce positive, lasting results, given the crazy state of the world today, given the challenges the country faces, given the complexities of the problems in places like Iraq and Syria.

No, you don't get that rush of bloodlust that comes with, and underpins, right-wing militarism, and you don't get that sense of purity that comes with pacifism and/or isolationism, nor the perceived, and self-deceiving, moral clarity that comes with any sort of absolutism, but what you do get is a chance of achieving some sort of success in a world where, given the choices available and outcomes likely, success is awfully hard to come by.

Maybe President Obama's "minimalism" won't work in this case, but it's far more preferable than the alternatives, because at least it recognizes that there are no easy solutions and that missteps could lead to catastrophe. As occasionally frustrating as his cautious pragmatism may be, he knows what he's doing, even when the words don't come out as artfully as desired.

The conundrum of memory

By Capt. Fogg

Sometimes I get to wondering, sometimes I get confused about what our conservative brethren are trying to tell us. I was reminded recently that my former Republican congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL), amongst others, vociferously  threatened to impeach the president for having provided air traffic control for the UN incursions into Libya; for having exceeded his constitutional authority by arming Syrian rebels. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) back in June of 2013, threatened to impeach President Obama if any U.S. troops are killed in Syria. Is there a relationship between rhetorical amplitude and political passion and the shortness of its half-life?

I ask because currently the same party is chastising him for not having gone into Syria thus allowing ISIS a breeding ground. We need those airstrikes -- why didn't he make those airstrikes? We need airstrikes, says John McCain, in his time-worn tradition of  damning Obama if he does or if he doesn't. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants to commit ground troops. This is all "due to our total inaction. And it's going to be one of the more shameful chapters in American history," says John McCain.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) said on Face the Nation that the president's limited foreign policy is no longer acceptable on. I have no idea whether that refers to the nearly a hundred airstrikes the Obama administration has unilaterally launched into Northern Iraq to help the hopelessly rickety and incompetent government Republicans bragged about setting up not long ago, but we can be assured of at least one thing: Republicans will damn him for doing it and damn him for not stepping in earlier back when they were trying to impeach him for it.

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

No one likes John McCain anymore

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Remember when John McCain was a popular maverick (however faux), a celebrated independent (even if always a loyal Republican and for the most part hardcore conservative), a straight-talking renegade admired across the spectrum?

He was truly something back then, back in his pre-Palin glory days. He was a frequent guest on The Daily Show, where Jon doted on him with respect and admiration for apparently not being an insane Republican, and the Sunday-morning talk shows treated him like the voice of reason and wisdom on every issue under the sun.

Oh, but there was the seething anger then as well, the bad temper, the frequent forays into dangerous irrationality, the reckless knee-jerking that guided his views on foreign and military policy, much of it kept hidden behind his carefully manicured image, his skillfully manufactured brand. But it was all a facade, or most of it anyway, and eventually it was bound to crack. The Palin pick in '08 was the first sign many people paid attention to, though you could have seen it coming, and since then he's been a rapidly deteriorating madman who no longer gets any love from Mr. Stewart.

And while he still gets the "independent wise man" treatment from the Beltway media machine, his popularity beyond the friendly confines of Meet the Press has collapsed, including in his home state:

PPP's newest Arizona poll finds that John McCain is unpopular with Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike and has now become the least popular Senator in the country. Only 30% of Arizonans approve of the job McCain is doing to 54% who disapprove. There isn't much variability in his numbers by party -- he's at 35/55 with Republicans, 29/53 with Democrats, and 25/55 with independents, suggesting he could be vulnerable to challenges in both the primary and general elections the next time he's up.

Maybe none of this really matters. He's still enough of an institution to be able to stand firm against most challengers, and in any event it's not like anyone in Congress is all that popular at the moment. But it's interesting that the public perception of McCain is very different than the mainstream news media perception of him.

I'm not saying that one's status as a serious person with serious views ought to be determined by one's popularity with a fickle and generally ignorant public, but it does make you wonder why he continues to be held in such high esteem by the myopic morons who aim to shape public opinion from their David Broder-authorized position of privilege somewhere beyond the fray.

President Obama's cautious, restrained, responsible leadership on the Ukraine situation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The usual warmongering idiots on the right, from John McCain and Lindsey Graham to Krazy Bill Kristol and anyone else who likes to play partisanism with international relations and world affairs, not to mention many in the "mainstream" media who buy into American hegemonic militarism and dick-wagging, are training their sights as much on the American president as the Russian one, as if somehow the person to blame now is not the guy waving his dick around Crimea but the guy in the Oval Office who apparently isn't waving his dick enough to satisfy domestic American bloodlust.

Yes, all this is somehow Obama's fault, or at least made worse by Obama's supposed inaction, or by his supposed lack of leadership, or by his something, it's not entirely clear. You can find yourselves McCain's spittle-spewing rants, or Kristol's seemingly reasonable but actually utterly insane views, but let's turn here to the non-liberal editorial board of the non-liberal Washington Post, which alone proves that the "liberal media" is anything but, which on Sunday took the liberty of attacking Obama for somehow making the Ukraine/Crimea crisis worse, or enabling Putin, or not being tough enough, or something:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which "the tide of war is receding" and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.

*****

The urge to pull back — to concentrate on what Mr. Obama calls "nation-building at home" — is nothing new, as former ambassador Stephen Sestanovich recounts in his illuminating history of U.S. foreign policy, "Maximalist." There were similar retrenchments after the Korea and Vietnam wars and when the Soviet Union crumbled. But the United States discovered each time that the world became a more dangerous place without its leadership and that disorder in the world could threaten U.S. prosperity. Each period of retrenchment was followed by more active (though not always wiser) policy. Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he's also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn't make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.

*****

Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security, too.  

So... what? Obama is supposed to... ramp up military spending with reckless fiscal abandon, like it's the 1980s all over again and the key is to bankrupt the Soviet Union through a renewed arms race? Or... send toops to Crimea to engage the Russians who are unofficially there? Or... well... just wag his dick around like he owns the fucking world?

Read more »

There's no "liberal media" on the Republican-friendly Sunday talk-show circuit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Our friend Steve Benen performs yet another valuable service in identifying who made the most appearances on the major Sunday talk shows in 2013:

You'll note the obvious, and if you've been paying attention you'll see confirmed what you saw this past year:

The general impression is rooted in fact: the Sunday shows love Republicans. "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," "This Week," "State of the Union," and "Fox News Sunday," hoping to reflect and help shape the conventional wisdom for the political world, collectively favor GOP guests over Democratic guests every year, but who were the big winners in 2013?

The above chart shows every political figure who made 10 or more Sunday show appearances this year, with red columns representing Republicans and blue columns representing Democrats. For 2013, the race wasn't especially close – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) easily came out on top, making 27 appearances this year.

*****

In all, 10 of the top 13 are Republicans, as are six of the top seven.

I actually had no idea that Rogers had made that many appearances (though it makes sense that the media would favor him, given his intelligence role, just like McCaul with his homeland security role), but otherwise it's the usual suspects, the right-wing darlings who command the media attention in Washington, notably McCain, Gingrich (who of course doesn't even hold office), Graham, Paul, and King.

Sure, there are a few Democrats on the list, but they're of the establishment variety (Durbin, Schumer) or otherwise on the right wing of the party (Manchin, likely there in large measure for his bipartisan efforts to enact pro-gun gun control after Newtown). And while there are a number of far-right Republicans on the list (Cruz, Corker, Paul), there are no genuine progressives at all.

Read more »

John McCain, hypocrite extraordinaire, freaks out over largely meaningless Obama-Castro handshake

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM:

President Obama's handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro on Tuesday was met with a mostly muted reaction from conservatives and Republicans. Invoking memories of the Munich Agreement, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) broke the right's silence with a harsh assessment of the gesture.

"It gives Raul some propaganda to continue to prop up his dictatorial, brutal regime, that's all," McCain said of the handshake between the two world leaders that took place at a memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

When asked if Obama should have extended his hand, McCain was quick to respond.

"Of course not," the senator said. "Why should you shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison? I mean, what's the point?"

Then, after a slight pause, McCain went there.

"Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler," he added.

Seriously. A fucking handshake. At a memorial service. For Nelson Mandela. It was the mature thing to do, nothing like the childish impetuousness that characterizes Republicans' interactions with pretty much everyone and everything. Maybe it signified a willingness to engage Cuba as a way of opening that country to liberty and democracy (as opposed to isolating it and enabling its totalitarian regime, as Republicans prefer), but maybe it signified nothing. So there.

But while we're here, remind me again who sold arms to Iran, who cozied up to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, who propped up dictators like Pinochet, Noriega, and the Shah of Iran, who kissed and held hands with Saudi royals, and, oh, who tried to make nice with Gaddafi?

Fucking hypocrite.

Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya - interesting meeting with an interesting man.
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) August 15, 2009

Many people just hate Iran

By Frank Moraes

I have a great fondness for Iran. Or maybe it is just that I really like the food at Maykadeh Persian Cuisine in San Francisco. Whatever. But the truth is my impression of Iran is as a modern people who would very much like to throw off the chains of their theocratic overlords and rush as fast as possible to their own variation of modernity. And what I say to all such people is, "Welcome!" And the best way to do that is to include Iran in our world, not exclude it. Our long-running tiff with Iran has been a disaster.

So the fact that we are talking to Iran in some capacities and that we have at least a short-term deal with them is great. So I'm being honest. I'm really not terribly worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I wish they would not. We need to be destroying nuclear weapons not creating them; we certainly don't need more countries with them. And Iran acquiring one would start a Middle East arms race. But fundamentally, I want good relations with Iran—which I think will solve the nuclear issue anyway.

People on the other side of the issue are not being honest. None of this is about a nuclear armed Iran. What these people want is a weak Iran. People in the region have their reasons. If Iran's economy took off, it would be a powerhouse. That would understandably make Israel nervous. And with a strong economy would go much of the power of the theocratic state. And the other despots of the region wouldn't like to see that.

Read more »

The Republican Party is destroying America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's pretty much as simple as that:

With the federal government on the brink of a default, a House Republican effort to end the shutdown and extend the Treasury's borrowing authority collapsed Tuesday night as a major credit agency warned that the United States was on the verge of a costly ratings downgrade.

After the failure of the House Republican leadership to find enough support for its latest proposal to end the fiscal crisis, the Senate's Democratic and Republican leaders immediately restarted negotiations to find a bipartisan path forward. A spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said Mr. Reid was "optimistic that an agreement is within reach" with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.

With so little time left, chances rose that a resolution would not be approved by Congress and sent to President Obama before Thursday, when the government is left with only its cash on hand to pay the nation’s bills.

"It's very, very serious," warned Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "Republicans have to understand we have lost this battle, as I predicted weeks ago, that we would not be able to win because we were demanding something that was not achievable."

A day that was supposed to bring Washington to the edge of resolving the fiscal showdown instead seemed to bring chaos and retrenching.

McCain, pragmatism renewed, is right. But the problem runs deeper than he imagines. His party has embraced an extremist, anti-American right-wing ideology and policy agenda that is simultaneously nihilistic and absolutist. The pragmatists are recoiling, but they've been playing along for years now, and now it's coming back to bite them. (Consider how McConnell is one of the key players trying to get a deal done. This is a guy who made it his mission, and his party's mission, to obstruct Obama at every turn, to paralyze the government with its disloyal opposition.)

And it's so bad that the relatively sensible House leadership can't even control its own caucus, to the point that John Boehner's speakership is simply a joke.

Read more »

Syria is an entry to war with Iran

By Frank Moraes

It is clear that John McCain wants a full out war in Syria with ground troops and the like because he wants a war with Iran. He is not alone in this. I believe that this is largely why most conservatives favor the war. And it is most certainly why all the neocons are on board with this. All of the Americans who claim to be such supporters of Israel are always for attacking Iran because the current conservative Israeli government wants that. But I think this goes deeper than just "protection of Israel." For one thing, it is not at all clear that attacking Iran is good for Israel.

I think this all goes back to 4 November 1979: the Iranian hostage crisis. Conservatives in America hold remarkably long grudges. We haven't had official relations with Cuba for over 50 years. Why? I really don't know. Certainly, we didn't have any more of a problem with them than we had with the Soviet Union. What is the big deal? Well, I suppose I know what the big deal is. Cuba is a small enough country that we could get away with our childish behavior. The Soviet Union was not.

The same thing is going on with Iran. As "evil" governments go, Iran is quite good. It has created great stability in the region. And if we want the country to liberalize, we ought to, you know, open up the lines of communication. Word is that the people of Iran are quite positive towards us. I am well aware that liberals as well as conservatives use the same trilogy of terror ("axis of evil") rhetoric. But I really think that if the conservatives like John McCain could just get over their ego hits about the embassy attack, we might be able to have a reasonable relationship with that country and do actual good for its people.

Read more »

Will Obama cave to Republican demands on fiscal deal?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The other day, National Journal ran an article entitled "Republicans, White House in Talks Toward Big Fiscal Deal":

At least a dozen Republican senators are regularly meeting with President Obama's top aides in an attempt to plot a way forward on the looming fiscal challenges facing leaders this fall, senators involved in the meetings tell National Journal.

The meetings, which began after Obama hosted GOP senators for dinner earlier this year, are the first sign that Democrats and Republicans are in talks to strike a deal that would reduce the deficit and reform entitlements and taxes.

Now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's no deal in sight: "The talks are, as McCain put it, still in the 'embryonic stage' and so far have consisted of identifying the dividing lines between the two sides." Furthermore, "[t]he differences between the two sides... remain vast."

Suffice it to say, though, this is all rather concerning.

First, there are no Democrats to be seen, at least in this piece. It's the White House and Congressional Republicans doing the talking.

Second, if the point is to establish the dividing lines and to find agreement in between the White House on one side and Republicans on the other, the result will be a deal that is somewhere on the center-right: tax revenue the Republicans agree to along with entitlement and tax "reform" (with Obama having put entitlements on the table, and any such deal securing Republicans an historic victory in their quest to dismantle the social safety net) the Republicans demand.

Meanwhile, we see yet again what the president thinks of progressives, and of the vast majority of his own party -- he wants to cut a deal with Republicans, moving to the right in the process, everything to the left of his establishment centrism be damned.

Of course, the House likely won't agree to any of this. So there's that, for better and for worse.

(By the way, the answer to the title of this post is: Yes, probably.)

Gang of Umpteen

By Frank Moraes 

Politico reported yesterday, "Reid digs in as Senate Nears Nuclear Option Showdown." While it is good that Reid is indeed moving forward, that isn't what the article is about. Rather, it seems that some Republicans are trying to pitch a new "Gang of Umpteen" to Reid. I am not in favor of this.

Right off the top, I'm skeptical because the Gang of 14 disappeared as soon the Democrats got control of the Senate. Why was that? I thought the whole idea of that group was not just to stop the Republicans from using the nuclear option, but also to make filibuster use more responsible and rare. And the way the Gang of 14 worked was pretty much that the Republicans got whatever they wanted. Pretty much every nominee who would have been filibustered was pushed through by the Gang of 14. In other words, the Republicans might as well have used the nuclear option, there were only a very small number of nominees the Gang stopped. So the question is whether the new Gang of Umpteen would function the same and allow pretty much all nominees through.

Ha ha ha! Wait, I have to catch my breath... My, but that was a doozy! Of course that isn't going to happen.

As usual, what the Republicans are offering the Democrats is the weakest of tea.

Read more »

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?

Read more »

(Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermines U.S. policy)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obviously, the situation in Syria is awful. According to French newspaper Le Monde, a "merciless war" is being waged on the outskirts of Damascus, with the Assad regime using chemical weapons against the rebels.

And, in general, I'm with the rebels. I'd love to see the Assad regime fall and for the Syrian people to be freed from the shackles of that brutal tyranny.

But the question isn't really which side you're on, because obviously most good and decent people want Assad to go, it's how you most appopriately respond to the current situation with the intent of supporting the rebels' goals.

The first question is easy. The second, not so much.

For warmongering conservatives like John McCain, however, it's always all so simple: Where there's a problem, as in Syria, war is the solution, and when some war isn't enough, more, ever more, is always the answer.

When they're in power, war is what we get. And when they're not, like now, they just won't shut up about it.

Yes, McCain has been leading the charge, directed with vengeful venom against the man who beat him for the presidency in 2008, for the U.S. to step up its support for the Syrian rebels as well as to get more directly involved in the conflict. He even made his way to Syria yesterday, meeting with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, as well as with other rebel leaders.

On the ground yesterday, he was the United States. Or least he and others wanted it to appear that way. "The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time," said Idris. "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

Yes, of course you are, but here's the thing. John McCain is not the president of the United States. And while you may be upset with what you see as lack of support from President Obama, McCain's self-aggrandizing globe-strutting isn't going to help.

Read more »

Manchin-Toomey: A gun control "compromise" manufactured by the gun lobby

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Gun-crazy "bipartisanship"

I wrote on Friday that there was no hope in hell of meaningful gun control legislation getting through Congress. Manchin-Toomey may be a "bipartisan" "compromise," insofar as it has a few Republican backers, but even if it were to get through the Senate it would still have the House to contend with -- and there the NRA, which opposes the measure, has even more sway. Which is to say, we're a long way even from this limited measure making its way into law, and it may never get there.

Ah, but the tide is turning, is it not, what with two Republican senators -- John McCain and Susan Collins, joining Mark Kirk -- coming out this weekend in support?

Well, there's your "bipartisanship" on an issue that has the overwhelming support of Americans: Democrats plus a few Republicans. And we're not talking about a comprehensive gun control package here. This is just expanded background checks (important, yes, but not nearly enough). And even then McCain's support is a tad wishy-washy: he's "very favorably disposed," which is not a full endorsement, leaving him more than enough room to back out. What's more, Republican Jeff Sessions, a staunch opponent, said yesterday that he didn't think the measure would pass, and co-sponsor Pat Toomey acknowledged that passage is an "open question."

And again, this is just the Senate.

But okay, let's say it does pass, and let's say House Republicans buck the NRA, however unlikely, and support it, doing the least they can do as a way to make it seem like they're doing something, appealing to popular opinion, while pushing off having to do anything else. And let's say President Obama signs it, which he would, even though he's called for much more, because it's something, and something is supposedly better than nothing, and he likes the whole bipartisan thing anyway.

Read more »

McCain's sad, pathetic, bitter, and resentful campaign against Chuck Hagel

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico had a piece up on Sunday about why John McCain flipped on Hagel, saying he would vote for cloture (and hence for a floor vote, breaking the Republican filibuster) but then voting the other way:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) came to McCain's Senate office late Wednesday afternoon and turned around the Arizona Republican — a switch that proved decisive the next day when Hagel came one short of the 60 votes needed for cloture on the Senate floor. Now, Hagel's confirmation roll call is delayed until at least after a weeklong Presidents Day recess. 

For old McCain allies, it was an all-too familiar scenario: Their champion pulled back into the fray by his friend Graham, a likable but impulsive figure caught up in his own political battles with the right in South Carolina. By reversing himself, McCain effectively sacrificed his own credibility to buy Graham more time to continue his campaign against Hagel — an issue that plays to Graham’s advantage as he prepares to run for reelection in 2014.

"This is just a bone thrown to Lindsey Graham, who keeps painting himself into corners and then pleading with friends to crawl in there with him in a vain attempt to save a little face," one Republican insider told POLITICO. And making it more poignant and personal in this case: The Graham friendship dominated at the expense of McCain's earlier one with Hagel.

I wrote on Sunday about how Graham has been bringing the crazy even more than usual of late, and it would appear that in this case his crazy got the better of McCain, the sidekick getting what he wanted, the ex-"maverick" losing still more credibility, to the extent that he has any left at all.

But it's not all Graham's fault, of course. McCain himself has been running an egomaniacal campaign of bitterness and resentment against President Obama since... well, since the day after the '08 election, it seems, boiling over with his vicious assault on Susan Rice, with Graham in tow, and contuining with his similar assault on Hagel -- if a tad politer, given that Hagel is an ex-senator (and so a member of the club), and without the truly ugly condescension (that saw him berating a black woman). 

Read more »

Stick around so we can hit you

By Mustang Bobby

Via Steve Benen, more moaning from the whiny gripers:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained on Fox News [Sunday], "All [President Obama] does is go out and make speeches" instead of negotiating with lawmakers like him. Around the same time, on "Meet the Press," Republican strategist Mike Murphy argued that the president should "stop the speeches" and "stop the politicization." Also on "Meet the Press," Republican pundit Michael Gerson complained about the "outside game [Obama's] been pursuing," in which the president hits the road, "beating up on the Congress."

It's not exactly subtle: Obama's GOP detractors aren't happy about the president taking his message directly to the public though outside-the-beltway events.

Then again, it appears the White House doesn't much care.

If your choice was to hang around Washington so that John McCain can yell at you or get on Air Force One and head for Vegas, what would you do?

The truth is that the Republicans really hate it that the president gets out to the people because they know he's really pretty good at it, and besides, every time he tries to sit down and negotiate with the GOP leadership, they kick him in the junk. So it's not a tough call to get the hell out of Dodge. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

After egotistical grandstanding rooted in vindictive bitterness, McCain clears the way for Hagel

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. John McCain appears to have cleared the way Monday for Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense.

The Arizona Republican, who has been a prominent voice in the debate over Hagel, said Monday he would oppose any attempt to filibuster the nomination, likely dooming any attempt by Senate conservatives to sustain a protracted procedural fight to delay Hagel's confirmation.

"I do not believe that we should filibuster," McCain told POLITICO. "To vote against is entirely the judgment of each individual senator, but a filibuster I think would be inappropriate."

Asked if he would vote for cloture if a filibuster were mounted, McCain answered, "Yes."

Not to say that Hagel, regarding whose nomination I continue to be mixed, gave a great performance, but he deserves the job, or, at least, the president deserves to have his pick confirmed.

Read more »

Parody trailer: Zero Dark Thirty

By Frank Moraes

Ed. note: As I haven't seen the movie yet, I'm withholding comment, particularly with respect to its treatment of torture.

But it seems to me that the filmmakers, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, want to have it both ways, claiming it's both a historical document that tells the inside story of the hunt for bin Laden and a somewhat fictionalized account of what happened.

In most cases, this would be fine. Cinematic depictions of true stories always include dramatization. But in this case we're dealing with the issue of torture as well. Bigelow and Boal say that the depiction of torture doesn't amount to an endorsement. They're just showing the way it was. But was it? There is good reason to believe, based on all that we know of what happened, that the facts differ from what is presented in the film, that torture did not in fact lead to the acquisition of useful intelligence. This is why commentators like Glenn Greenwald and leading political figures like John McCain have been so critical of the film: because of its dishonesty, because it is wrong.

Again, normally this wouldn't matter much. There's always some looseness with the facts in historical films. But how are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion about what happened, about torture, based on what's presented in this film, if what's depicted in the film is wrong?

-- MJWS

**********

While making dinner recently, I was watching The Rachel Maddow Show. A commercial came on for the film Zero Dark Thirty, which readers of my site will know is a torture apologia that looks like a typical Hollywood action film. It has been attacked by three senators as being "grossly inaccurate."
The commercial had scenes from the movie with periodic quotes from all the idiot critics who are heaping praise on the film. I thought, what if instead we had quotes from the knowledgeable political commentators who have attacked the the film? So I did it, and here it is:


I'm more proud of this than any of the videos I have done, which doesn't say that much. But this came out exactly the way I envisioned. If you like it, give me a thumbs up over on YouTube.

Senate letter condemning Zero Dark Thirty

By Frank Moraes 

A remarkable thing happened yesterday. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, and John McCain sent a letter to Michael Lynton, the CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment. It was regarding the portrayal of torture in the new film, Zero Dark Thirty. Feinstein does it as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It is a most reasonable, if direct, letter. They point out that they understand that writers make things up to tell a more dramatic story. Their concern is with the opening of the film which displays on the screen, "Based on first-hand accounts of actual events." They call for the producers to make clear that torture was not helpful in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Read more »