Rand Paul shifts shamelessly on defense spending to appease bloodthirsty Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, those lofty presidential ambitions. Oh, the need to appeal to the bloodthirsty, warmongering Republican base.

Oh, the shame of it all:

Just weeks before announcing his 2016 presidential bid, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is completing an about-face on a longstanding pledge to curb the growth in defense spending.

In an olive branch to defense hawks hell-bent on curtailing his White House ambitions, the libertarian Senator introduced a budget amendment late Wednesday calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years -- a roughly 16 percent increase.

But... but... he's a principled libertarian! He's not like the others! He actually believes in things other than some incoherent combination of plutocracy and fundamentalist moralism.

You know, except on abortion, and same-sex marriage, and now on the military, and, well, let's face it, on any other issue where those presidential ambitions require him to put aside his principles and embrace the must-have Republican position, or else.

As BooMan says, this about-face renders Paul "basically worthless." Because basically he's just like any other mainstream Republican.

"I already mock anyone who presents Rand Paul as a desirable leader or serious voice," he adds, "but from now on my abuse is going to be deafening."

Which is precisely what Paul deserves. From all of us.

Your basic quagmire

By Carl 

The more I think about the Chelsea (fka Bradley) Manning situation, the shape it takes gets more and more bizarre:

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia — The Pentagon is considering transferring Ptv. [sic] Chelsea Manning to a civilian prison where the soldier serving time for leaking classified documents could receive medical treatment for gender dysphoria, Defense officials said Wednesday.

That option is among several Army leaders are weighing as they wrestle with a dilemma that is likely to set precedent on a fraught issue for the Pentagon, which has come under increasing pressure to reexamine its prohibition on allowing transgender people to serve in uniform.

OK, before you jump ugly on me, I have no problem with what Chelsea did to get her sentence – in fact, I hold her in far higher regard than I do Edward Snowden, especially after Putin has all but discredited Snowden's pure motives – and I don't really have a problem with her desire to transform her body into a woman's. Hear me out, though.

In the normal course of events, an active-duty Chelsea would have received a medical discharge and been forced to pay for her treatments on her own, which makes sense under the old guard rules where women's roles in the armed forces were restricted – and I'm not defending those rules, just acknowledging they were a reality under which policies were developed like this.

Under the evolving rules of the military, women have a larger role in all areas of the forces, including combat. A born-male woman could conceivably still maintain whatever role she assumed in her male form with little to no real effect to her performance.

Here's where things get interesting: as convicted, Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but military rules call for the expulsion of anyone who takes steps to treat her gender dysphoria, so therefore Chelsea should be discharged. This is why one option the Pentagon is considering is a transfer to a federal penitentiary, where she could receive the treatment she needs.

In fact, that has precedent in situations where there is a life-threatening illness that military medicine is ill-equipped to treat. This course of action is further bolstered by the recent decision in the First Circuit Court of Appeals that a transgendered individual who has received a bona fide treatment plan endorsed by physicians must be allowed treatment, that to deny this treatment is unconstitutional under the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Chelsea would be entitled to treatment and the military could maintain its facade of "morality" as defined by the right wing yahoos (and avoid an awful lot of awkward publicity).

So this seems a reasonable gesture for the Pentagon to take for Manning and all other transgender soldiers. Right?

OK, but the forensic auditor in me has a question, and when you consider it, you'll see why my mind got blown:

What if this was Chelsea's plan all along?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

When Democrats and Republicans alike prefer protecting the Pentagon to dealing with the plague of sexual assault in the military

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yes, once again, the Senate has acted shamefully:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand came up short Thursday in her yearlong campaign to overhaul military sexual-assault policies, falling five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

The New York Democrat's bill, which would have removed the chain of command from prosecuting sexual assaults and other major military crimes, was derailed in the Senate on a 55-45 vote, closing out one chapter in a debate that divided the Senate but not along typical partisan lines.

Ten Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2016 presidential hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, backed Gillibrand's controversial chain-of-command bill. But that wasn't enough to overcome 10 Democratic votes against her, including prominent defense hawks like Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also opposed the bill.

Things to note here:

1) This was a procedural vote, not an actual vote on the bill. But Gillibrand still got a majority of senators to support her effort, which is admirable. If the Senate were actually a functioning legislative body instead of a stage for partisan and ideological grandstanding, where all it takes is one member to shut things down with a filibuster, that is, if democracy actually mattered, the outcome would have been different.

2) Yes, this is one area where President Obama does need to show a good deal more leadership. His active involvement, as opposed to merely supporting Gillibrand in principle and hoping for the best, could have been the difference.

3) There is indeed an argument to be made for the military to be able to mange its own affairs, but it's a stupid argument that essentially holds that the military is off-limits to civilian oversight beyond the bare minimum and that the whole culture of the military is special and different and so not subject to the normal rules of society in any regard. This was basically the Republican position.

Read more »

The new and improved Kirsten Gillibrand

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What a difference a few years can make.

Back in 2009, when then-New York Gov. David Paterson named then-Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary's vacated spot in the Senate, I said it was "a horrible, horrible pick": 

Earlier, I suggested that Gillibrand, who represents a pro-Bush district, is "almost a Republican." Almost? I'd say she pretty much is, what with a 100% approval rating from the NRA, support for the Iraq War, and, as she herself put it, "one of the most conservative" voting records in the state, including voting for the FISA bill that included telecom immunity and to lift the ban on the possession of semi-automatic weapons in D.C. Her father was close to former Republican Governor George Pataki. She even once interned for former Senator Al D'Amato, a conservative and hyper-partisan Republican.

Was that wrong? No. But has Senator Gillibrand emerged as something altogether different? Yes.

The fact is, Gillibrand represented a fairly conservative district in upstate New York. (Obama won it decisively in 2008 and 2012, but Bush won it by fairly large margins in 2000 and 2004.) And so her views very much lined up with what she had to do to succeed there. That's not to say she was lying about herself. While she was strong on civil liberties and a proponent of same-sex marriage (and gays in the military), there is no doubt that she was genuinely a conservative Democrat, and that's why many of us were concerned when she was appointed to the Senate.

But give her credit. She's adapted to her role as New York's junior senator and broadened her views, or at least her positions, to reflect a significantly more progressive outlook.

Read more »

Veterans Day is a day to apologize

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From our friend Gordon at Alternate Brain:

Thank you for please not thanking me for my service on this Veterans Day. I don't need it and I don't want it. Instead, I think we should APOLOGIZE to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans, the living, wounded, and dead, for being so horribly used IN OUR NAME for NOTHING but an imperialistic neocon wet dream that has come to naught but a terrible butcher's bill.

And for all you armchair militarists waving the flag and spouting knee-jerk jingoism, this guy's got real cred. So fuck off.

Remembrance on Veterans Day

By Frank Moraes 

I got this picture from Wikipedia. The caption reads, "Joseph Ambrose, an 86-year-old World War I veteran, attends the dedication day parade for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1982, holding the flag that covered the casket of his son, who was killed in the Korean War." This is not just how I think about Veterans Day; it is how I think our country should think about it. Let us honor veterans but let us also regret that we have them.

In most countries, today is Armistice Day: it marks the armistice that ended World War I in 1918. It is also referred to as the more appropriate Remembrance Day. It is a day to remember those who have died in our wars. It is a solemn occasion. And it should be. Even the "good" war, World War II, should not be looked back on as a great adventure. It was a tragedy for the world. Over 60 million people were killed in that war. And for what? A bad economy that allowed a megalomaniac to gain power in Germany?

It's my opinion, based upon nothing but a fair insight into human nature, that most people just want to live their ordinary lives with their families and friends and the occasional barbecue and backyard party. And that's as true of people in the army as anywhere else. I put the number at 95%. It's that 5% of the population that fucks everything up. And I'm not just talking about Hitler here. Why did we started the Iraq War? It certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction—that was just a cover. And I don't think it had to do with oil either, but that doubtless played some role. I think it was just another example of a small group of men who thought it would be super keen to take out big bad Saddam Hussein.

In the United States, of course, we celebrate Veterans Day. The idea of it is not bad. We need to honor our veterans, although I think better than a single day would be an everyday approach to providing them their earned benefits. But it seems that Veterans Day to most people is just another day to celebrate what a kick ass country the United States is. Except because it references veterans, there is more explicit jingoism. To most people, it is a time to celebrate the fact that the United States spends 46% of what all the 171 countries of the world spend on military. It ought to be our great national shame, especially when even the Democrats want to cut food stamps for the poor.

But back to that picture. That's how we should think of Veterans Day: an old veteran from one of our many useless wars with a symbol of his son who died in another of our useless wars. To call the wars useless is not to disrespect the veterans. It is no disrespect to Achilles and Hector to note that the Trojan War was useless and tragic. To see wars clearly is a reminder of what a precious thing life is and how we should value it just as much before the war as after it.

Have a safe and thoughtful Veterans Day.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Fucking idiots converge on Washington to protest government shutdown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A group of mostly Tea Party protesters waving the Confederate flag, saying stupid bigoted things, and otherwise pushing their extremist right-wing agenda were in the nation's capital today, forcing open the World War II memorial and taking their loud-mouthed ignorance to the White House to blame President Obama, who also happens to be a black man, for the government shutdown, as if they have any fucking clue what's really going on.

Don't get me wrong, not everyone involved in this "Million Vet March" is a right-wing wacko. It's just that the whole thing was grossly misguided and then taken over by the same old Republican interests that so often hide behind patriotism and use veterans and active-duty personnel alike as pawns in their political game:

Members of the Million Vet March planned on gathering at the World War II Memorial on Sunday despite the memorial being closed due to the government shutdown.

According to a statement on the group's website, they feel military personnel and veterans are "being used a political pawns in the ongoing government shutdown and budget crisis." Organizers say they are not a political leaning group, but call the shutting down of memorials "a despicable act of cowardice."

However, conservative political commentator Sarah Palin and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) arrived and spoke to the people gathered at the memorial.

"This is the people's memorial," Palin said. "Our veterans should be above politics."

Yeah, sure. When Palin and Cruz emerge as the leading voices of your protest, you know you're way out of touch with the rest of America and that you're no longer non-partisan. And if veterans should really be above politics, then Palin, one of the most shameless partisan self-promoters around, should just get the fuck out of the way.

Oh, and if these people are serious about protesting the shutdown, they should have taken their march over to Capitol Hill, where Tea Party-dominated Republicans who have taken the country hostage are the ones responsible for the whole damn mess.

Behind the Ad: A veterans group slams the GOP

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: VoteVets.org. 

Where: National cable outlets.

What's going on: In this piece, a national veterans organization criticizes Republicans for the government shutdown. 

Bradley Manning found guilty, while the real criminals remain free

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on my post from earlier, (courageous whistleblower) Bradley Manning was indeed found guilty today, just not on the most significant, and most ridiculous, charge:

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of "aiding the enemy" for his release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks for publication on the Internet, rejecting the government’s unprecedented effort to bring such a charge in a leak case.

But the judge in the court-martial, Col. Denise R. Lind, convicted Private Manning of six counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and most of the other crimes he was charged with. He faces a theoretical maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, although legal experts said the actual term was likely to be much shorter.

While advocates of open government celebrated his acquittal on the most serious charge, the case still appears destined to stand as a fierce warning to any government employee who is tempted to make public vast numbers of secret documents. Private Manning's actions lifted a veil on American military and diplomatic activities around the world, and engendered a broad debate over what information should become public, how the government treats leakers, and what happens to those who see themselves as whistle-blowers. 

Okay, well, let's look at the elements of that debate:

First, according to the U.S. federal government -- which, let us not forget, is currently led by Democrat Barack Obama -- no information should become public that is in any way sensitive regarding national security (or pretty much any other area), and certainly no information that might in any way expose what the government is really up to, not least its criminal or even questionably ethical activities.

Second, the U.S. federal government treats leakers like traitors.

Third, the U.S. federal government, including the military, tortures whistleblowers and persecutes them relentlessly.

A fierce warning? Yes, I'd say so. Cross the government, expose its criminal activities, and you're done for.

Read more »

Bradley Manning to be found guilty today

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The show trial of Bradley Manning, the courageous whistleblower whose leaks documented U.S. military crimes and other misdeed and who for revealing the truth has been tortured in custody, is almost at an end:

After spending three years in custody, the man accused of the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history will learn Tuesday whether he has been found guilty of aiding the enemy.

A verdict from the judge in the court-martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning will be announced at 1 p.m. ET Tuesday, according to a spokeswoman for the military district of Washington.

If found guilty on the aiding the enemy charge, Manning could be sentenced to life in prison. He has pleaded guilty to nearly a dozen lesser charges that carry a sentence of up to 20 years behind bars.

The aiding the enemy charge is ridiculous, just as the persecution of Bradley is outrageous, but it shouldn't come as a surprise if he's found guilty -- it's what the government wants, because it wants at all costs to prevent any more of the truth from getting out, and obviously this trial is an effort to send a message to anyone else who might want to follow Manning's lead.

But even if for whatever reason he gets off on that charge, there's hardly any doubt he'll get the max, or close to it, for the rest -- again, because a message must be sent, because the country's crimes are, apparently, top secret. Isn't this also why the government wants to make an example of Snowden as well?

In America, after all, you're only really free if you play by the very narrow, government-determined rules of the national security state.

According to #BradleyManning trial, U.S. govt says anyone who exposes its criminal and otherwise reprehensible activities is a traitor.
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Obama had better have that pardon ready for #BradleyManning. Because this gross injustice is on him too. (He won't.)
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 25, 2013

Pentagon warns against military action in Syria

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it can do any number of things, but there are, as expected, few if any good options if the goal is actually to make a difference in the ongoing civil war:

The Pentagon has provided Congress with its first detailed list of military options to stem the bloody civil war in Syria, suggesting that a campaign to tilt the balance from President Bashar al-Assad to the opposition would be a vast undertaking, costing billions of dollars, and could backfire on the United States. 

Of course, this isn't Rumsfeld's, or Cheney's, Pentagon anymore, and so one must expect it to be a tad more conservative, and realistic, in its outlook and approach to possible military action.

The counter-argument, from neocons as well as from liberal hawks, is that any such risk is worth it, because humanitarianism, or history, or geopolitics, or American hegemony, or whatever. And often I'm sympathetic to the liberal interventionist cause.

But the fact that the Pentagon's assessment of military action is so troubling should give us all pause. As much as we may not like it, there's just no easy way to topple Assad's horrendous regime, and of course no guarantee that its successor would be at all desirable in its own right.

More bad Bradley Manning news

By Frank Moraes 

In the trial of Bradley Manning, Judge Colonel Denise Lind has ruled that the most series charge of aiding the enemy cannot be dropped. She said, "He was knowingly providing intelligence to the enemy." That statement shocks me on two levels. First, she seems to have already convicted him. Second, really?! If we are talking about Osama Bin Laden, then this is clearly not true. If we are talking about the press, then okay. In modern America, the government has defined its enemies so broadly and the concept of damage so vast that no one can say anything without risking indictment.

But the government apparently now knows that some of Manning's leaked information was found on Bin Laden's computer. When the government killed him, you were probably like me in thinking, "I'll bet there is some good information that the government can use to fight terrorists." But apparently not. There was good information there for the government to use to oppress its citizens. James Madison would be so proud!

In general, I've always seen military courts as little more than well catered drumhead court-martials. So I've never expected that Bradley Manning would get justice. The only question in my mind is whether he will die in prison. Judge Lind's ruling is yet another step in that eventuality. There is still some hope, but I'm not optimistic.

Read more »

Why we can't have nice things

By Mustang Bobby

Via The Washington Post:

The U.S. military has erected a 64,000-square-foot headquarters building on the dusty moonscape of southwestern Afghanistan that comes with all the tools to wage a modern war. A vast operations center with tiered seating. A briefing theater. Spacious offices. Fancy chairs. Powerful air conditioning.

Everything, that is, except troops.

The windowless, two-story structure, which is larger than a football field, was completed this year at a cost of $34 million. But the military has no plans to ever use it.

But student loan rates have to go up, the sequester knocked billions out of federal grants to public schools, and they're furloughing teachers because, you know, we're broke.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Relentless Republican outrage and the fake scandals that failed to bring down Barack Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another fake scandal.

It wasn't really such a bad week for President Obama, just a bad week for President Obama according to a Beltway media establishment desperately looking for some excitement and more than willing to go right along with the ongoing Republican assault on everything the president does.

The point is, while it was a week of annoying scandalmongering, and surely incredibly annoying to the White House, what really happened is that the Republicans pushing the scandals along with their media enablers were finally exposed as a bunch of frauds. Consider:

Benghazi: This has long been over, but Republicans won't let it rest. They thought they had a smoking gun in leaked White House e-mails that suggested political interference in post-attack talking points, but the story, after the White House released the full e-mails, is now rightly about how Republicans altered those e-mails and how ABC News was played and/or in on it. End result: Republicans look bad.

IRS: Conservatives freaked out and Republicans ultimately blew their load. The IRS could and should have handled their investigation of Tea Party groups with greater care, but there's no scandal. Obama didn't order any sort of Nixonian investigation of his enemies and the IRS invesigates the tax-exempt claims of groups across the spectrum. End result: Obama found a scapegoat in the IRS commissioner, which is a shame, but it's clear the IRS did nothing fundamentally wrong. Republicans don't look bad as much as they look hypocritical.

AP: The federal government's subpoenaing of the media organization's phone records may be the only real scandal here, and initially the Beltway media were up in arms, but there's no one really driving this one other than Obama's critics on the civil libertarian left (e.g., Glenn Greenwald, and I tend to agree with them). Everyone knows that this sort of thing has gone on for a long time (Patriot Act, anyone?) and everyone knows that Obama has maintained much of the Bush-Cheney national security state. And Republicans have no interest in defending the media from the left. They're not saying anything because they agree with the Justice Department. End result: Obama and Holder deserve criticism, but this one's done.

Oh, but Republicans are as desperate as ever to try to bring down the president (as well as the person they see as their likely nemesis in 2016, Hillary Clinton). Indeed, what this week proved is not that the president is being brought down by scandal (given that these are faux scandals pushed by Republicans and sensationalized by their media enablers) but that Republicans have nothing but obstructionism and outrage to hurl in his direction. His approval numbers are fine, Obamacare is becoming the law of the land, and while they've successfully blocked him in Congress (e.g., voting down the extremly popular Manchin-Toomey background check gun bill) their electoral prospects remain dim. They tried for four years to tear him down. This is just more of the same. It's all they've got.

Read more »

North Korea agonistes

By Carl

A true test of a nation's mettle comes not in how it deals with "existential threats" (i.e., a force equal to or greater than its own) but with the niggling trouble-makers.

Thus enters North Korea:

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea's defense chief said on Thursday that North Korea had moved to its east coast a missile with a "considerable" range, but that it was not capable of reaching the United States. The disclosure came as the Communist North's military warned that it was ready to strike American military forces with "cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means."

That last likely should be taken with a grain of salt, but clearly not discounted completely. We know they've been working on a nuclear capability for some time now, they have a reactor that is not hooked up to the power grid (so we know it’s not for energy), and they had been in touch with our old fiend, Abdul Qadeer "A.Q." Khan, who likely advanced their ambitions by several decades.

Too, North Korea has been gearing up for some time to "battle" the United States and South Korea.

I put "battle" in quotes for a reason: there's significant cause to believe that Kim Jong-Un is saber-rattling not for international purposes but in order to clamp down dissent domestically. Precious little news of the North ever really gets out, so we have to infer a lot, but here's my thinking in support of this notion.

Read more »

Bradley Manning and the war on whistleblowers

By Frank Moraes 

These really are the times that try men's souls. And I wonder whether the liberal apologists for this administration will continue to think cheery thoughts while basic levels accountability are abandoned. The sunshine patriot will shrink from holding his country accountable; only those who demand transparency, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Bradley Manning has admitted to releasing classified documents. But he is claiming innocence regarding the more serious charges like aiding and abetting the enemy. This all ends badly for a young man who is the very definition of a whistle blower. The problem is that the United States takes all of this stuff very seriously. And sadly, under Obama it has gotten even worse. What is it about people who become president that they go crazy over secrecy? Such behavior should cause them to be disqualified for the job.

Instead, the government manages to focus all of its power on relatively powerless men like Bradley Manning who just want to get the truth out. Reading parts of his 35 page testimony, it is clear that he is a typical whistle blower: a once true believer who was crushed to find out that the shining city on the hill was a mirage. He tried to get his superiors to act on various aspects of the disinformation campaign that the government seems to think is their primary function. When that failed, he tried to get regular news agencies to listen: Washington Post, the New York Timesand Politico. And like the corporate lackeys we know these outlets to be, he got nowhere.

Read more »

Bob Woodward attacks Obama for "a kind of madness"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back when Bob Woodward mattered.

Honestly, it's hard to believe that anyone pays attention to this idiot anymore:

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief's decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is "a kind of madness."

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need' or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?" Woodward added. "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can't do what I need to do to protect the country.' That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

Let's address this in order:

First, no, Reagan likely wouldn't have, but that's because he was an extreme militarist who didn't give a damn about the budget, in fact exploding the national debt with outrageous military spending. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, though, one could say that he was right to do so at the time because, you know, there was that whole Cold War going on and it was important to ramp up the military spending and spread the military's reach far and wide. I won't give him that benefit, but, regardless, it's silly to say that what was necessary then is necessary now.

Read more »

Lindsey Graham brings the crazy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Give Lindsey Graham some credit. In bringing so much of the crazy lately -- including just last week threatening to block the president's key national security appointments, Hagel for Defense and Brennan for the CIA -- he's finally emerging from his pal John McCain's shadow.

But let's get back to that first point: he's bringing the crazy. And while he continues to position himself as a pragmatic, bipartisan centrist, and while the Beltway media continue to let him get away with it by treating him as a voice of bipartisan reason, the substance beneath that thin veneer of spin is hardcore conservative. Maybe not Ted Cruz-style hardcore, and certainly softened by that southern drawl and a smile, but still conservative enough that not so long ago he would have been considered something of an extremist.

In any event, he was at it again today on the Sunday talk-show circuit, where he's always welcomed as that supposed voice of reason, arguing that the way to deal with the automatic defense cuts of the sequester is to cut $1.2 trillion from the Affordable Care Act:

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Graham suggested that the sequester's across-the-board cuts to federal spending, including about a roughly 7.5 percent reduction in military spending, would be "destroying the military." But rather than agree to President Obama's proposed alternatives to the sequester, the South Carolina Republican said we should save money by eliminating health care for the 30 million people covered by the Affordable Care Act.

Of course, another way to deal with it is to agree to a responsible combination of spending cuts and revenue increases of the kind that President Obama and the Democrats have been proposing. But for Republicans, including these supposed centrists, revenue increases are simply not acceptable, and so instead they go scrounging for cuts that directly impact people other than them and those like them, particularly low-income Americans and, as is the case here, those who, if it were up to Graham and his fellow Republicans, wouldn't have health insurance.

Read more »

All the same

By Mustang Bobby

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has some good news for same-sex couples serving in the military:

Seventeen months ago, the United States military ended the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We have implemented the repeal of that policy and made clear that discrimination based on sexual orientation has no place in the Department of Defense.

At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy. It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country. The department already provides a group of benefits that are member-designated. Today, I am pleased to announce that after a thorough and deliberate review, the department will extend additional benefits to same-sex partners of service members.

There are still some benefits that aren't available thanks to the odious Defense of Marriage Act, but for now this is yet another step towards equality. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

When guns are around, people get shot

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And people get killed, including famous ex-military people:

A former Navy SEAL known for claiming a record number of sniper killings in Iraq was one of two men shot dead at a Texas gun range, allegedly at the hands of a fellow military veteran, officials say. 

Chris Kyle, the author of the best-selling "American Sniper," and Chad Littlefield, also a veteran, were gunned down Saturday afternoon on the grounds of the expansive Rough Creek Lodge and Resort in Glen Rose, Texas, southwest of Fort Worth, law enforcement officials said. 

About four hours afterward, and 90 miles from where those two men's bodies were found by a hunting guide, authorities arrested suspect Eddie Ray Routh, 25, on a capital murder warrant.

Of course, there's a lot to this story that isn't yet known. But you know we'll continue to be told that guns aren't the problem (even if they make killing a whole lot easier/likely) and that America's troops (in uniform or vets) are the greatest people on the planet and deserving of our hero-worship (many of them are good, courageous people, but a lot of them aren't).

Because America has a crazy gun culture, because jingoism runs rampant while the empire collapses, and because people don't learn a fucking thing.