Dr. Strangelove 2016


Image | Posted on by | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hillary House Cleaning

By Dave/ Reprinted by special request from edray/ October 28, 206


There is a lot of house cleaning that the first Woman president must do on her first week.


Accept the resignations of all Bush era Republican US Attorneys that serve at the pleasure of the President.  

Idiot Obama left them there to infest the entire department AND eventually use their influence 

to become federal judge members of the Federalist Society.  

As a result, 

NO Wall Street criminals were indicted for the worldwide depression that resulted 

from the most massive financial fraud in recorded history.  

Non-dinosaur judges are in short supply 

due to the Republican multi-decade plan to rid the Judiciary of all “Librulz”.


Replace FBI Director Comey.  

Adding one’s personal comments to closed cases 

during a presidential campaign 

is unprofessional and actionable.  

Sending letters exclusively to the Republicans in congress 

who are running the witch hunts 

which sound like Trump Tweets 

right before an election 

that contain no facts but enough smoke to run a volcano 

is downright rat fucking, 

a specialty of the Republican bile machine.


That will do for the first hour in office.


For all of those who say that house cleaning is “women’s work”, 

hopefully you will see some badly needed cleaning where it really counts.






Posted in elections, government, Hilary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, politics, Republican Party | Tagged , | Leave a comment

98 Minutes That Changed History


By Arlen Grossman

It is not too far-fetched to say the first presidential debate of 2016 changed the course of history.

Donald Trump was breathing down the neck of Hillary Clinton in the polls, and appeared to be picking up momentum. If he had held his own in that first debate, it is conceivable the reality show TV star and shady business mogul could well have been elected President of the United States, the consequences of which would surely have negatively changed the course of history.

But with Hillary Clinton’s skills and preparation, in stark comparison to Donald Trump’s immaturity and ineptness that Monday night, more than 80 million Americans were able to see what they should have been able to see all along. It was obvious to most debate viewers that one of the two candidates was unprepared, uncontrollable, bigoted and dangerous. There was little doubt that Hillary Clinton was the winner of that critical faceoff.

Hillary Clinton’ s experience, knowledge and mastery of the issues were on display to the American voters. Not at all a flawless candidate, she was nonetheless a far more serious and dependable choice for the world’s most important job, especially compared to her bumbling opponent.

If Trump’s pre-debate momentum had carried him to victory, the consequences would have been far-reaching and scary to contemplate. For a start, his Supreme Court nominations would have bolstered a right-wing Supreme Court. The rest of the world would be on edge contemplating his uncertain foreign policy. Every person of color in our nation would worry where they stood. Most likely our nation’s and the world’s economy would have been sent into a tailspin. The consequences of having someone as unqualified and immature as Donald Trump as leader of the free world are terrifying to contemplate.

Fortunately, the polling after the debate indicates the American people were paying attention. Clinton’s numbers have risen–albeit not a lot– so that it is hard to foresee how she should not be the winner on November 8. Compared side to side with his opponent, Donald Trump came off the clear loser, an incompetent narcissist incapable of carrying out the critical responsibility of being leader of the free world.

For many Americans, the thought of a President Donald Trump is a horrifying one. They can envision him taking away health care for millions, ballooning the debt with tax breaks for his wealthy peers, turning Americans against each other, and crashing the stock market. Even more frightening is the thought of his finger anywhere near the nuclear launch button. It all could have happened if he had held his own at that heavily watched debate. He is most likely incapable of doing any better at subsequent debates.

September 26, 2016 may not go down in history books as the day a nightmarish tragedy was averted, but there is a strong case to be made that it was. We came far too close to the precipice, but thankfully it appears we backed away in time. The far better of the two candidates appears to be within reach of victory in November, and American voters appear on the verge of electing the first female president in this country’s 240-year history.

And all because Donald Trump revealed his true self to a national audience.

Also published at OpEdNews, October 3

Posted in debates, elections, history, politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment


We Have All Won An Oligarchy and Lost A Democracy

By Thom Hartmann/ thomhartmann.com/ September 26, 2016

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Ask yourself, “When was the last time I heard any conversation at all about the role of corporations in America in the American public media?”

In the abstract, it seems like a silly question. So let me rephrase it:

When was the last time you heard in the media that Gary Johnson and Donald Trump both support Citizens United and its concept that corporations are people?

When was the last time you heard that Hillary Clinton has said, repeatedly, that repealing Citizens United is at the top of her agenda when it comes to picking Supreme Court nominees? Or that Donald Trump wants to put somebody on the court who will reverse Roe v. Wade and make it illegal for women to get abortions (and, possibly, many forms of birth control) in America?

And when was the last time you heard about the role of corporations in education? Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party think that all state and federal funding for schools – from elementary school all the way through college – should end.

In Gary Johnson’s America, you only get to go to college if you’re willing to go into debt or your parents are rich. You also only get to go to elementary school and junior high school and high school if you are willing to go into debt or your parents are rich.

Donald Trump hasn’t weighed in on this issue, although Trump University would suggest that he thinks that college students are simply easy-picking suckers for for-profit college corporations.

Democrats, on the other hand, are pushing for free college education for families making under $125,000, and strengthening our public school system so that the ZIP code you’re born into no longer determines the quality of your education.

Have you heard any discussion of this on mainstream television news? It’s fundamental to the larger question of what role corporations, including private, for-profit school corporations, should play in our nation… and no one on mainstream cable news is talking about it.

This is true of almost every single important issue facing the country right now, especially those that have to do with corporate power.

Take, for example, the fact that Americans pay more for healthcare than anybody else in the world, from drugs to eyeglasses to dental work, and we are the only developed nation in the world that allows for-profit corporations to offer primary health insurance? Heard about that in the corporate media? Of course not — crickets, as usual.

How about the school to prison pipeline and the role that the war on drugs and the for-profit prison industry have played in it? Have you heard about that?

I certainly haven’t.

It’s yet another important dimension of the role for-profit corporations play in American life that the mainstream corporate television media completely ignores.

And then there’s the banks. They can borrow at about 1 percent but lend to us at around 30 percent on our credit cards and 5 to 10 percent on student loans. Their profits are also at all-time highs, and we could be facing another banking crisis like 2008. But is anyone over at CNN talking about this? No, they’re not.

And what about CEO salaries? The changes in tax law made during the Reagan administration incentivized CEOs to ignore their workers, their community, the institution of their company, and even their customers – all in favor of jacking up stock prices. How’s that working out for you? It’s working out great for the CEOs of the big media companies, which is probably why you haven’t heard any discussion about it on the mainstream media.

And how about the social safety net? Trump’s backers and Gary Johnson want to privatize Social Security and end Medicare. Democrats want to strengthen both. Have you heard a conversation about this on any television program recently? I doubt it.

The list goes on. Johnson and Trump want to end or freeze, respectively, the minimum wage. Democrats want to raise it. Have you heard anyone on mainstream corporate television news talk about this recently?

Or how Republicans froze long-term unemployment insurance a few years back and libertarians want to do away with it all together, while Democrats wanted to strengthen the system and were blocked by a filibuster? Again, crickets.

For that matter, have you heard any talk about any consequential issues this election?

On my radio show three months ago, I offered to send a free autographed book to the first caller who could point to a serious, thoughtful discussion of even one single issue in this election happening in the corporate media outside of Fareed Zakaria’s weekend program on CNN. So far nobody has won the book.

It’s fashionable to bemoan the ignorance of the American electorate. We never seem to tire of college students being unable to name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But given our media landscape, what should we expect?

Since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine and the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, our media has completely shifted from “news” to infotainment. It’s largely fact-free, and the only things discussed are personalities, gotchas, and horse race claptrap.

It’s completely free of facts that would give us any information, context, or understanding of the role that corporate power plays in our lives.

In other words, it’s completely devoid of the kind of information a functional media is supposed to provide the citizens of a democratic republic.

So here’s my challenge for you: Turn the TV to any news network for an hour and count how many times either the hosts or the guests recount the actual positions of each of the presidential candidates on any single issue.

If it happens even once, you may have won a book! If not, we have all won an oligarchy and lost a democracy. 

Posted in corporations, government, media, politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment


Barbara Lee’s Lone Vote on Sept. 14, 2001, Was as Prescient as It Was Brave and Heroic

By Glenn Greenwald/ The Intercept/ September 11, 2016

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER the 9/11 attack, while bodies were still buried in the rubble, George W. Bush demanded from Congress the legal authorization to use military force against those responsible for the attack, which everyone understood would start with an invasion of Afghanistan. The resulting resolution that was immediately cooked up was both vague and broad, providing that “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Despite this broadness, or because of it, the House of Representatives on September 14 approved the resolution by a vote of 420-1. The Senate approved it the same day by a vote of 98-0. The lone dissenting vote was Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California, who — three days after the 9/11 attack, in a climate of virtually full-scale homogeneity — not only voted “no” but stood up on the House floor to deliver this eloquent, unflinching and, as it turns out, extremely prescient explanation for her opposition:

In an op-ed she published in the San Francisco Chronicle nine days later, she explained her vote by pointing out that the resolution “was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.” She added: “A rush to launch precipitous military counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children will be killed.”

For her lone stance, Lee was deluged with rancid insults and death threats to the point where she needed around-the-clock bodyguards. She was vilified as “anti-American” by numerous outlets including the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times editorialized on September 18 that “Ms. Lee is a long-practicing supporter of America’s enemies — from Fidel Castro on down” and that “while most of the left-wing Democrats spent the week praising President Bush and trying to sound as moderate as possible, Barbara Lee continued to sail under her true colors.” Since then, she has been repeatedly rejected in her bids to join the House Democratic leadership, typically losing to candidates close to Wall Street and in support of militarism. I documented numerous other ugly attacks when I wrote about her for The Guardian in 2013.But beyond the obvious bravery needed to take the stand she took, she has been completely vindicated on the merits. Close to a majority of Americans now believes that the first war the AUMF was invoked to launch — the one in Afghanistan — was a mistake. Fifteen years later, the very same AUMF continues to be used by the Obama administration for all sorts of wars that plainly have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks — including its newfound bombing partnership with Russia in Syria. Under this resolution, Obama has bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries in seven yearsa 2013 memofrom the Congressional Research Service, requested by Lee, listed all the military actions and related abuses undertaken purportedly under its authority:

It’s impossible to overstate how correct Lee was when she warned that this resolution would constitute “a blank check” to wage war “anywhere, in any country,” and “without time limit.” Fifteen years later, this “war” is raging as destructively as ever, with no end in sight. Indeed, as my Intercept colleague Alex Emmons documented today, “Fifteen years after the September 11 attacks, it looks like the war on terror is still in its opening act.” Either one of the two leading presidential candidates is certain to use this resolution for all new expressions of this war.

Lee has never given up on this cause, repeatedly attempting to lead a repeal of the AUMF, though — in the face of opposition from two successive administrations, one from each party — she has never been able to convince her colleagues to do so. While her “blank check” warning turned out to be incredibly prescient, the other warning she issued, from the House floor on September 14, was even more profound: “Let us not become the evil we deplore.”

The 9/11 attack killed close to 3,000 innocent people, but the 15 years of wars, bombings, invasions, occupations, and other abuses it spawned — the bulk of which are still raging — have killed many, many more than that. Americans love to memorialize the victims of the 9/11 attacks, though the abundant victims of their own government’s actions (both leading up to 9/11 and in response to it) are typically ignored. Whatever else 9/11 is used to commemorate, Barbara Lee’s visionary warnings and solitary courage should always be near the top of that list.

Posted in Afghanistan, foreign policy, government, Iraq war, military, politics, Terrorism, war, War on Terror | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Where Workers Stand on Labor Day

A Message to Working People on Labor Day from a former labor secretary

By Robert Reich/ robertreich.org/ September 5, 2016

Your typical wage is below what it was in the late 1970s, in terms of what it can buy. Two-thirds of you are living paycheck to paycheck. Almost 30 percent of you don’t have steady employment: You’re working part-time or on contract, with none of the labor protections created over the last 80 years. Yet the American economy is twice as large as it was in the late 1970s.

Low Wages

Your typical wage is below what it was in the late 1970s, in terms of what it can buy. Two-thirds of you are living paycheck to paycheck. Almost 30 percent of you don’t have steady employment: You’re working part-time or on contract, with none of the labor protections created over the last 80 years — no unemployment insurance if you lose your job, no worker’s compensation if you’re injured, no time-and-a-half pay for working more than 40 hours a week, no minimum wage, and you have to pay your own Social Security. 

Over 37 percent of you have dropped out of the workforce altogether because you’ve become too discouraged even to look for work. That’s a near record. As if all this weren’t enough, the schools and infrastructure on which you rely have been neglected, and the ravages of climate change — droughts, fires, and floods — are worsening.

Yet the American economy is twice as large as it was in the late 1970s. As a nation, we are richer than we’ve ever been. We could afford to do so much better.

None of this has happened by accident. Those with great wealth have translated it into political power. And with that power they’ve busted labor unions (to which a third of private-sector workers belonged in the 1950s but now fewer than 7 percent do), halved the taxes they pay (from a top marginal rate of 91 percent in the 1950s to 39 percent today, and from an effective rate of 52 percent then to 18 percent now), cut safety nets, deregulated Wall Street, privatized much of the economy, expanded bankruptcy protection for themselves while narrowing it for you, forced you into mandatory arbitration of employment disputes, expanded their patents and intellectual property, got trade deals that benefited them but squeezed your pay, and concentrated their market power so you pay more for pharmaceuticals, health insurance, airfare, food, internet service, and much else.

This is bad for everyone. Even those at the top would do better with a smaller share of an economy that was growing because the middle class was expanding. And they’d do better in a society that hadn’t become so angry and susceptible to demagogues blaming immigrants and imports for what has happened.

But none of this will change unless we change it. No single person — not even Bernie Sanders, had he become president — can do what needs to be done, alone. You and I and others must continue to organize and mobilize. Do not find refuge in cynicism. Change is slow, and at times seems hopeless. But change is inevitable. Do not wait for politicians to take the lead. We are the leaders.




Posted in economy, inequality, labor, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Sheeple Rationale


Image | Posted on by | Tagged , | Leave a comment


The Pentagon Money Pit

By Dave Lindorff/ Counterpunch/ August 11, 2016


What if the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services were to report that $6.5 billion in spending by that federal agency was unaccounted for and untraceable? You can imagine the headlines, right? What if it was $65 billion? The headlines would be as big as for the first moon landing or for troops landing on Omaha Beach in World War II.

But how about a report by the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General saying that the US Army had $6.5 trillion in unaccountable expenditures for which there is simply no paper trail? That is 6,500 billion dollars! Have you heard about that? Probably not. That damning report was issued back on July 26 — two whole weeks ago — but as of today it has not even been reported anywhere in the corporate media.

It’s not that it’s secret information, or hard to come by. The report is available online at the Department of Defense’s OIG website. And as it states:

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend JV adjustments made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation.2 The unsupported JV adjustments occurred because OASA(FM&C) and DFAS Indianapolis did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors resulting in JV adjustments, and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting system‑generated adjustments.

In addition, DFAS Indianapolis did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System‑Budgetary (DDRS-B), a budgetary reporting system, removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during third quarter FY 2015. This occurred because DFAS Indianapolis did not have detailed documentation describing the DDRS-B import process or have accurate or complete system reports.

As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and yearend financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.

This dense bureaucrateze doesn’t mean that $6.5 trillion has been stolen, or that this is money in addition to the $600 billion that the Pentagon spent in fiscal 2015. It means that for years — and $6.5 trillion represents at about 15 years’ worth of US military spending — the Department of Defense (sic) has not been tracking or recording or auditing all of the taxpayer money allocated by Congress — what it was spent on, how well it was spent, or where the money actually ended up. There are enough opportunities here for corruption, bribery, secret funding of “black ops” and illegal activities, and or course for simple waste to march a very large army, navy and air force through. And by the way, things aren’t any better at the Navy, Air Force and Marines.

Incredibly, no mainstream reporter or editor in the US has seen this as a story worth reporting to the American public.

Just to give a sense of the scale of this outrage, consider that total federal discretionary spending in FY 2015 was just over $1.1 trillion. That includes everything from education ($70 billion), housing and community development ($63 billion), Medicare and health ($66 billion), veterans’ benefits ($65 billion), energy ($39 billion), transportation ($26 billion) and international affairs ($41 billion), and of course that $600 billion for the military.

All the other agencies that are responsible for those other outlays, like the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, etc., have been required by Congress since 1996 to file reports on annual audits of their budgets. The Pentagon was subject to that same act of Congress too, but for 20 years and running it has failed to do so. It has simply stonewalled, and so far has gotten away with it.

Nobody in Congress seems to care about this contempt of Congress. Neither of the two mainstream political candidates for president, Republican Donald Trump nor Democrat Hillary Clinton, seems to care either. Neither one has mentioned this epic scandal.

According to the OIG’s report, this problem actually goes back a generation, to 1991, five years before Congress even passed the law requiring all federal agencies to operate using federal accounting standards and to conduct annual audits, when the Government Accountability Office found “unsupported aadjustments” were being made to the military’s financial statements during an audit of FY 1991 Army financial statements. Fully 17 years later, the Army, in its FY 2008 statement of Assurance on Internal Controls, said that the “weakness” found in 1991 “would be corrected by the end of FY 2011,” an outrageous decade later. But the OIG report goes on to say:

However, the FY 2015 Statement of Assurance on Internal Controls indicated this material weakness remained uncorrected and may not be corrected until third quarter 2017.

Such a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Pentagon, Congress and the media towards such a massive accounting failure involving trillions of dollars is simply mind-boggling, and yet there is nobody in Congress jumping up and down in the well of the House or or at Armed Services Committee hearings demanding answers and heads. No president or presidential candidate is denouncing this atrocity.

Aside from the political question of how much the US should actually be spending on the military — and clearly, spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on war and war preparedness is not justifiable — how can anyone, of any political persuasion, accept the idea of spending such staggering sums of money without insisting on any accountability?

Consider that politicians of both major political parties are demanding accountability for every penny spent on welfare, including demanding that recipients of welfare prove that they are trying to find work. Ditto for people receiving unemployment compensation. Consider the amount of money and time spent on testing students in public schools in a vain effort to make teachers accountable for student “performance.” And yet the military doesn’t have to account for any of its trillions of dollars of spending on manpower and weapons — even though Congress fully a generation ago passed a law requiring such accountability.

Phone and email requests to the DOD press office for the Office of Inspector General asking for comment went unanswered.

Mandy Smithberger, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), says, “Accounting at the Department of Defense is a disaster, but nobody is screaming about it because you have a lot of people in Congress who believe in more military spending, so they don’t really challenge military spending.” She adds, “You won’t see anything change unless Congress cuts the Pentagon budget in order to get results, and they’re not going to do that.”

She might have added that the reporters and editors and publishers of the corporate media also support military spending, so the media are not reporting on this scandal either, meaning that the public remains in the dark and unconcerned about it. Sure, the media will report on a $600 air force toilet seat and the public will be appropriately outraged, but there is no word about an untracable $6.5 trillion in Army spending and no public outrage…except perhaps among those who read alternative publications like this one.

Enough! I don’t want to hear another complaint about government spending on welfare, education, environment, health care subsidies, immigrant benefits or whatever, until the Pentagon has to report on, account for and audit every dollar that it is spending on war.

No more free ride for the military.

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Economics, government, media, military, politics, scandals | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Shocking new report: Bombing people causes people to hate you


Now there is a new report that examines this strange trend.

Our new article, forthcoming in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence,  examines the coalition’s use of violence to suppress insurgency during the Iraq War. We found that excess reliance on military force can produce counterintuitive results.

  Counterintuitive? You mean like, they throw bullets at us instead of flowers?

Using data from the Iraq War Logs, we analyzed the numbers to see whether killing insurgents had any influence on the incidence of insurgent attacks. We constructed a weekly data set across 103 districts in Iraq from 2004 to 2009. The data counted how many insurgents coalition forces killed each week in each district, through all types of military engagement (including direct and indirect fire incidents, bombings or any other form of engagement where a member of the coalition was present to record the incident). We then analyzed whether the number of insurgents killed in a given week had an impact on the number of insurgent attacks against coalition forces in future weeks. The answer is yes — but it turns out that rather than reducing the insugency’s  capabilities, killing fighters actually encouraged more attacks against the coalition.
   When coalition forces employed extreme violence — killing relatively large numbers of insurgents — they were able to moderate the rate of increase in insurgent attacks, but not reduce it. In other words, military force alone was not successful at decreasing violence in Iraq. Here are four reasons why.

Shocking! Killing lots of people does not create peace on Earth!   But every Hollywood movie based on a video game I’ve ever seen has an entirely different message (i.e. you kill all the bad guys to win the game). Could all those movies be wrong?   Almost every presidential candidate echoes the message of those Hollywood movies as well. Surely they can’t all be wrong!

  So what reasons does this report give for such bizarre conclusions?

1) Military force often means collateral damage.

  It seems that classifying dead civilians as insurgents/terrorists may work with the American audience, but it doesn’t work so well with the locals.   What’s more, blowing up their homes and infrastructure doesn’t makes them love you either.

2) Civilians are likely to blame outsiders for violence, not the Islamic State.

  Funny how the locals are more likely to blame people from the other side of the planet that drop bombs from 30,000 feet, rather than people they can actually see and talk to.

3) Attacking insurgents may actually strengthen their ranks.

Killing insurgent fighters is a sure way to encourage retaliation. If a group can signal strength through retaliatory attacks despite receiving heavy casualties, then local populations are more likely to view that group as strong. Some populations would see backing a strong group as the best way to protect their own interests.

There’s also something else the report didn’t note: insurgents are people to (believe it or not), and people tend to have families and friends who may resent you killing them.

4) A stronger insurgency is likely to result in more attacks on coalition forces.

  So if we can’t bomb our way to peace, what can we do? So far the answer is to bomb even more. It’s a message that sells with both Democrats and Republicans.

 Now assuming that more bombs aren’t the answer (and that MUCH more bombs aren’t the answer either), what could be the answer? Well, someone might have an idea.

We have a military plan to defeat the Islamic State – and, as initial gains in Fallujah last week demonstrated, it’s going well in many respects – but we have yet to articulate a political plan to ensure Iraq’s long-term stability.
   Sometimes it’s impossible to tell whether it’s 2007 or 2016. The battle plans I hear from our commanders in Iraq today are the same ones I heard at the beginning of the surge, down to the same cities and tribal alliances. My question is: How will this time be different? The silence is deafening.

Oh yeah. The politics. Diplomacy. Long-term thinking rather than short-term explosions.   All stuff that Americans had long ago sh*t-canned as signs of weakness. Maybe instead of just spending billions on contracting out our military, maybe we can spend a few bucks contracting out our diplomacy too? Because obviously no one in Washington is interested in talking anymore.

Carl von Clausewitz taught us nearly 200 years ago that “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.” We have to have a political endgame, or the sacrifices our troops continue to make will be in vain. It’s not the military’s job to develop that political plan – that’s where the administration comes in – but it’s painfully clear there isn’t one. Without a long-term political strategy, we can expect to send young Americans back to Iraq every time Iraqi politics fall apart, a new terrorist group sweeps in and we find ourselves required to clean up the mess.
   Fixing Iraqi politics is difficult, but I’d much prefer having a heavy, long-term diplomatic presence than losing more lives refighting battles we already won.

  The good news is that we are getting very good at invading the Middle East. It’ll come in useful again very soon.

Posted in foreign policy, government, Iraq war, Middle East, military, politics, Terrorism, war, War on Terror | Tagged , , | 4 Comments


By Arlen Grossman

Published at OpEd News June 30, 2016

(This is an expanded version of the prior posting)

Traditionally, the new media has an obligation to inform and serve the public. For a long time now, the media has fallen short in these responsibilities. There are at least two critical areas in which the corporate media is neglecting to warn the American public about impending disasters:

(1) Despite the media pounding out a constant barrage of news about unprecedented climate catastrophes: tornados, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, etc., they seldom connect these increasing occurrences with global warming, despite repeated warnings from scientists. Perhaps it might stifle American business interests. Thus, these weather disasters proliferate and our government does little to rectify the cause of them. Until we do, the devastation will only get worse: more land will be destroyed, more people will suffer, homes will be demolished, and lives will be lost.

(2) Despite increased incidences of terrorist attacks on the West, and heightened fear about such from the public, the media fails to connect increasing American and Western military involvement in Muslim countries around the world with the rise of terrorism. It should be obvious by now: the more killing we do over there, the more killing they do over here. But we seem to prefer military solutions. That we could reduce the hatred and anger of Muslim civilians, as well as slow the recruitment of terrorists, by lessening our war-making in their part of the world is a solution the news media prefers to ignore. Perhaps it would not be in their interests, or those of the military and our corporate war industries. So the unending cycle of violence continues.

We are not being served well by a media that is supposed to inform and serve us. The consequences of that neglect will harm all of us.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: