Category Archives: Foreign Policy

31 To 5.

Posted on by

Teapublicans continue to demand accountability for the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others in Benghazi. They might begin with some simple addition and subtraction.

For example, under President George W. Bush, the US State Department suffered the following attacks:

  • 2002 Karachi, Pakistan Embassy – 10 dead
  • 2004 Tashkent, Uzbekistan Embassy – 2 dead
  • 2004 Jidda, Saudi Arabia Consulate – 8 dead
  • 2006 Damascus, Syria Embassy – 1 dead
  • 2007 Athens, Greece
  • 2008 Belgrade, Serbia Embassy
  • 2008 Sana, Yemen Embassy – 10 dead

That adds up to a total of 31 who died at embassies on Bush’s watch.

During the Obama administration, the US State Department has thus far suffered the following attacks:

  • 2012 Benghazi, Libya Embassy – 4 dead
  • 2013 Ankra, Turkey Embassy – 1 dead

That adds up to a total of 5 who have died on Obama’s watch.

Now for the subtraction. Since 2010, the Teapublican-controlled House cut the State Department’s budget for embassy security by $296 million. Okay, Rep. Issa, investigate that!

You simply can’t be “outraged” by the events in Benghazi, if you weren’t equally outraged by the many events that preceded it. And you can’t blame the State Department for failed security if you don’t fully fund its requests.

All The Way To Crazytown, AKA Benghazi.

Posted on by

According to Teapublicans, it’s the “scandal” that’s “worse than Watergate.” Except for voting to repeal Obamacare 37 times, nothing has taken up more of their time since they took back the House in 2010. Not job creation. Not national security. Not terrorism. Not even tax reform.

For Teapublicans, this is the event that keeps on giving. At least, that’s their hope.

As mentioned before, they’re determined to find something that will expose both President Obama and former Secretary of State in a cover-up. They won’t. But that doesn’t matter to Rep. Issa and his pals. After all, they’ve already had numerous hearings, including testimony from Clinton. They also have a report from an independent investigation. None of those have shown any indications of malfeasance or a cover-up.

Now we have testimony from some long-time State Dept. staffers who are visibly upset by the events that led to the deaths of their colleagues. These people question decisions made by superiors and military commanders. That’s their right, and we should be concerned if they weren’t upset by the loss of their colleagues.

But, while they may question the decisions, they don’t have any more evidence of a scandal than Issa. Yes, a regional commander ordered a special forces response team to stand down. But he explains that he made the decision because he thought the response would be inadequate and too late. He also explained that sending fighter jets would require a tanker for in-air refueling, and no tanker was available.

Issa and his committee should accept that explanation and move on. According to testimony, the night of the attack was chaotic and confusing. There were demonstrations at US embassies throughout the region. No one knew for sure where the terrorists would attack, or even if they would. It would be far more productive for Teapublicans to restore the funding they cut from the State Dept. to better protect our diplomats. It would be more productive to streamline the chain of command.

But that wouldn’t achieve the Teapublicans ultimate goal…to gin up a scandal that doesn’t appear to exist.

A Teapublican Twofer.

Posted on by

This Wednesday, Teapublicans in Congress will, once again, hold hearings on the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other US government personnel at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Unwilling to accept the State Department’s account of the incident, the Secretary of State’s account, testimony in previous Congressional hearings, or even a report by a special Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, the Congressional witch hunters are determined to expose evidence of egregious failure by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a cover-up by the Obama administration.

For Teapublicans, that would be akin to finding the Holy Grail and El Dorado, the lost city of gold, in one search.

It would not only cripple President Obama for the remainder of his term. It would seriously damage the prospects of a presidential run by Clinton. According to polls, Hillary would easily defeat any potential Teapublican candidate in 2016. So, of course, Teapublicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are going to keep hunting for the Benghazi smoking gun. They’re going to keep claiming a conspiracy. They’re going to keep accusing the administration of a cover-up. They’re going to keep calling it “Benghazi-gate.”

Having failed to uncover any evidence of a scandal thus far, this time Teapublicans claim they have the goods. They have promoted the upcoming hearings by calling the new witnesses “whistleblowers.” They say they want to “find the truth” so that our nation “can better protect our diplomats in the future.”

If that were the real motivation, wouldn’t they also look into the attacks on US Embassies under President Bush resulting in the murders of 31 people? Where was the Teapublican outrage then?

Make no mistake. This hearing, like all the Benghazi hearings, the Fast and Furious hearings and the Solyndra hearings that came before are not motivated by a search for truth and justice. They’re motivated by politics, pure and simple.

Caution With Syria Justified.

Posted on by

Despite the right wing warmongers’ calls for war with Assad’s Syria, President Obama is correct to move cautiously. There are many questions to be answered. Who are the rebels? What are their aims? What will be the future of Syria if the rebellion is successful? What will be the cost to the US if we do intervene?

The truth about the Syrian situation is that it’s a civil war between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Neither of these groups will further the interests of the US. In fact, the best outcome may be for both sides to do serious damage to each other.

The bigger question is why the drumbeat for yet another war? Why do people such as Senators McCain and Graham seem so anxious to send our troops into battle? Aren’t these some of the same people who are horrified by the deficit and national debt? What effect would yet another war have on our economy? How many lives would be lost? How many lives changed?

Until the warmongers can provide answers to these questions, President Obama is right to ignore them. If McCain, Graham, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Bush, Cheney and all of the Tea Party members are so impatient to join the fight in Syria, maybe they should just grab one of their numerous assault weapons and book a flight to Damascus.

We should never again choose to send our military into battle without serious debate and a full understanding of the goals and consequences.

If I Were King.

Posted on by

Ever think about what you might do if you were named King (or Queen) of the US for a day? I realize this is a somewhat narcissistic exercise, nevertheless, here’s what I would do:

1 – Cut the defense budget in half and use the leftover money to rebuild our antiquated and decaying infrastructure

2 – End the war on drugs by decriminalizing the use of illicit drugs

3 – Empty the prisons of those incarcerated for drug use and petty drug sales

4 – Prosecute those who have ordered or participated in war crimes

5 – Prosecute the bank executives who crashed our economy by stealing trillions from ordinary citizens

6 – Prosecute those who have created off-shore bank accounts for tax evasion

7 – Limit the number of Congressional lobbyists and ban campaign contributions

8 – Institute public financing for electoral campaigns

9 – Implement a national holiday for elections with mandatory voting

10 – Institute a tax on financial transactions

11 – Index federal income tax rates based on cost of living for each taxpayer’s permanent address

12 – End sales taxes on everything except luxury items

13 – End tax exemptions for more than one home

14 – Restore the FCC Fairness Doctrine requiring electronic media to operate in the public interest and withholding licenses to those who knowingly tell lies

15 – Create a single-payer national healthcare system

16 – Strengthen Social Security by removing the income cap for FICA deductions and means test Social Security recipients to prevent millionaires from receiving it

17 – Reduce the influence of multinational corporations on our State Dept.

18 – Require 2 years of service for all US citizens

19 – Ban semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity clips and military-style ammunition and offer federal buy-backs of banned guns and ammo

20 – Require universal background checks for all gun purchases

21 – Proclaim equality for all and increase penalties for any form of discrimination

22 – End tax exemptions for church property, except that used to perform charitable services, such as education, medicine, services for the poor, etc.

23 – End all corporate welfare, especially for those corporations who export jobs or pollute our environment

24 – Ban elected officials from working for government contractors as employees or lobbyists for a minimum of 10 years

25 – Require that corporate offices of government contractors be located in the US

I’m sure I’ll think of more. Of course, our nation is as likely to implement these ideas as it is to make me King for a day. Thanks for allowing me to indulge in my fantasies.

What Next For Our Relationship With Israel?

Posted on by

Once a necessary relationship of a superpower protecting a fragile state, the US relationship with Israel has turned into something far different. Thanks to our protection and investment, Israel is no longer helpless.  It may be surrounded by larger nations opposed to its very existence, but Israel has a more powerful military with more advanced weapons.

For example, the US invested more than $270 million to help Israel develop its Iron Dome rocket system designed to intercept rockets launched by Hamas. We also invest approximately $3 billion per year in Israel, despite the fact that the Israeli’s enjoy a higher standard of living that’s nearly comparable to ours.

What do we get in return? We get a militaristic government that continues to build new settlements on captured Palestinian lands in defiance of international law. We get a government that meddles in our politics. We get a government that has sent spies to the US in order to steal military secrets!

Yet support of Israel has become a litmus test for American politicians. Even now, President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense is being attacked for disparaging the pro-Israel lobby. Apparently, no politician dares to question our “special relationship” with an ally that doesn’t even act like one.

Under Israel’s war-mongering conservative leadership, no progress has been made to negotiate peace in the Middle East. What we get, instead, is a government that continues to swallow up Palestinian lands at a rate that will soon make a two-state solution virtually impossible. Too often, Israel seems like a spoiled little brother hurling insults at its neighbors then, when challenged, hides behind big brother daring the neighbors to strike.

Our unquestioned protection of Israel has had a negative impact on our relationships with much of the world. We must recognize that, until there is a permanent peace between Israel and its neighbors, we will continue to be the target of hatred.

It’s time that our “special relationship” with Israel evolved. We must protect Israel if necessary. But we should demand something for our protection and investment. We should demand that Israel and Palestine begin to negotiate in earnest. We should demand that the Israel end its policy of settlements.

The irony is that, if Israel continues to consume Palestinian lands, it is sealing its own fate. Eventually, Palestinians will be the majority in Israel and, as such, they will control the elections. 

Drone Controversy Nothing New.

Posted on by

Sen. Rand Paul’s talking filibuster succeeded in calling attention to the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations. But this issue is far from new. The US has been using the threat of assassination for decades. The only thing that has changed is the means of killing.

Following World War II, our CIA and military planned assassination attempts of Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Congo President Patrice Lumumba, Dominican President Rafael Trujillo and many more. We succeeded in having both Chilean President Salvador Allende and Chilean Armed Forces Chief Rene Schneider killed.

These plots ranged from poisons to snipers to small invasion forces.

When the CIA operations eventually came to light, President Ford issued an order banning the involvement of US government employees in such plots. The ban was renewed by President Carter and President Reagan.

Confronted with Islamic terrorism, President Clinton signed an order creating a list of specific terrorists targeted for capture or assassination. Then, in 2001, Congress gave President Bush the power to use all appropriate and necessary force against those involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We’ve been carrying out assassinations of terrorist targets ever since.

One can make a strong case that the drone strikes are needed to eliminate terrorist leaders in nations that refuse to make arrests. Drone strikes are certainly better than invading those countries with troops! Nevertheless, the US needs to have a transparent policy with regard to drone strikes. We need to have oversight so that this means of assassination is not abused and so that the possibility of collateral damage is minimized.

Without such oversight, drones and other weapons intended for “surgical strikes” are bound to be misused. Imagine if Richard “The Dick” Cheney was able to control such power again. Imagine someone worse!

This Confirmation Hearing Is Going To Be Good!

Posted on by

Numerous Teapublicans have already stated that they will not support the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Set aside for a moment that tradition dictates that a president has the right to choose whom he pleases for his cabinet, it’s going to be really entertaining to watch Teapublicans attack one of their own.

Why, you may ask, would they attack a Republican who is qualified for the position and share many of their own beliefs? A man who is a decorated war hero?

It seems that while still in the Senate, Hagel had a nasty habit of telling the truth a little too often. For example, he dared to say that our invasion of Iraq was all about oil – in contrast to the Bush administration’s official position that we were “bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.” Hagel was also against the surge of troops in Iraq, fearing that so many troops might drag Iran into the war. Worse yet, Hagel is said to be “weak on Iran” because he opposed the Bush administration’s attempt to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

In doing so, Hagel said that, though he fully supports Israel, he swore to uphold the interests of the United States first.

How dare he take his oath of office so seriously? Didn’t he realize that Israelis and their Jewish-American supporters were watching? Didn’t he understand that his position could cost Teapublicans votes? Didn’t he know that the US is supposed to support everything the Israeli war hawks want, no matter how much it inflames the situation in the Middle East?

Whatever your position on the issues, the confirmation hearing is going to be fascinating. So pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn and turn on C-Span. The Teapublican questioning of Hagel is going to be entertaining. Having watched Hagel for a number of years, I’m convinced he’ll give a lot better than he gets.

Congratulations, Teapublicans. You won…for now.

Posted on by

By threatening to filibuster her nomination, Teapublican Senators John “McNasty” McCain and Lindsey Graham forced UN Ambassador Susan Rice to withdraw her name from consideration as the replacement for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But before you begin your celebration, consider this: Rice isn’t the only one to lose.

Since Rice is the person most qualified to lead US foreign policy, our entire nation loses. Moreover, since she is a woman of color, you have further damaged the Teapublican brand with the very people who cost your candidate the presidency in last month’s elections. You have proven, once again, that you are more interested in partisan politics than fairness and doing what’s best for our country.

So go ahead, Teapublicans. Keep up your bullying. Keep pushing the interests of the wealthy and multinational corporations over those of ordinary people. Keep attacking women, gays and minorities.

You may enjoy a small victory today. But you’re not going to like your party’s future.

He’s Not Known As McNasty For Nothing.

Posted on by

Senator John McCain is often referred to as an independent-minded maverick and national hero.

The reality is that he’s a self-centered plutocrat who has a very distant relationship with the truth.  Indeed, when you see McNasty up close as one of his constituents, you realize the man will say and do anything to be elected and to gain power.  The most recent example is his unwarranted attack on UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Ignoring the facts, he belittled her, saying that she’s not very bright.  He unfairly blamed her for misleading Americans on the cause of the attack on the US consulate in Libya.  And he threatened to filibuster if she is nominated for the position of Secretary of State.

Why would he make such unwarranted statements about someone who has loyally and capably served her nation?  Two words:  Personal gain.

Fact is, since Mitch McConnell and the other Senate Republicans settled upon their scorched earth policy of blocking and filibustering virtually every Democratic initiative, McCain has become irrelevant.  There have been no opportunities to be the maverick and cast the decisive vote.  Indeed, few people now pay attention to him.  Not even his Arizona constituents.  He simply has little to offer.

Moreover, McCain is about to be term-limited out of his leadership role on the important Senate Armed Services Committee, a move that will make him even less important.

What to do?  What to do?

In true McNasty style, the senator decided to throw Rice under the bus in order to offer himself up as the leader of a Watergate-style select committee that would allow him to conduct a wide-ranging witch hunt into every nook and cranny of the Obama administration.  Of course, it would also allow him to, once again, sit in the limelight.

Instead of being given such power, McCain should be shown the door.