Saturday, February 14, 2015

Let's finish the fight for LGBT liberation that the Stonewall riots kickstarted

This is a repost from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:

Let's finish the fight for LGBT liberation that the Stonewall riots kickstarted

The Stonewall Riots of 1969 heralded the birth of the fight for LGBT liberation in the US and Britain says Ellie May. 

Published Tue 10 Feb 2015
Issue No. 2440


Stonewall was a watershed for the LGBT movement
Stonewall was a watershed for the LGBT movement

The Stonewall Riots of 1969 heralded the birth of the fight for LGBT liberation in the US and Britain. 


There had been successful protests before, such as Compton’s Cafeteria Riot in San Francisco in 1966.


But Stonewall was the watershed and kick-started a mass movement.


The Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village was a well known bar where gay and trans people could meet away from public condemnation.

They were predominantly black and Latino working class, often in low paid jobs or sex work.

At that time, gay people were treated as “deviants”, and forced to live in secrecy and shame.

Those who refused could lose their job or be arrested and imprisoned.

So the police frequently raided bars such as the Stonewall Inn. But on 28 June 1969, young gay and trans people resisted the police alongside other patrons.

For three nights, gay people and their supporters fought the police with Molotov cocktails, bricks and bottles.

Confrontation


But the riots had support. More and more gay people and left wingers joined the confrontation with the police.

In the late 1960s, there was an upsurge in people fighting back against war and oppression.


The Black Power and women’s liberation movements were emerging, alongside a powerful movement on the campuses against US imperialism in Vietnam.


Transgender activist Silvia Rivera was involved in Stonewall. She explained, “All of us were working for so many movements at the time.

“Everyone was involved with the women’s movement, the peace movement, the civil rights movement.”

“We were all radicals. I believe that’s what brought it about.”

Many of the rioters set up the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) afterwards, which was a crucial step in the struggle.

This is partly why the Stonewall Riots had such a big impact.

The GLF aimed for sexual liberation. Carl Wittman’s A Gay Manifesto, written in 1969, points to many of the differences the GLF had with previous gay rights organisations that aimed to be “respectable.”

He wrote, “We want to make ourselves clear—our first job is to free ourselves.

“If straight people of good will find it useful in understanding what liberation is about so much the better.”

Revolution

This liberation would be won through revolution—but there was no agreement on what revolution actually meant.

The GLF was able to make gains because it linked up with other oppressed groups and the left.

When the Black Panther leader Huey Newton declared in 1971, “Homosexuals are not enemies of the people,” it was in part because of the solidarity from the GLF.

Wittman wrote, “Right now the bulk of the work has to be among ourselves. But we can’t change Amerika alone.”

However, the GLF’s alternative vision of a “coalition of the oppressed” is not enough to achieve lasting gains and preserve what has been won.

The retreat of the movements led to defeats and fragmentation. What underpinned this was the low level of clashes between US workers and bosses.

The Stonewall Riots were part of a bigger ferment in society. And its revolutionary ideas remain relevant today.

But they also show why it’s crucial to link the fight for liberation to workers’ struggle. 


Iraq snapshot

Saturday, February 14, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Islamic State seizes control of another city in Iraq, we continue to explore Thursday's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Barack Obama's AUMF request, could three Democratic women who serve on that Committee publicly explain why they chose not to attend the hearing -- this would include the woman who had plenty of time to do press all day Thursday even if she couldn't get her ass to the hearing, and much more.




US House Rep Lee Zelden: I'm going to read a letter that  I just received in my remaining time.  I received this letter from someone who is watching.  So there are people at home who watch these hearings.  He says, "Lee, as a parent of a lieutenant in the  Marines I have no doubt that, if deployed, he will do his duty with valor and distinction.  However, unless (one) the President can specifically articulate our goals, (two) the President explains a strategy speficially designed to achieve those goals and those goals include the utter destruction of ISIS where ever they function and (three) our troops are given whatever they need for however long they need it without restriction both as to weapons and tactics, I request that you vote against the authorization. The document, as drafted, appears to me to be an attempt to codify a failed strategy of limiting our ability to prevail.  It is a political document which allows the President to say he could not do more because Congress will not let him.  He knows his strategy is failing and he needs someone else to blame.  I will be damned if my son is going to be asked to risk his life for a failed strategy simply to allow the President to avoid the consequences of his incompetence.  War is an all or nothing thing. Either authorize the full force -- political, military and economic -- of the United States or do not send our troops into harms way.  We must fight to win or not fight at all. 


Zelden was speaking at Thursday's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.  Offering a perspective on the issue from a parent's stand point was another member of the Committee.


Lois Frankel: Let me just start, I-I-I -- There have been many folks on this panel who served our country.  I want to thank them and those of you have.  I come from a little different perspective because I have a son who I saw go to two wars.  Sorry if I babble or get emotional.  But I wanted to say that I'm lucky he came home safely.  I cannot tell you how horrific it was for his family.  I don't even [shakes head].  So when I think of the families who lost their children, their loved ones. The morbidity of the thousands of soldiers who return.  And then we have to say what for?  So for me to make a decision of whether to send someone else's child into harms way is, I think, the biggest decision or most important one that I will make in Congress.  And I feel like we have been given this huge jigsaw puzzle where the pieces do not fit.   

We started coverage of the hearing in Thursday's snapshot.  It will probably continue in Monday's snapshot.  Because it is an important hearing and because it is an important topic.  Ruth and Marcia have expressed dismay over outlets that they had every right to expect would be offering AUMF coverage but has not.  I had not thought to consider who was covering the hearing and who wasn't because the issue is so important I (wrongly) assumed many sites would be covering it. We'll come back to the issue of importance with an emphasis on failures later in the snapshot.


For now, the witnesses appearing before the committee included former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan.  US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.


The topic of the hearing was the White House's AUMF request.

The what?

The White House issued a fact sheet explaining the basics:




1. What is an AUMF?
An AUMF, or authorization of use of military force, is a law passed by Congress that authorizes the President to use U.S. military force.  
2. What is the President’s proposal for an AUMF against ISIL? 
The President is submitting a draft of an AUMF to Congress to authorize the continued limited use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. Key elements of the President’s proposal include:

  • A three-year limit on the AUMF so that the next President, Congress, and the American people can assess the progress we have made against ISIL and review these authorities again
  • A repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF which authorized the 2003 Iraq invasion under President George W. Bush
It’s important to note that the AUMF the President is proposing would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. His proposal does seek the flexibility to conduct ground operations in other, more limited circumstances, including:


  • Rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel
  • Special Operations missions against ISIL leadership
  • Intelligence collection and assistance to partner forces


The AUMF President Barack Obama is requesting has received criticism from many sides.  Friday, IPS offered two voices.  Paul Findley is a former US House Rep who "was a principal author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973" and he offers,  "If I were still in Congress I would oppose any resolution that authorizes further involvement there. Our forces have been killing Muslims by the tens of thousands for the past decade in the misleading label of anti-terrorism. Bombing kills innocent people whose friends are furious over these killings."

  
And international law expert and University of Illinois College of Law professor Frances A. Boyle explains:


"In the cover letter, Obama would use special forces, which is how the Vietnam War started. Once you have ground troops over there in combat, there is really no way to prevent escalation or to call it off and he knows it. What happens when one of our soldiers is captured and killed by ISIL? What kind of jingoism will that unleash and what escalations will that facilitate?

    "He only talks about 'tailoring' the 2001 AUMF. It should be repealed, not 'tailored.'

    "This Resolution sets a dangerous precedent. Up until the 2001 AUMF, all War Powers Resolutions had been adopted with respect to a State, not alleged terrorist organizations that can operate anywhere in the world as defined by the President. This Resolution continues in that dangerous path, basically substituting ISIS for al-Qaeda and continuing to wage a global war on terrorism. So if Obama cannot plausibly invoke the 2001 Resolution because there is no connection to 9/11 as required therein, he will simply invoke this Resolution. Between the two resolutions you can have the U.S. government waging war all over the world.

    "The Resolution states: 'The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the USAF in enduring offensive ground combat operations.' In other words, it does indeed authorize the use of USAF in offensive ground combat operations. 'Enduring' is in the eye of the beholder. Three years from now could have another 100,000 troops back in Iraq and maybe Syria too.

    "Congress cannot lawfully give him authorization to use military force against Syria. That requires the permission of the Syrian government, which they do not have, or else the authorization of the Security Council, which they do not have. As for Iraq, [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider] al-Abadi is a puppet government that Obama installed and therefore has no authority under international law to consent to U.S. military operations in Iraq. It is like in Vietnam when we had our puppets there asking us to conduct military operations there."




On Thursday, US House Rep Alan Grayson used his line of questioning to highlight various problems with the AUMF request.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Section 2C of the President's draft Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows The authority granted in sub-section A does not authorize the use of US armed forces in enduring offensive ground US operations.  Ambassador Jeffrey, what does enduring me?

James Jeffrey:  Uh.  My answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one.  Whatever the executive at the time defines enduring as.  And I have a real problem with that.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Brennan?

Rick Brennan Jr.:  I have real problems with that also.  Not only because it's -- I don't know what it means and I could just see the lawyers fighting over the meaning of this.  Uh, but-but more importantly, if you're looking at-at, uh, committing forces for something that you say is either vital or an important issue to the United States and you get in the middle of a battle and all the sudden are you on offense or are you on defense? What happens if neighbors cause problems?  Uh, wars never end the way that they were envisioned.  And so that's, I think, a-a-a-a terrible mistake to put in the AUMF.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand?

Dafna Rand:  Enduring, in my mind, specifies an open-endedness.  It specifies lack of clarity on the particular objective at hand.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand, is two weeks enduring?

Dafna Rand: I would leave that to the lawyer to determine exactly.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So your answer is you don't know, right?  How 'bout two months?

Dafna Rand:  I don't know.  It would depend -- Again, I think it would depend on the particular objective.  "Enduring," in my mind, does not have a particular objective in mind.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So you don't really know what it means?  Is that a fair statement?

Dafna Rand: Uhm, "enduring," in my mind, means "open ended."

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Alright.  Section five of the draft for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows:  In this joint-resolution, the term "associacted persons or forces" means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of or alongside ISIL or any closely related successor in the hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.  Ambassador Jeffrey. what does "alongside ISIL" mean?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, I didn't draft this thing but uh

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Nor did I.

James Jeffrey:  Nor did you.  But I would have put that in there if I had been drafting it.  And the reason is, I think they went back to 2001 -- of course, this is the authorization we're still using -- along with the 2002 one -- for this campaign.  And these things morph.  For example, we've had a debate over whether ISIS is really an element of al Qaeda.  It certainly was when I knew it as al Qaeda in Iraq from 2010 to 2012.  And these semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people on the ground in trying to deal with these folks.  You'll now it when you see it if it's an ISIS or it's an ally of ISIS?

US House Rep Alan Grayson: How about the Free Syrian Army?  Are they fighting alongside of ISIL in Syria?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, no, they're not fighting along ISIL.  In fact, often they're fighting against ISIL and ISIL against them, in particular.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  What about Assad is he fighting for or against?  It's kind of hard to tell without a scorecard, isn't it?

James Jeffrey:  It sure is.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Yeah.  What about you, Dr. Brennan?  Can you tell me what alongside ISIL means?


Rick Brennan Jr.:  No, I really couldn't.  I think that, uh, what -- It might be that -- The 9-11 Commission uses the phrase radical Is-Islamist organizations and I think maybe if we went to wording like that -- It includes all those 52 groups that adhere to that-that type of ideology that threaten the United States.  But we're putting ourselves in boxes and as you said, Senat - uh, Congressman,  trying-trying to understand what that means, what the limits are, uh, who we're dealing with is very confusing.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Rand?

Dafna Rand:  Well, first of all, I believe that confusion is probably a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document.  So it's not going to specify exactly which groups are associates.  That would be for classified setting but second, as I said, in the testimony, the nature of the alliances within ISIL are changing and are fluid.  And those who are targeting -- military experts -- know exactly who is a derivative, an associate or an ally of ISIS at any given moment. 


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Why are you so confident of that?  It seems to me it's a question of terminology not a matter of ascertainable fact

Dafna Rand:  Uhm, based on my public service.  I've seen some of the lawyers and some of the methodologies and --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:   Alright, here's the $64 billion dollar question for you Ambassador Jeffrey -- and then, if we have time, for you others -- if you can't tell us -- you three experts -- can't tell us what these words mean, what does that tell us?  Ambassador Jeffrey?

James Jeffrey: Uhm, that it's very difficult to be using a tool basically designed to declare war -- or something like war -- on a nation-state -- which has a fixed definition -- against a group that morphs, that changes its name, that has allies and other things.  Do we not fight it?  We have to fight it.   Uh, are we having a hard time defining it?  Uh, you bet. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Brennan?

Rick Brennan Jr.:   I-I agree with the ambassador.  I think -- I think the issue that we need to be looking at is trying to broaden the terminology and understand that it is -- it is a tenant or organization  or groups that adheres to this ideology and make it broad enough that if one pops up in a different country that is doing the same thing, that is a sister of this uh,uh, organization, the president has the authority to act.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Dr. Brennan, I think you just described a blank check which I'm not willing to give to the president or anyone else.  But thank you for your time. 



Let's move over to US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.  This was her opening statement:


We all are deeply saddened by Kayla's -- by Kayla's appalling murder by ISIL terrorists.  She made it her mission to care about humanity in a region that seems to no longer value human life and our prayers go out to her family.  The brutality of ISIL truly knows no bounds and this cancer continues to grow and metastasize throughout the region.  The President has finally given us a draft AUMF that may actually our engagement in the region so I look forward to a robust debate here in our Committee on it.  But I firmly believe that no matter what happens with the AUMF, solving the problem of ISIL cannot happen without simultaneously addressing the problems of Assad and Iran.  The administration's de facto partnership with Assad ensures that Syria will continue to be a terrorist breeding ground for groups like ISIL and we will never be victorious that way.  A big part of the administration's ISIL strategy is to train and equip a program that seeks to enhance the capability of   moderate Syrian opposition  leaders yet, Mr. Chairman, that program hasn't really started yet.  The administration has said these fighters will be trained for defensive -- not offensive -- action. And we're not engaging the Assad regime directly -- only ISIL.  I worry that this policy is not going to be a victorious one. 



In her questioning, she would touch on Syria again,  "The Obama administration states that the training of Syrian moderate fighters is a large part of our strategy but as of yet we have not seen much evidence of this success.  Former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said in our Middle East Subcommittee that the administration doesn't bother to coordinate or discuss strategy with Syria's moderate fighters at all."  I don't support war on Syria and we're not doing the "Syrian snapshot."

She did ask about Iraq and noted, "And Mr. Ambassador you testified that Iran's policies almost drove Iraq apart between 2012 and 2014."

The responses included, James Jeffrey, "The poster boy for the cause is Qasem Soleimani  who has done a great deal to drive Iraq into the disunity that ISIS was able to exploit in 2014 by allowing and, in some cases,  encouraging [Nouri al-] Maliki of the Shia governing coalition to oppress the Sunnis and disagree with the Kurds such that the country was not holding together well.  And then ISIS came on the scene and we saw what happened."


Why are we noting the Syrian aspect?

It goes to a larger issue.

As a feminist, I am aware women are under-represented in all walks of life in the US and that they are rarely the go-to for an interview on foreign policy or war.  There were three witnesses appearing before the Committee.  That one was a woman is still significant all this time later.  There are still hearing where no woman is a witness.  Even at this late date.

This full Committee hearing should have provided us with an opportunity to highlight a number of women since a number of women serve on the Committee.

Well . . .

. . . are assigned to the Committee.


Can't say they serve if they can't drag their tired asses to a full Committee hearing.

We've noted Ros-Lehtinen and Frankel.  We'll be noting Grace Meng in a moment.

And that's all we'll note.

Three other female members of the Committee didn't show.

Now maybe one was sick.

Maybe even two were.

But I know for a fact that one of the three wasn't sick at all.  She gave a newspaper interview on Thursday, she gave an interview to KPFK and she appeared on TV with Al Sharpton.

She had plenty of time to self-promote.

She just couldn't show up for a hearing.

A hearing on the Iraq War.


The one she pretended was so important to her last June.


Remember that?

And her ridiculous statements then?

Pretending to grasp history but speaking as if she thought the Ottoman Empire ended with the end of the Gulf War?

And she ended up by insisting she would never authorize US troops into Iraq.

Has she forgotten that?

We can repost her words in case she has forgotten:

I cannot imagine sending our troops back to Iraq.   We should not answer previous blunders with additional missteps. Our nation has sacrificed too much already in Iraq, and it is time for Iraq’s leaders to step up and diffuse the sectarian differences that are tearing the country apart.


So where was she Thursday when her Committee was exploring the AUMF?


Well, see, it's one thing to say she won't go along with US troops sent into Iraq when Barack's just said -- as he had in June -- that he won't send troops in.


It's different when he's asking for the power to do so.


Then our 'brave' Congress member can't show.


And members of her district -- who overwhelmingly oppose US troops being sent into Iraq -- should be asking why   Karen Bass couldn't get her  ass to the hearing on Congress granting military authorization for war on Iraq.



As for one of the others, she couldn't come to the hearing -- for whatever reason -- but the day before, she did Tweet.


My thoughts go out to Kayla Mueller’s family. Her selfless devotion to improving the world will not be forgotten
4 retweets1 favorite




Her thoughts go out.

Not enough of course to show up for the hearing on the Islamic State.

But she can concentrate long enough to type a brief Tweet.

How proud she must be of herself.

And that's good because I don't imagine many other people would be proud of her if they knew she'd skipped out on the hearing.

The third?

Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard took a pass on the hearing.  I'm told she's conflicted on what to support -- opposition to the AUMF or backing the AUMF -- so she skipped the hearing to buy more time.

If the three women aren't up to serving on the Committee, they need to be removed from the Committee -- removed and replaced by any woman or man willing to step up and attend the full Committee hearings on matters of war.

They dishonor the Committee, they fail their constituents.

This is unacceptable.

They're also letting down girls and women with this nonsense.

Let's get back to those who actually attended the hearing.


US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  Dr. Rand mentioned, I think accurately, that a lot of these Sunni tribes in Iraq -- and certainly, when I was serving there -- they're really not jihadists.  They're Sunni Arabs.  And if they think that -- back then -- AQI [al Qaeda in Iraq] was better than the deal they'd get with the central government, then they were out to do that.  And if they think it's a Shi'ite government, then that's going to push them further [away from the Iraqi government and towards a group against the Baghdad-based government].  So I guess my question is-is, if you look at the administration's policy, there's a clear attempt to have a major rapprochement with Iran, if you look at Yemen -- now could potentially be an Iranian-client state, the [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad -- I know we've been through different machinations there, but I think the administration is content to leave Assad there.  And so, if you're just the average Sunni Arab wanting to figure out should you work with the Americans and whatever forces that we may be supporting or should you work with some of the Sunni jihadist groups?  If they see us as, uhm, facilitating Shi'ite domination of the region, isn't that going to push some of these Sunni Arabs who are not necessarily jihadists into the arms of the more radical Sunni groups.  Ambassador?

James Jeffrey: Absolutely.  Which is why we can't pick a side in the Sunni - Shia struggle anymore than we could pick a side in the Christian - Muslim struggle in the Balkins.  We have to have a set of values and friends who accept them and go after everybody who is violating them -- whether they're coming out of Mosul or they're coming out of Tehran or they're coming out of Damascus.

US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  So you have, for example, ISIS fighters threatening the outer Baghdad belts and you have Shi'ite militia groups -- which we've considered to be terrorists when we were in Iraq and that are supported by Iran's Quds Force -- some have said 'well there's kind of an alliance with the US.'  We're supporting some of the anti-ISIS forces in other parts of Iraq and we're essentially relying on the Iranian-backed forces to-to keep ISIS out of Baghdad.  Is that a sustainable strategy?

James Jeffrey:  Uh, in the long run no.  But there's a saying, you slay the wolf closest to sled.  Right now, when ISIS is moving forward, we should be working with anybody that can stop them.  But, uh, they really haven't moved forward anymore.  Now we have to figure out how to go get them.  That's really not with Shi'ite militias.



Let's note another exchange.

US House Rep Grace Meng: I sort of want to piggy back off of what Mr. [US House Rep Reid] Ribble had previously asked about what coalition members should be prepared to do to delegitimizing ISIS' ideology.  For example, a recent report indicated around 4,000 foreign fighters have joined ISIS since the airstrikes began.  Are there specific strategies that coalition members should be employing to further prevent the flow of foreign fighters into Syria and and Iraq?

[. . .]

James Jeffrey:  It's very interesting the types of political capital that's needed to be invested by leaders in the Arab and Muslim world to fight -- to counter radicalization, to counter ideology.  Some of the examples I mentioned earlier were the leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt have helped their clerics issue fatwas condemning ISIS' violence which is unprecedented.  There's also the importance of social media.  The United States' government is not the only government that has the technical capacity to sort of Tweet against ISIS.

[. . .]

Rick Brennan Jr.:  We missed a great opportunity in 2006 when the Maliki government needed us most and we did not press for reconciliation.  I think at this point and time, when the Iraqi government needs us that a part of our strategy has got to be -- and our support for them  has got to be honest to goodness reconciliation that is not going to walk away from as soon as the problem is over.

US House Rep Grace Meng:  Thank you.  And I'll try to answer my last question fast. Secretary Kerry previously testified that the US would be supplying the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga going through Baghdad so as not to undermine the central government.  Has this arrangement prevented the Kurdish Peshmerga from getting what they need to effectively fight ISIS?  And how would the central government in Baghdad view an effort to provide military equipment directly to the Kurds?

James Jeffrey: Uh, it did prevent the transfer of equipment when I was Ambassador.  Uh, I don't have the statistics now but the Kurds certainly believe that it has.  They cite, as we heard earlier, only 25 of 100s of MRAP armored vehicles that have been provided to them.  And, uh, while there are some pretty good reasons why we're careful with the equipment we give them, the point is they are fighting, they are the allies of Baghdad and a lot of these weapons systems are no threat to Baghdad but they are a threat to ISIS and they should be flowing.


Earlier in the hearing, in reply to US House Rep Christopher Smith, Jeffrey stated, "In the case of Iraq, it's a bit complicated -- and it's very complicated about sending the Peshmerga into certain areas -- but certainly they deserve more support from us, they're doing well and I hope they get it."

The Washington Post's David Ignatius explored that topic this week and concluded:

The U.S. is counting on the Kurds to hold their ground against these killers while other Iraqi forces get trained. And that brings Barzani to his most important point: The Kurds need U.S. weapons, fast. In particular, they need armored personnel carriers and Humvees to protect their troops, tanks to repel enemy advances, night-vision goggles to detect sneak attacks, and small attack helicopters to defend a front that stretches 600 miles.

Barzani’s request seems reasonable, given the crucial role the peshmerga have played in this fight. The trick is to provide weapons to the Kurdish regional government in a way that doesn’t worsen Iraq’s sectarian divisions. Barzani says he would be happy to receive the weapons through the Iraqi government — so long as they’re actually delivered. That strikes me as the right solution, and it should be a priority for the Obama administration.



Friday morning Phil Black: And what we're now hearing from Iraqi officials is that the entire town is now under the control of ISIS.  It is yet another piece of land that they have grabbed.



No, that's not Phil Black reporting for CNN from last summer.

That's Phil Black (CNN) reported. "And what we're now hearing from Iraqi officials is that the entire town is now under the control of ISIS.  It is yet another piece of land that they have grabbed."

And that they grabbed a day after the witnesses before the House Foreign Affairs Committee insisted IS's efforts had been contained.


Heather Saul (Independent) explained, "ISIS militants seized control of parts of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, close to an air base where 320 US Marines are training Iraqi soldiers."  How close?  The headline says IS is "13 minutes away" from the base and CBS News reported:

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.
Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it "nowhere near" the American forces on the base before they were killed.


Phil Black adds that an unnamed US defense "official reiterated what has been said many times publicly by Pentagon officials: That U.S. forces retain the right to defend themselves if necessary, but at this point there have been no injuries to U.S. forces at the airbase and there is no change in status."
Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 179 dead from violence across Iraq on Friday.













iraq





the washington post
david ignatius












Friday, February 13, 2015

AUMF Could be Worse than Vietnam Authorization

IPA issued the following yesterday:



Institute for Public Accuracy
980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
__________________________________________________

        
        Thursday, February 12, 2015

        Key Author of War Powers: ISIL AUMF Could be Worse than Vietnam Authorization 
 
PAUL FINDLEY, findley1@frontier.com
    Available for a limited number of interviews, Findley was a member of Congress from Illinois for 22 years and was a principal author of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. He resides in Jacksonville, Ill. The federal building in Springfield, Ill. is named for him. He said today: "If I were still in Congress I would oppose any resolution that authorizes further involvement there. Our forces have been killing Muslims by the tens of thousands for the past decade in the misleading label of anti-terrorism. Bombing kills innocent people whose friends are furious over these killings.  

    "It has greater potential for trouble than the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 that I voted for, only after getting Republican Leader Gerald Ford's assurance that  it was not the equivalent of a declaration of war [on Vietnam]. 
    "Congress should have used its responsibility to call a halt long ago to war measures. Instead of such measures, I believe in enforcing world law through international institutions. The current war over religion in the Middle East could make the Vietnam War look like a SundaySchool picnic." Findley was recently profiled in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier. His books include They Dare to Speak Out

FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@illinois.edu
    Boyle, who has worked with Findley for years, is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. He said today: "Of course Obama is wrong to state that existing statutes give him any authority he needs to wage war against ISIL.
    "In the cover letter, Obama would use special forces, which is how the Vietnam War started. Once you have ground troops over there in combat, there is really no way to prevent escalation or to call it off and he knows it. What happens when one of our soldiers is captured and killed by ISIL? What kind of jingoism will that unleash and what escalations will that facilitate?

    "He only talks about 'tailoring' the 2001 AUMF. It should be repealed, not 'tailored.'

    "This Resolution sets a dangerous precedent. Up until the 2001 AUMF, all War Powers Resolutions had been adopted with respect to a State, not alleged terrorist organizations that can operate anywhere in the world as defined by the President. This Resolution continues in that dangerous path, basically substituting ISIS for al-Qaeda and continuing to wage a global war on terrorism. So if Obama cannot plausibly invoke the 2001 Resolution because there is no connection to 9/11 as required therein, he will simply invoke this Resolution. Between the two resolutions you can have the U.S. government waging war all over the world.

    "The Resolution states: 'The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the USAF in enduring offensive ground combat operations.' In other words, it does indeed authorize the use of USAF in offensive ground combat operations. 'Enduring' is in the eye of the beholder. Three years from now could have another 100,000 troops back in Iraq and maybe Syria too.

    "Congress cannot lawfully give him authorization to use military force against Syria. That requires the permission of the Syrian government, which they do not have, or else the authorization of the Security Council, which they do not have. As for Iraq, [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider] al-Abadi is a puppet government that Obama installed and therefore has no authority under international law to consent to U.S. military operations in Iraq. It is like in Vietnam when we had our puppets there asking us to conduct military operations there."

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167









Iraq: Waves of Operation Happy Talk crash into the shore of reality

Phil Black: And what we're now hearing from Iraqi officials is that the entire town is now under the control of ISIS.  It is yet another piece of land that they have grabbed.


No, that's not Phil Black reporting for CNN from last summer.

That's Phil Black reporting on CNN this morning.

You mean all those useless liars with their useless lies for the last weeks about the Islamic State being on the run, no longer able to seize territory, ect were wrong?

That's shocking . . .

If you're stupid enough to believe these dumb asses.

And I try to be nice but you really do have to be stupid after nearly 12 years of this ongoing war to believe US government officials or in-the-tank 'analysts' who tell you, "Turned corner!"

We called that Operation Happy Talk back in 2004.  And it was so apt and accurate that it became very popular with a number of people adopting the phrase -- including someone now taking part in it from the White House.

But it is what it was: Operation Happy Talk.

And karma long ago made clear that when you insist "turned corner" on Iraq, events come along to slap you upside your smug and ignorant face.


Let's give credit to one journalist, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News was one of the very few to publicly doubt the spin -- spin which really began in earnest after Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union Address.  That seriously launched the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk.

So what's going on today?

Heather Saul (Independent) explains, "ISIS militants seized control of parts of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, close to an air base where 320 US Marines are training Iraqi soldiers."  How close?  The headline says IS is "13 minutes away" from the base.


That may have been accurate when Saul filed her report but CBS News reports:

Eight suicide bombers managed Friday to get onto a sprawling Iraqi military base where hundreds of U.S. Marines are training their Iraqi counterparts, but were killed by an ISF counter attack almost immediately.
Sean Ryan, chief of foreign affairs for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, confirmed to CBS News that the attackers made it onto the secluded Ain al-Asad airbase west of Baghdad, but said the attackers made it "nowhere near" the American forces on the base before they were killed.


Phil Black adds that an unnamed US defense "official reiterated what has been said many times publicly by Pentagon officials: That U.S. forces retain the right to defend themselves if necessary, but at this point there have been no injuries to U.S. forces at the airbase and there is no change in status."



The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Jody Watley and IPS -- updated:

























  • The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.





    iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq


    Thursday, February 12, 2015

    Iraq snapshot

    Thursday, February 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, a military base in Iraq with US troops on it comes under attack, Antiwar.com calls for pressure to be put on Congress to reject President Barack Obama's AUMF request,  the House Foreign Affairs Committee addresses Iraq and the AUMF,  US House Rep Brian Higgins declares: "You know, let's just acknowledge that our investment of $25 billion in the Iraqi national army failed." and much more.


    Yesterday, US President Barack Obama sent a written list of what he wanted from the Congress regarding his ongoing actions against Iraq and Syria that supposedly will defeat the Islamic State.  Since August 8th, he's been bombing Iraq and now he wants the US Congress to make it legal by passing an Authorization of Use of Military Force.

    Joseph Kishore (WSWS) points out:

    There are no geographical limits to the military action sanctioned by the resolution. Making clear the global framework of the new “war on ISIS,” Obama wrote in a letter to Congress that ISIS could “pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.”The inclusion of language ending the authorization in three years unless the resolution is renewed has as much significance as similar “sunset” provisions in the Patriot Act, which has been routinely reauthorized by Congress. In his announcement of the AUMF, Obama stressed that the three-year framework did not represent a “timetable” for military action and could be extended by Congress under his successor in the White House.
    In an attempt to delude the American public, which is overwhelmingly opposed to war, that the new operations are to be limited in scope, the authorization states that it does not provide for “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Again, the wording is formulated so as to allow virtually any type of military action. There is no definition of “enduring” or “offensive.”
    Extended combat operations in Iraq, Syria or another country could be justified on the grounds that they were “defensive” or not “enduring.”
    Obama claimed that the resolution “does not call for the deployment of US ground combat forces in Iraq and Syria.” This is simply a lie. Obama last year deployed 1,500 US troops to Iraq, many of which have already been involved in combat operations. The authorization would sanction a vast expansion of such operations.



    Eric Garris (Antiwar.com) believes a huge public outcry could sink the request:




    It’s time for a preemptive strike at the War Party’s congressional fortress. Please call your congressional representative today and urge them to vote no on the AUMF – because we can win this one. We stopped them last time when Obama decided it was time to bomb Syria. One by one members of Congress who were inclined to authorize that military campaign backed away when faced with a deluge of outraged calls from constituents. We can do it again – oh yes we can!
    Please make that call today – because the future of this country, not to mention the peace of the world, depends on it.

    And we need your help to stop this war before it starts. Your tax-deductible donation to Antiwar.com will give us the resources to stop the well-funded War Party in its tracks – but we can do it without you! Make your contribution today – because the future of our country. and the peace of the world, depends on it.


    Could an outcry bury Barack's AUMF?

    Today, US House Rep Lois Frankel wondered about what Barack was proposing, "Is military action the only thing?  How does humanitarian aid fit into this? Or educating women?  Is this the only way out?  And where does it leave us?  Who fills the void if we get ISIL?  I mean, I could ask a lot more questions."  She was speaking at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing today.

    There's also these comments from the hearing.


    US House Rep Lee Zeldin:  The President in his original strategy back in September when he gave a speech, he was talking about dropping bombs and  reliance on Iraqi military and law enforcement to finish the job.  When I was in Iraq in 2006, it was an accomplishment to get them to show up to work.  Expecting no threat that day, getting them to show up to a precinct that's a quarter mile from their house.  We were trying to get them to show up.  So relying on elements on the ground who have no morale, no patriotism, they don't have the resources, they don't have the training, they don't have the will is something that we have to take into account.  In that speech, the President said this was going to be different than past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there will be no boots on the ground.  And, in the same exact speech, he says, "Tonight I'm announcing I'm sending 495 additional troops to Iraq.  Someone shows me a picture of their grandson in the Air Force.  He's in Baghdad. He's wearing the uniform.  He's carrying a rifle.  He's wearing boots.  Those boots are on the ground.  The use of this term 'boots on the ground' here in Washington?  The reality is that we have boots on the ground right now and I think we need to not worry about what polls say what wording sounds the best.


    We'll come back to the hearing but Frankel and Zeldin's reaction and that of others certainly suggest that Eric Garris is making a valid argument that pressure can be brought to bear and have an effect.


    In addition, David Sherfinski (Washington Times) reports on a Fox News poll which found 73% of respondents feel Barack's lacks "a clear strategy for defeating the Islamic State."   And David Espo and Matthew Daly (AP) report no one in Congress has yet stepped up to champion it.


    Yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders' office issued the following:


    Contact:
    Michael Briggs
    (202) 224-5141

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today after President Barack Obama formally asked Congress to authorize a military campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group:
    “The Islamic State is a brutal and dangerous terrorist organization which has murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children, including Americans. It must be defeated.
    “I voted against the war in Iraq because I feared very much the destabilizing impact it would have on the region. Today, after 13 years in Afghanistan and 12 years in Iraq, after the loss of almost 7,000 troops and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, I very much fear U.S. involvement in an expanding and never-ending quagmire in that region of the world.
    “I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are authorized under current law, and I support targeted U.S. military efforts to protect U.S. citizens.
    “It is my firm belief, however, that the war against ISIS will never be won unless nations in the Middle East step up their military efforts and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their region. The United States and other western powers should support our Middle East allies, but this war will never be won unless Muslim nations in the region lead that fight.
    “It is worth remembering that Saudi Arabia, for example, is a nation controlled by one of the wealthiest families in the world and has the fourth largest military budget of any nation. This is a war for the soul of Islam and the Muslim nations must become more heavily engaged.

    “I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East. I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”


    Senator Tim Kaine's office issued the following today:



    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine released the following statement on the draft Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL announced by President Obama today. For more than seven months, Kaine has been a leading voice urging the administration to seek a specific authorization for military action against ISIL while pressing his Congressional colleagues to debate and vote on the mission – a mission he believes goes beyond the intent of existing authorizations from 2001 and 2002.
    “I applaud President Obama for taking this important step in defining the United States’ role in the multinational effort to defeat ISIL. With the Administration’s decision to submit a written proposal and formally seek Congressional authorization, we can now focus on having the proper debate and vote the American people and our servicemembers deserve.

    “The administration’s draft authorization reflects consultations with Congress and includes many provisions I support, such as a repeal of the 2002 authorization and a 3-year sunset.  But I am concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the U.S. ground troop language and will seek to clarify it. As the Foreign Relations Committee prepares to take up this draft authorization, I look forward to a robust debate, along with amendments and votes, that will inform the American public about our mission and further refine this authorization to ensure that the U.S. is vigorously assisting nations willing to battle their own terrorist threat rather than carrying the unsustainable burden of policing a region that won't police itself.” 


    And today US House Rep Adam Schiff's office issued the following:



    Washington, DC –Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and author of legislation providing a limited and narrow authorization for use of military force against ISIL, released the following statement:
    “The Administration’s engagement with Congress on a new authorization for use of military force against ISIL has been enormously beneficial and should jumpstart Congressional action. With the receipt of specific language from the President, Congress has run out of excuses for any further delay of a debate and vote on a new authorization.
    “The Administration has been carefully considering how to craft an authorization of our mission against ISIL and I believe its proposal contains important limiting provisions – including a three year sunset and an immediate repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF – but there are some key aspects of the proposal which I believe must be narrowed further. In particular, a new authorization should also include a sunset of the 2001 AUMF; without one, any sunset of the new authorization will be ineffectual, since the next president can claim continued reliance on the old one.  Such a result would fail to meet the goal set by the President last summer when he argued that that the old authorization should be refined and ultimately repealed. Additionally, a new authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.
    "There are additional concerns over the lack of a geographic limitation and a broad definition of associated forces which will also be the subject of debate. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the President's proposal and provide a properly-tailored authorization for the war against ISIL.”



    But for those who showed leadership, there were also those who cowered.


    Once upon a time, many years ago, Tammy Baldwin was a member of the House of Representatives and stood against the Iraq War.  Today?  She's in the Senate and "pleased" (her term) with Barack's request, This despite having a few 'concerns': "I’m concerned that the vague language of the Administration’s draft proposal may leave the door open to putting boots on the ground for combat operations and put the United States at risk of repeating the mistakes of the past and becoming bogged down in an open-ended conflict. I’m also concerned that the draft AUMF would authorize action for 3 years without establishing measurable goals, benchmarks of success and a clear scope  in the battle against ISIL."

    Also crawling on her belly is US House Rep Barbara Lee who is "pleased" as in, "I am pleased that the proposed authorization includes a repeal of the misguided 2002 AUMF, that authorized an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq."  And she's also "glad" -- "Additionally, I am glad the proposed authorization includes language recognizing the vital role that a comprehensive, diplomatic, economic and political solution must play in ultimately degrading and dismantling ISIL."  She has a few reservations and even insists that she "will keep fighting to repeal  the 2001 AUMF, a blank check for endless war."  Yeah, she's claimed to be fighting that fight since 2009.  She's not progressed one bit on it.  But then she really doesn't care to while Barack's in office.


    Today the US House Foreign Affairs Committee addressed the topic of Islamic State. The witnesses appearing before the committee included former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan.  US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.


    US House Rep Brad Sherman: I believe ISIS is a lesser threat to the United States than the Shi'ite alliance [reference to Iran's Shi'ite fighters].  Ground troops, if necessary to take the territory, will be necessary to hold the territory.  The [Kurdish] Peshmerga are not going to be welcome in Sunni Arab area and the Iraqi army?  We saw what they did.  It was the greatest transfer of weaponry to a terrorist organization in history.  The Iraqi government has some effective fighting units.  They are the Shi'ite militias that have engaged in murderous ethnic cleansing of Sunnis -- under-reported in the American press.  And so I don't see who we have that will be a ground force to take Sunni areas.  I do know that I don't want to have to vote to have American soldiers going house-to-house in Mosul in a bloody hand-to-hand role because no other ground forces are available.  As to the AUMF, we've got the text the President sent over, leaves in place the 2001 AUMF.  In effect, republishes it, reaffirms it.  Well what is that that we would be reaffirming 15 years later?  Unlimited in time. Unlimited in what weapons or tactics or ground forces.  It authorized over 100,000 forces in Afghanistan last decade.  It would authorize over 100,000 US soldiers to be deployed on the ground next decade.  And, of course, unlimited in geography.  So if we republish, rather than repeal, that it's hard to say that the President doesn't have enough authority to do all the things that many of us hope he does not do.  And then as to the timing issue?  If Congress is doing its job and there's a three year AUMF, after two years we pass something else rather than waiting for two days while we have soldiers in the field wondering whether Congress will pass the bill.

    Serious objections were raised throughout the hearing, serious issues with what Barack is requesting.


    US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  I personally will not -- I don't believe I can speak for my colleagues -- but I will not be giving the President of the United States -- and I don't think the Congress will give the President of the United States -- a blank check on the use of American military force in the Arab world or in the Gulf -- where ever it is.  And, by the way, it's maybe not specific enough in the territory -- much less the timing of this. We're not going to give him a blank check for a given period of time.  We need to know exactly if that means that he would be willing to commit major forces on the ground or not.  That needs to be part of any agreement we have.  So I don't see this being: Oh, the president's asking? Thus he's going to get whatever he wants. We need to work this out.  We need to work out the details.  I personally don't believe this is going to be settled by the military.  When we eliminated the Soviet Union -- which was then the ultimate threat to peace and stability in the world, it was done not by the deployment of large numbers of troops.  And we need to create a dynamic that will end up with the defeat of this threat to western civilization.  We need to create that dynamic.  And that means what we did to defeat Communism.  We made that our number one goal and we worked with anybody who would work with us to defeat that goal.  And that made it possible for us, by the way, to defeat them without conflict -- direct military conflict -- with the United States. Let me just note that I think the President of the United States has not reached out -- we've already heard about the Kurds and other people and other groups in the world and especially in that region who should be our best friends and mobilize them in this effort -- whether it's General [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi, the people who marched against radical Islam in Tehran where the president couldn't get himself to say anything about that -- in support of those kids in Iran.  So we need to have that dynamic created other than just having the President come to us and asking us for military -- for a military blank check.




    We will note the hearing in the next Iraq snapshot (I plan to include US House Rep Alan Grayson in the next snapshot, for example).  But we'll close our coverage of the hearing tonight with these comments.

    US House Rep Brian Higgins: It amazes me in all of these hearings how quickly we just kind of bypass the fact that the United States paid about $25 billion to build up an Iraqi army and the first test of that army was against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and they essentially ran.  And we are told that the reason that they were not committed to the fight was because the previous prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was not inclusive of the Sunni population and therefore didn't feel as though it was a fight worth committing to.  And now were told that there's a new prime minister who's also a Shia but more inclusive [chuckles] of the Sunni community and therefore we should have confidence again in the Iraq national army.  $25 billion.  Thousands of lives lost. And no commitment?  Who are the most effective fighters in Iraq today? The Peshmerga -- 190,000.  And the Shia militia.  The new prime minister [Haider al-Abadi] had said that there are about a million Shia militias who are trying to fill the void of the ineffectual Iraqi army.  Mr Brennan, you had said earlier, you talked about the Shia militias who recently experienced success against ISIS.  You also made reference to Qasem Soleimani -- the Iranian Quds forces leader who really negotiated [chuckles] the second term of Nouri al-Maliki with one condition -- that the Americans leave.  That the Americans leave.  And now we have a president's resolution before Congress asking to engage again militarily.  You know, the Shia militias are not there to prop up the Iraqi government.  They're there to do what Soleimani and others in asymmetrical war fare try to do and that is to create a proxy in places they want to control -- be it in southern Lebanon, be it in Syria, or be it in Iraq.  My concern is that if we commit American forces -- and there's no pacifist wing of the American military -- everybody has weapons and everybody fights and they die courageously when they do -- we are continuing a situation in this country that has been going on for way too long.  You know, what Tom Friedman -- the author and New York Times columnist, once said. "Is Iraq the way it is because Saddam the way he is or is Saddam the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?"  And I think it just speaks again to the sectarian, tribal nature of a place that we are trying to impose a political solution to.  You know, we are told [chuckles] that the American military with extraordinary courage, extraordinary commitment, extraordinary effectiveness could only do one thing: Create a breathing space within which the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish community could achieve political reconciliation including the sharing of oil revenues.  And we saw a hopeful sign in December that that was occurring between the central government in Baghdad and Kurdistan with the 17%  sharing of the national revenues and also a billion dollars to equip and train the Peshmerga.  But I will tell you where our investment has been made financially, where our investment has been made morally has been an abject failure.  And what we're proposing to do with this resolution by the President is continue that failed policy without any clarity about what it is that we're going to achieve because when there's no political center -- here's what we know in that part of the world -- when there's no political center there's only sides to choose.  And right now there is no political center.  And don't argue that the changing of a Shia prime minister in Iraq is going to fundamentally change the will and the commitment of the Iraqi national army.  You know, let's just acknowledge that our investment of $25 billion in the Iraqi national army failed.  Failed miserably.  Because when you say they all ran -- 250,000 of them -- in the face of 30,000 ISIS fighters, well certainly because Iraq is a majority-Shi'ite country, many of those fighters would be Shia. So at least they wouldn't run.  So I don't know really what's going on here but I know where this is leading and I think most Americans know where this is leading.  It's not to a good place because, again, America is essentially going it alone for the third time in two different countries and unless there's a recognition of minority rights, unless there's a recognition of the pluralistic nature of Iraq, there will never be peace there. 

    Higgins, like many, used their entire time to address the AUMF.  Whether Committee members didn't think it goes far enough or they feel that it needs to be stated that US troops will not be in on the ground combat or whether they feel that the plan or 'plan' doesn't address the real root causes of the crises, there was clear resistance to what Barack is asking for.

    On another note, stupidity came from RAND via witness Brennan who at one point wasted everyone's time instructing that the Islamic State should not be called that because they don't represent Islam (then he allowed they represent some form of it) and we should show solidarity.

    In lying?

    Everyone calls the Hell's Angels the "Hell's Angels."  No one really thinks they are angels or that they are from hell.  Similarly, the cult Heaven's Gate -- who took part in a mass suicide back in 1997 -- was not from Heaven or a gate to it.  But that was their name so that's what they were called.

    I understand what Brennan's getting at.

    I also think it's extremely stupid to 'brand' others and doesn't increase tolerance or understanding but does increase labeling people "the other."

    A group -- terrorist or civic -- should have the name they themselves designate.

    I'm not willing to live in a world where Brennan gets to dictate the lexicon based upon his own personal whims and fears.


    There are US troops in Iraq today.

    They've been under fire -- even the Pentagon admits that -- from mortar attacks.  Canada was just sending 'trainers' as well but those Canadian forces have now twice been in combat on the ground in Iraq.


    Loveday Morris and Mustafa Salim (Washington Post) report:

    Islamic State militants seized parts of a town in Iraq’s western province of Anbar on Thursday, sparking fierce fighting within miles of a military base where hundreds of U.S. advisers are stationed.

    Anbar’s provincial council called for “immediate and urgent military reinforcements” after the attack on the town of al-Baghdadi, which began in the early morning. Ayn al-Asad air base — where some 320 U.S. personnel have been training Iraqi troops and tribal fighters — lies five miles west of the town.


    Reuters reports it wasn't just an attack near the base, fighters also "attacked the heavily-guarded Ain al-Asad air base five km southwest of the town, but were unable to break into it.  About 320 U.S. Marines are training members of the Iraqi 7th Division at the base, which has been struck by mortrar fire on at least one previous occasion since December."

    In addition, Xinhua reports battles in Salahudin Province today left 16 Iraqi forces dead.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 57 dead from violence across Iraq.



    Senator Patty Murray is the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the Senate Budget Committee.  Her office issued the following today:




    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            CONTACT: Murray's Press Office

    Thursday, February 12, 2015                                       (202) 224-2834
     
    Senator Murray’s Statement on the Confirmation of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter
     
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray released the following statement after voting to confirm Ashton Carter to be United States Secretary of Defense. Carter was confirmed by the Senate on an 93-5 vote.
     
    “Secretary Carter has a tough job ahead of him, but I am confident that he is the right person to get it done. I look forward to working with him to make sure our troops are getting the care and support they deserve, our national security is prioritized and protected, and we continue to invest in national and Washington state defense priorities.
     
    “I met with Secretary Carter this week and talked to him about his plans to protect our troops, fight terrorists wherever they are, and keep our country truly safe over the long term. We discussed the devastating impact of sequestration on defense and non-defense investments and jobs. I also raised the importance of protecting our military units, bases, and communities in Washington state, which are critical to our nation’s readiness and national security strength.
     
    “I am looking forward to working with Secretary Carter to make sure our military is strong, our nation is secure, and our troops have the equipment they need to stay safe and complete their missions.”
     
    ###
     
    --
    Eli Zupnick
    Communications Director
    U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)
    (202) 224-2834
    Eli_Zupnick@murray.senate.gov


    @elizupnick