Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Better Believe It
Better Believe It's Journal
Better Believe It's Journal
December 31, 2011
The Bush/Obama War Against Truth
by: Melvin A. Goodman
Melvin A. Goodman is national security and intelligence columnist for Truthout. His 42-year government career included service with the CIA, the State Department, the Defense Department and the US Army.
December 25, 2011
The documents leaked by Manning were an embarrassment to the United States, but not a threat to U.S. security. The overwhelming majority of the documents were governmental boilerplate.
The campaign to intimidate potential whistleblowers or dissidents within the government is consistent with the national security state that the Bush and Obama administrations have created over the past decade.
A new policy of domestic intelligence gathering has permitted not only law enforcement agencies, but intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to collect, store and analyze vast amounts of digital data on law-abiding U.S. citizens. Lawsuits that challenge improper eavesdropping have been met with challenges from the Department of Justice concerning “state secrecy” in order to prevent trials.
The Obama administration has resorted to the Espionage Act of 1917 and to state secrecy defense even more often than the Bush administration did.
Read the full article at:
http://www.truth-out.org/bushobama-war-against-truth/1324845896
The Bush/Obama War Against Truth
The Bush/Obama War Against Truth
by: Melvin A. Goodman
Melvin A. Goodman is national security and intelligence columnist for Truthout. His 42-year government career included service with the CIA, the State Department, the Defense Department and the US Army.
December 25, 2011
The documents leaked by Manning were an embarrassment to the United States, but not a threat to U.S. security. The overwhelming majority of the documents were governmental boilerplate.
The campaign to intimidate potential whistleblowers or dissidents within the government is consistent with the national security state that the Bush and Obama administrations have created over the past decade.
A new policy of domestic intelligence gathering has permitted not only law enforcement agencies, but intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to collect, store and analyze vast amounts of digital data on law-abiding U.S. citizens. Lawsuits that challenge improper eavesdropping have been met with challenges from the Department of Justice concerning “state secrecy” in order to prevent trials.
The Obama administration has resorted to the Espionage Act of 1917 and to state secrecy defense even more often than the Bush administration did.
Read the full article at:
http://www.truth-out.org/bushobama-war-against-truth/1324845896
December 31, 2011
http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2011/12/31/the-republican-party%E2%80%99s-twelve-commandments-for-2012/
The 12 Commandments of the Republican Party
http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2011/12/31/the-republican-party%E2%80%99s-twelve-commandments-for-2012/
December 31, 2011
Poll Finds "Progressive" is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
by: Josh Dorner
December 29, 2011
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press out yesterday shows that “progressive” is the most positively viewed political label in America, with 67 percent holding a positive view compared to just 22 percent who view the term negatively:
The poll found that the term progressive is viewed positively by a majority of all partisan groups — including 55 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Democrats.
http://www.truth-out.org/poll-finds-progressive-most-positively-viewed-political-label-america/1325261212
Poll Finds "Progressive" is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
Poll Finds "Progressive" is the Most Positively Viewed Political Label in America
by: Josh Dorner
December 29, 2011
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press out yesterday shows that “progressive” is the most positively viewed political label in America, with 67 percent holding a positive view compared to just 22 percent who view the term negatively:
The poll found that the term progressive is viewed positively by a majority of all partisan groups — including 55 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of Independents, and 76 percent of Democrats.
http://www.truth-out.org/poll-finds-progressive-most-positively-viewed-political-label-america/1325261212
December 31, 2011
Urging Obama to Stop Rush to Iran War
December 30, 2011
Exclusive: A torrent of war propaganda against Iran is flooding the American political scene as U.S. neocons and Israeli hardliners see an opening for another war in the Middle East, a momentum that ex-CIA analysts Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray urge President Obama to stop.
By Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray
Ray McGovern served a total of 30 years as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA intelligence analyst.
Elizabeth Murray served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government, where she specialized in Middle Eastern political and media analysis. She is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
----------------------------------------------------
We know you are briefed regularly on the play by play, and we will not attempt to replicate that. Your repeated use of the bromide that “everything is on the table,” however, gives us pause and makes us wonder whether you and your advisers fully recognize the implications, if hostilities with Iran spin out of control.
You have the power to stop the madness, and we give you some recommendations on how to lessen the likelihood of a war that would be to the advantage of no one but the arms merchants.
If your advisers have persuaded you that hostilities with Iran would bring benefit to Israel, they are badly mistaken. In our view, war with Iran is just as likely in the longer term to bring the destruction of Israel, as well as vast areas of Iran — not even to mention the disastrous consequences for the world economy, of which you must be aware.
Incendiary (but false) claims about how near Iran is to having a nuclear weapon are coming “fast and furious,” (and are as irresponsible as that ill-fated project of giving weapons to Mexican drug dealers).
Read the full article at:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/30/urging-obama-to-stop-rush-to-iran-war/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, "Serial Fabricators" and the Tale of Iran and 9/11
by: Gareth Porter
December 29, 2011
Behind a mysterious December 22 Associated Press story about "finding of fact" by a District judge in Manhattan Friday that Iran assisted al Qaeda in the planning of the 9/11 attacks is a tapestry of recycled fabrications and distortions of fact from a bizarre cast of characters.
The AP story offers no indication of the nature of the evidence in the case except that former members of the 9/11 Commission and three Iranian defectors provided testimony. What it didn't say was that at least two of the Iranian defectors have long been dismissed by US intelligence as "fabricators" and that the two "expert witnesses" who were supposed to determine the credibility of those defectors' claims are both avowed advocates of crackpot conspiracy theories about Muslims and Shariah law who believe the United States is at war with Islam.
The ostensible purpose of the case brought by families of 9/11 terror attack victims was to win damages from those responsible for 9/11. Dozens of such cases involving different terrorist attacks have been brought to US courts over the years, in which "default judgments" have been made against Iran over various attacks in which Iran was allegedly involved, but there is no chance of getting any money for the families.
The only real effect of the case is to promote right-wing political myths about Iran. One of the peculiarities of such cases is that the witnesses are not subject to cross examination in court. The witnesses have every incentive, therefore to indulge in false testimony, knowing that there will be no one to challenge them.
Read the full article at:
http://www.truth-out.org/crackpot-anti-islam-activists-serial-fabricators-and-tale-iran-and-911/1325172724
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping Iran from Saying Yes
By Paul R. Pillar
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies.
December 31, 2011
Some in this country — including some who have been most responsible for stoking the atmosphere just described — probably do not want sanctions to work. They instead see them as a necessary preliminary to the war that they really want. They may get their way, even without a deliberate decision in either Washington or Tehran to start a war.
In response to the most recent escalation of sanctions, which threatens to have material effects on Iranian oil exports (if they don’t just have the counterproductive effect of raising the price of oil and boosting Iranian revenues), we hear, unsurprisingly, threatening Iranian talk about closing the Strait of Hormuz to all exports.
The situation is ripe for the kind of incident that can rapidly escalate out of control and become a highly destructive conflagration.
This is a tragedy in the making. It is being made largely because too many people in this country have lost sight both of U.S. interests and of the fundamental bargaining principle that if we want to solve a problem that involves someone else with whom we have differences, we should make it easier, not harder, for the other side to say yes.
Read the full artcle at:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/keeping-iran-saying-yes-6328
-----------------------------------------------------------
Slip-Sliding to War with Iran
December 29, 2011
Exclusive: Having apparently learned nothing from the Iraq disaster, many of the same political/media players are reprising their tough-guy roles in a new drama regarding Iran. These retread performances may make another war, with Iran, hard to avoid, writes Robert Parry
By Robert Parry
With the typical backdrop of alarmist propaganda in place, the stage is now set for a new war, this time with Iran. The slightest miscalculation (or provocation) by the United States, Israel or Iran could touch off a violent scenario that will have devastating consequences.
Indeed, even if they want to, the various sides might have trouble backing down enough to defuse today’s explosive situation. After all, the Iranians continue to insist they have no intention of building a nuclear bomb, as much as Israeli and American officials insist that they are.
So, this prospective war with Iran – like the one in Iraq – is likely to come down to intelligence assessments on Iran’s intentions and capabilities. And, as with Iraq’s alleged WMD, the many loud voices claiming that Iran is on pace to build a nuclear bomb are drowning out the relatively few skeptics who think the evidence is thin to invisible.
Read the full article at:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/29/slip-sliding-to-war-with-iran/
Ex-CIA Analysts Urge President Obama To Stop The Rush to War with Iran
Urging Obama to Stop Rush to Iran War
December 30, 2011
Exclusive: A torrent of war propaganda against Iran is flooding the American political scene as U.S. neocons and Israeli hardliners see an opening for another war in the Middle East, a momentum that ex-CIA analysts Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray urge President Obama to stop.
By Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray
Ray McGovern served a total of 30 years as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA intelligence analyst.
Elizabeth Murray served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government, where she specialized in Middle Eastern political and media analysis. She is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
----------------------------------------------------
We know you are briefed regularly on the play by play, and we will not attempt to replicate that. Your repeated use of the bromide that “everything is on the table,” however, gives us pause and makes us wonder whether you and your advisers fully recognize the implications, if hostilities with Iran spin out of control.
You have the power to stop the madness, and we give you some recommendations on how to lessen the likelihood of a war that would be to the advantage of no one but the arms merchants.
If your advisers have persuaded you that hostilities with Iran would bring benefit to Israel, they are badly mistaken. In our view, war with Iran is just as likely in the longer term to bring the destruction of Israel, as well as vast areas of Iran — not even to mention the disastrous consequences for the world economy, of which you must be aware.
Incendiary (but false) claims about how near Iran is to having a nuclear weapon are coming “fast and furious,” (and are as irresponsible as that ill-fated project of giving weapons to Mexican drug dealers).
Read the full article at:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/30/urging-obama-to-stop-rush-to-iran-war/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crackpot Anti-Islam Activists, "Serial Fabricators" and the Tale of Iran and 9/11
by: Gareth Porter
December 29, 2011
Behind a mysterious December 22 Associated Press story about "finding of fact" by a District judge in Manhattan Friday that Iran assisted al Qaeda in the planning of the 9/11 attacks is a tapestry of recycled fabrications and distortions of fact from a bizarre cast of characters.
The AP story offers no indication of the nature of the evidence in the case except that former members of the 9/11 Commission and three Iranian defectors provided testimony. What it didn't say was that at least two of the Iranian defectors have long been dismissed by US intelligence as "fabricators" and that the two "expert witnesses" who were supposed to determine the credibility of those defectors' claims are both avowed advocates of crackpot conspiracy theories about Muslims and Shariah law who believe the United States is at war with Islam.
The ostensible purpose of the case brought by families of 9/11 terror attack victims was to win damages from those responsible for 9/11. Dozens of such cases involving different terrorist attacks have been brought to US courts over the years, in which "default judgments" have been made against Iran over various attacks in which Iran was allegedly involved, but there is no chance of getting any money for the families.
The only real effect of the case is to promote right-wing political myths about Iran. One of the peculiarities of such cases is that the witnesses are not subject to cross examination in court. The witnesses have every incentive, therefore to indulge in false testimony, knowing that there will be no one to challenge them.
Read the full article at:
http://www.truth-out.org/crackpot-anti-islam-activists-serial-fabricators-and-tale-iran-and-911/1325172724
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Keeping Iran from Saying Yes
By Paul R. Pillar
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies.
December 31, 2011
Some in this country — including some who have been most responsible for stoking the atmosphere just described — probably do not want sanctions to work. They instead see them as a necessary preliminary to the war that they really want. They may get their way, even without a deliberate decision in either Washington or Tehran to start a war.
In response to the most recent escalation of sanctions, which threatens to have material effects on Iranian oil exports (if they don’t just have the counterproductive effect of raising the price of oil and boosting Iranian revenues), we hear, unsurprisingly, threatening Iranian talk about closing the Strait of Hormuz to all exports.
The situation is ripe for the kind of incident that can rapidly escalate out of control and become a highly destructive conflagration.
This is a tragedy in the making. It is being made largely because too many people in this country have lost sight both of U.S. interests and of the fundamental bargaining principle that if we want to solve a problem that involves someone else with whom we have differences, we should make it easier, not harder, for the other side to say yes.
Read the full artcle at:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/keeping-iran-saying-yes-6328
-----------------------------------------------------------
Slip-Sliding to War with Iran
December 29, 2011
Exclusive: Having apparently learned nothing from the Iraq disaster, many of the same political/media players are reprising their tough-guy roles in a new drama regarding Iran. These retread performances may make another war, with Iran, hard to avoid, writes Robert Parry
By Robert Parry
With the typical backdrop of alarmist propaganda in place, the stage is now set for a new war, this time with Iran. The slightest miscalculation (or provocation) by the United States, Israel or Iran could touch off a violent scenario that will have devastating consequences.
Indeed, even if they want to, the various sides might have trouble backing down enough to defuse today’s explosive situation. After all, the Iranians continue to insist they have no intention of building a nuclear bomb, as much as Israeli and American officials insist that they are.
So, this prospective war with Iran – like the one in Iraq – is likely to come down to intelligence assessments on Iran’s intentions and capabilities. And, as with Iraq’s alleged WMD, the many loud voices claiming that Iran is on pace to build a nuclear bomb are drowning out the relatively few skeptics who think the evidence is thin to invisible.
Read the full article at:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/29/slip-sliding-to-war-with-iran/
December 31, 2011
INTER PRESS SERVICE
Defence Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens
By Matthew Cardinale
December 30, 2011
ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec 30, 2011 (IPS) - Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.
David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.
"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."
Another section (of the NDAA) says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required.
Read the full article at:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106339
Military Defense Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens
INTER PRESS SERVICE
Defence Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens
By Matthew Cardinale
December 30, 2011
ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec 30, 2011 (IPS) - Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.
David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.
"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."
Another section (of the NDAA) says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required.
Read the full article at:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106339
December 30, 2011
US Wars Far From Over
Leadership of both parties committed to a militarist agenda
By David Swanson
December 29, 2011
Read the full transcript of the interview with David Swanson at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7756
Or watch the interview at this Youtube link:
US Wars Far From Over: Leadership of both parties committed to a militarist agenda
US Wars Far From Over
Leadership of both parties committed to a militarist agenda
By David Swanson
December 29, 2011
Read the full transcript of the interview with David Swanson at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7756
Or watch the interview at this Youtube link:
December 30, 2011
New Military Detention Powers Threaten Basic Rights
President Obama in full support of provisions that target US citizens and others with extraordinary powers of detention without trial
By David Swanson
December 22, 2011
(Real News Interview Excerpt)
SWANSON: Well, the president, according to Senator Carl Levin and others--and this has not been disputed by the White House--the president asked that there be no exception for U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents. And a couple of amendments were voted down in the Senate that would have put that exception in place. After passage of the bill, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation that has quite a few cosponsors that would specifically do just that, carve out an exception for legal residents of the United States, the other 95 percent of humanity be damned. So there is no dispute (although you will find those Obama supporters who simply choose to deny it) that this does indeed apply to everyone. And this is not a change in this president's policy, who has already asserted the right to imprison and to assassinate (and acted on that power) U.S. citizens.
SWANSON: Well, this is not a leap from absolute adherence to the Bill of Rights and standards of law to absolute defiance. This is one step in a gradual process. This is a president who from the earliest months in office claimed the right to imprison people without charge. He claimed that right standing in the national archives in front of the Constitution, who has maintained the power to rendition people to other countries where they might be tortured and abused, who has issued an executive order claiming the right to imprison people without trial, who has in fact asserted the power to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens, and acted on it. So what this does is to codify into law this understanding that has developed primarily under presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that these powers belong to a president. And this is a bill that goes so far as to say this doesn't alter existing law in any way. Well, then, why pass it at all? Because it does clarify specific abuses as being recognized in detail by the United States Congress in law.
SWANSON: Well, the president, according to Senator Carl Levin and others--and this has not been disputed by the White House--the president asked that there be no exception for U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents. And a couple of amendments were voted down in the Senate that would have put that exception in place. After passage of the bill, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation that has quite a few cosponsors that would specifically do just that, carve out an exception for legal residents of the United States, the other 95 percent of humanity be damned. So there is no dispute (although you will find those Obama supporters who simply choose to deny it) that this does indeed apply to everyone. And this is not a change in this president's policy, who has already asserted the right to imprison and to assassinate (and acted on that power) U.S. citizens.
SWANSON: Well, I work for RootsAction.org, which is very active against this. The ACLU is to be applauded for its absolutely principled opposition to this. Both of those groups are demanding a veto. And there are all kinds of local organizations on board with that. But there are many, many missing, including the bulk of those organizations that tend to take their directions from the Democratic Party and who without a doubt would be opposing this very, very passionately were the president at this moment a Republican, which is incredibly crazy, in that these powers will be passed on to every following president, regardless of which party he or she comes from.
Read the full interview transcript at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7732
Or watch the interview on Youtube.
President Obama's New Military Detention Powers Threaten Basic Rights
New Military Detention Powers Threaten Basic Rights
President Obama in full support of provisions that target US citizens and others with extraordinary powers of detention without trial
By David Swanson
December 22, 2011
(Real News Interview Excerpt)
SWANSON: Well, the president, according to Senator Carl Levin and others--and this has not been disputed by the White House--the president asked that there be no exception for U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents. And a couple of amendments were voted down in the Senate that would have put that exception in place. After passage of the bill, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation that has quite a few cosponsors that would specifically do just that, carve out an exception for legal residents of the United States, the other 95 percent of humanity be damned. So there is no dispute (although you will find those Obama supporters who simply choose to deny it) that this does indeed apply to everyone. And this is not a change in this president's policy, who has already asserted the right to imprison and to assassinate (and acted on that power) U.S. citizens.
SWANSON: Well, this is not a leap from absolute adherence to the Bill of Rights and standards of law to absolute defiance. This is one step in a gradual process. This is a president who from the earliest months in office claimed the right to imprison people without charge. He claimed that right standing in the national archives in front of the Constitution, who has maintained the power to rendition people to other countries where they might be tortured and abused, who has issued an executive order claiming the right to imprison people without trial, who has in fact asserted the power to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens, and acted on it. So what this does is to codify into law this understanding that has developed primarily under presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that these powers belong to a president. And this is a bill that goes so far as to say this doesn't alter existing law in any way. Well, then, why pass it at all? Because it does clarify specific abuses as being recognized in detail by the United States Congress in law.
SWANSON: Well, the president, according to Senator Carl Levin and others--and this has not been disputed by the White House--the president asked that there be no exception for U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents. And a couple of amendments were voted down in the Senate that would have put that exception in place. After passage of the bill, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation that has quite a few cosponsors that would specifically do just that, carve out an exception for legal residents of the United States, the other 95 percent of humanity be damned. So there is no dispute (although you will find those Obama supporters who simply choose to deny it) that this does indeed apply to everyone. And this is not a change in this president's policy, who has already asserted the right to imprison and to assassinate (and acted on that power) U.S. citizens.
SWANSON: Well, I work for RootsAction.org, which is very active against this. The ACLU is to be applauded for its absolutely principled opposition to this. Both of those groups are demanding a veto. And there are all kinds of local organizations on board with that. But there are many, many missing, including the bulk of those organizations that tend to take their directions from the Democratic Party and who without a doubt would be opposing this very, very passionately were the president at this moment a Republican, which is incredibly crazy, in that these powers will be passed on to every following president, regardless of which party he or she comes from.
Read the full interview transcript at:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=7732
Or watch the interview on Youtube.
December 29, 2011
&feature=related
And than click on "Watch on YouTube" and that will take you directly to the video.
Sasha Baron Cohen (Bruno) interviews Ron Paul! Must see video
Click on this&feature=related
And than click on "Watch on YouTube" and that will take you directly to the video.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Mar 16, 2008, 11:41 PMNumber of posts: 18,630
