Archive for afghan war

LIVE VIDEO: President Obama Makes Statement on Afghanistan 2:45 EDT

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Obama afghanistan

The president is announcing his plans to keep about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Below is the email alert via Politico:

President Barack Obama will announce Tuesday that he plans to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan after the end of the year to continue training Afghan forces and supporting operations against Al Qaeda, a senior administration official said.

The announcement comes just two days after the president made a surprise visit to Afghanistan to renew his pledge to end all combat operations by the end of the year and meet with commanders on the ground about steps forward.

"We will only sustain a military presence after 2014 if the Afghan government signs the Bilateral Security Agreement," the official said, referring to the document that so far outgoing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has refused to sign but both candidates to succeed him have said they would.

For more information... http://www.politico.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Jeb Bush": If it weren't for Karl Rove, SCOTUS, we wouldn't have HAD a torturer-in-chief!

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

jeb bush

The other day I posted, "George W Bush ruined the family name." No worries, W, Jeb's up to the task, too. Now Garry Trudeau has jumped right in with a perfect coda. He skewered all three Bushes in last Sunday's comic strip. Trudeau managed to rip into George H.W., George W., and Jeb in one fell swoop. Plus he threw in the Supreme Court and Karl Rove without breaking a sweat. In this edition of Doonesbury, Jeb is being interviewed on a radio show.

Jeb claims to "understand Bush fatigue." If that were true, he would never even consider a run for president in real life. But in Doonesbury World, he believes he's the answer to all those pesky family problems that precede his future candidacy. Also in Doonesbury World, he freely acknowledges-- and goes so far as to list-- the many epic fails of his brother and father.

Take it away, Mr. Trudeau:

doonesbury jeb bush, gw bush, ghw bush, SCOTUS, Rove

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"George W Bush ruined the family name." No worries, W, Jeb's up to the task, too.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

George W Bush Alfred E Newman gif

I can barely type the name George W Bush without throwing up in my mouth a little. Okay, a lot. Someone please pass the Tums, Pepto Bismol, and Maalox, because as you see, I just typed George W Bush.

Damn! I just typed it again! Now we're into inebriation territory. Someone hand me a glass. Make that a bottle. With a straw.

And don't even get me started on Brother Jeb and his own abysmal, corporate, conservative Bushy record.

Apparently, a Los Angeles Times letter to the editor agrees with me, so here it is, because our voices matter:

I agree with Jonah Goldberg that Jeb Bush will probably not be president, but for different reasons. ("Why Jeb Bush's turn may not come," Opinion, May 12)

The simple fact is this: George W Bush ruined the family name. No Bush will inhabit the White House again in the foreseeable future. It's not because Jeb Bush is not conservative enough or hasn't fired up the base. On the contrary, it's because his brother has tarnished the name by leading this country into two wars that weren't paid for and ruining the U.S. economy.

Americans have long memories. We will never forget the legacy of George W. Bush.

Scott W. Hughes

Westlake Village

the ugly bush stain

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

GOP hates spending, so Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) intros bill to boost Pentagon war spending by $5 billion

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

spend money guy

Via

Watch as Senate Democrats point at laugh at the House Armed Services panel's Defense authorization bill that would hike Pentagon spending by $5 billion.

Because, see, what we need now is to pour more cash into the Afghanistan war, which is exactly what Chairman Buck McKeon's (R-Calif.) legislation would do. Republicans want to "make up for cuts to training and maintenance" due to that thing we all love to hate called "sequestration."

Yes, the party that hates spending wants to spend-- spend-- an additional five. Billion. Dollars.

The Hill:

The sweeping Pentagon policy bill pushes back on a number of administration proposals and priorities.

The measure includes restrictions on transferring Guantánamo detainees to the United States, which President Obama proposed to re-start last month as he looks to close the prison. The bill also included funding for new barracks at Guantánamo to replace temporary facilities.

The committee rejected base closures and new healthcare fees for a second straight year, and also said no to a smaller pay raise for troops... On sexual assault, an issue that has generated a host of attention in recent weeks, the bill strips commanders’ ability to overturn guilty verdicts and establishes minimum sentencing guidelines for sexual assault cases.

It does not, however, go as far as some lawmakers are proposing to remove the decision to prosecute sexual assault cases from the chain of command.

Did I say that thing we all love to hate is called "sequestration"? I meant "the GOP."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Entire VIDEO: President Obama speaks on drones, Guantanamo, counterterrorism at National Defense University

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

president obama counter terrorism speech

Here is the transcript of the speech, not including improvised remarks. Here are clips of Medea Benjamin asking President Obama, “Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?” and his reactions.

Excerpts:

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts...

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al Qaeda affiliates...

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology – a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts...

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries...

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions... [P]utting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis. To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm...

To begin with, our actions are effective... Simply put, these strikes have saved lives... Moreover, America’s actions are legal...

To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance...

[B]y the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes...

America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set...

[I]t is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq...

To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties... So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars... But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life...

Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action....

[N]ot only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP...

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

Please go here for the entire transcript.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO-- Medea Benjamin to Pres. Obama: "Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

medea benjamin after heckling Obama

Link, via Ryan J. Reilly

Medea Benjamin may have made some valid points, as did the president. But heckling often ends up working against the heckler, at least that's the way it looked from the reactions that came my way on Twitter. On the other hand, it does get a whole lot of attention from the media.

President Obama eventually became impatient with the interruptions and politely told a very persistent Medea Benjamin to STFU:

President Obama:

"This is part of free speech, is you being able to speak but also, you listen, and me being able to speak."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Hopelessly over-optimistic wishes for 2013

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

wishful thinking fingers crossed smaller

Every January 1st,  the L.A. Times has a tradition of posting a list of their wishes, many which coincide with my own. Most never get fulfilled, some get partially granted, and others come true.

Here are a few samples from this year's "over-optimistic" wishes and hopes. Last year, five of their 27 dreams came true. This time the Times includes wishes for:

The almost unimaginably tragic deaths of 20 elementary school children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut — at the hands of an emotionally disturbed young man armed with an arsenal of weapons — to finally prove the catalyst for action rather than just words when it comes to meaningful gun control legislation.

The IRS and the Federal Election Commission to put a stop to special-interest groups making a mockery of campaign finance laws by collecting and spending huge donations anonymously through PACs disguised as charities.

The U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 once and for all, eliminating the ban on same-sex marriage in California. While they're at it, the justices should do away with the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally wed in their home states.

Further progress in extricating U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, so that the U.S. and its allies can transfer responsibility for security to Afghan forces even earlier than the projected 2014 deadline.

The Supreme Court to reaffirm the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with a history of racial discrimination to clear changes in their election procedures with the Justice Department or a federal court.

Congress to hammer out a plan to overhaul the nation's dysfunctional immigration system that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million people who are already here illegally and also provide for enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace and along the border.

Congress to treat problems as problems, rather than opportunities to push the nation to the brink. Enough with the "fiscal cliff" and debt-ceiling crises. How about some genuine commitment to solving problems?

An end to congressional threats to defund Planned Parenthood.

More at the link.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare