ForeignPolicy – Page 15 – The Wrongologist

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – April 5, 2015

What a week! An Iran deal that may lead nowhere, or that may be a reset on our Middle East adventure, and continued blowback on the anti-gay, pro-religious bigotry legislation in Indiana and Arkansas. Couple these things with Easter and Passover, and you have a jam-packed weekend in America.

Easter is a good time to talk about “Homeless Jesus”. It is a sculpture by Timothy P. Schmalz that depicts a homeless person sleeping on a park bench, with holes in his feet. Schmaltz, a Catholic, says that Homeless Jesus is intended as a visual reminder of the passage in the Book of Matthew, in which Jesus tells his disciples,

As you did to one of the least of my brothers, you did unto me.

Here is the statue:

Several casts of the original are installed in the US, Europe and Canada. In Davidson, NC where the photo above was taken in 2014, a woman actually called police the first time she drove by; she thought it was an actual homeless person. Obviously, the irony was lost on her, or maybe she was just more comfortable with a Jesus-as-crucified statue.

Politics deals with power in society, and in the last 50 years, we have made economic class a sub-category of our politics. America’s rampant homelessness goes straight to the heart of the Christian message. Some Republicans should reflect on why they insist on objectifying people (think Mitt’s 47% comment), when we should be helping them as humans in need. Now, it is possible to materially help someone while still objectifying them. From a Christian viewpoint, this is morally wrong.

Link that thought to the current Republican budget. Their planned social safety net cuts are ruinous. Those in need include people with disabilities, under-fed children, abused women, the mentally ill, veterans, and oh yes, the working poor.

When you hear politicians who would deny these funds because “My taxes might go up”, we should ask, what part of Christian teachings, and where on the moral spectrum, do these ideas come from?

So, on to the cartoons of the week.

Jesus takes the fall for Republicans in Indy:

Republicans retreat to revise legislation after hearing from the Big Guy:

Iran deal is framed in eye of the beholder:

Johnny Volcano doesn’t like Iran announcement:

Easter eggs may contain better message this year:

Why Are Republicans Actively Undermining Obama’s Foreign Policy?

“Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule, or ruin, in all events.” – Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Speech

This is a short meditation about the Republican Party. Last week Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor, to encourage the Israelis to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran:

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue. Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful US patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Those 22 months would be the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term as president. You can see a video of McCain’s speech here.

And so, the Republican effort to make our foreign policy a partisan mess continues.

You may have heard the phrase, “politics stops at the water’s edge”. That thought dates to 1948, when the idea of a Treaty to establish NATO was debated in Congress. The Senate was controlled by Republicans, Harry Truman was president. Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI) worked with the Truman Administration to create and pass the Vandenberg Resolution, which paved the way for the US to negotiate an agreement with our European allies.

Vandenberg was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it was he who said “politics stops at the water’s edge”. He helped the Truman administration get bi-partisan support for the Treaty.

You can connect the dots from John McCain’s love affair with Middle East war, to John Boehner’s (R-OH) love affair with Bibi, to Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) letter to Iran, undermining Obama’s negotiations on their nuclear program. In them, we see a complete repudiation of Vandenberg’s principle.

The Lincoln quote should remind us that he was speaking to his fellow Republicans in February, 1860. The issue then was slavery, and it was dividing his party along with the country. Lincoln urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to “stand by our duty, [opposing slavery] fearlessly and effectively.” But, his comment about “rule or ruin” has resonance today.

As the 2016 presidential race picks up speed, we can expect foreign policy to be the key issue for Republicans. The strategy starts from Mr. Obama’s foreign policy approval ratings holding at 37% in a January 2015 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. As we can already see today, the Republican presidential contenders will inevitably compete to appear more hawkish on foreign policy.

Republicans will run away from the economy and towards their testosterone-laden policy positions of more guns, less butter, lower taxes. The public clearly believes that Mr. Obama should have done more to manage Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and Yemen. And with so much to be unhappy about, Republicans should have little trouble making the case that it is time for a change.

The ISIS stalemate most likely is helping Republicans. A recent CNN poll finds that 58 % disapprove of his handling of the campaign against ISIS. It will play even better for Republicans if the situation worsens, and Americans grow more frustrated with setbacks, or just a lack of progress. The Republicans will try to lure Mr. Obama into sending in ground troops. If he does, there is a high likelihood of things going wrong, which will only help the Republicans in 2016. The GOP has cards to play on Iran, Syria and ISIS, but sadly, they may only be playing politics, positioning the Democrats for a failure that cannot be explained or papered over in the 2016 election.

The Vandenberg precedent is not a part of our Constitution, so there is nothing illegal about the Republicans abandoning it. It is also a good thing to review principles and historical precedents to see if they are still useful. But the precedents the GOP are so busy abandoning are the guidelines established years ago to allow our representatives to work together, despite their differences, for the good of this country.

This new, more politicized approach will hurt us all.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 22, 2015

Back from 85° in Costa Rica to another snow storm in the Northeast. A few things happened while Wrongo and Ms. Oh So Right were away. One wasn’t a surprise: Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud Party again claimed the most seats in the Knesset. It’s hard for Americans to wrap their minds around the fact that 75% of Israeli voters can be against a guy, and yet, in a parliamentary system he’s still the Prime Minister.

Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute declaration that there will be no Palestinian state finally rips the fig leaf off of the failed peace process. No one will try to keep up that facade any longer. He claimed subsequently that he never really meant it, but when pressed by a close election, out came the old big bad idea, just like a Costa Rican Black Iguana:

We need to add some distance between the US and Israel, particularly in light of Netanyahu’s move to invalidate the two-state solution. The Obama administration could agree to passage of a UN Security Council resolution embodying principles of a two-state solution, something we have always opposed. To really pay-back Bibi for grandstanding in DC and meddling in the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, we should base the two-state solution on the pre-1967 lines between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most foreign policy experts say that Israel would have to cede territory to the Palestinians in exchange for holding on to the major Jewish settlements built by Bibi in the West Bank.

Perhaps it is a good thing that Bibi won the election. It’s time to give him a dose of reality. Yeah, it’s time to call bullshit on Bibi. Now a few cartoons.

Bibi isolates Israel:

Bibi’s domestic campaign message was a cheap imitation:

Obama goes to the experts for advice on undermining a leader:

Obama suggests voting be mandatory. Reaction is predictable:

Republicans try to find the losers in their bracket. Please help them out:

3285e750aec20132cfad005056a9545d

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 15, 2015 (Costa Rica Edition)

You may have heard that there was a volcanic eruption in Costa Rica. It occurred while the Wrongologist and Ms. Oh So Right were seated in a prime location on the runway (yes, in a plane) at Newark Airport. But airlines do not willingly fly into volcano ash, so we had to wait another 24 hours for the San Jose airport in Costa Rica to reopen. So we did, and here we are, walking around the Curu National Preserve @6:30am, after getting to bed after midnight local time. If you’re traveling to Costa Rica, visit https://www.buenavistadelrincon.com/costa-rica-wellness-tours/ to learn about wellness tours.

Here is a photo of a female spider monkey from the early Saturday walk:

Now, on to cartoons. It seems that Hillary and the Republican effort to torpedo the Iran negotiations continued to dominate the news.

The messaging on both sides is the same:

Republicans see no irony in their position vis a vis Iran:

Clinton server problems:

Is Obama Misusing Sanctions in Venezuela?

President Obama imposed sanctions on a number of Venezuelans yesterday. From the White House fact sheet: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela. The targeted sanctions in the E.O. implement the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which the President signed on December 18, 2014.

Unfamiliar with the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 (the Act)? It was passed in both Houses by a voice vote, so we have no record of anyone opposing the Bill. The same day in which the US said that they were going to normalize relations with Cuba, they also confirmed that the Act would open Venezuela to sanctions. So, while we are trying to normalize relations with Cuba, we move against Venezuela, Cuba’s closest ally. It looks like Venezuela will replace Cuba as a foreign policy toy for the US political right.

So, what is going on here? Venezuela’s president Maduro thinks the US is out to get him, claiming that we have attempted 16 coups in the past two years. OK, probably an exaggeration, since we were able to bat 1.000% in our one try at a coup in Ukraine. OTOH, Maduro showed some evidence of a possible coup launched by exiles living in the US. There was apparently, a “100-day Plan for Transition”, designed by the coup plotters. It stipulated a series of measures which included the privatization of all public services.

In response, the US has been saying Maduro is making the coup thing up, accusing him of fabricating some of the intelligence he was using to make his case. OK, maybe Maduro is making shit up, but our response is to declare a National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act?

Then, we impose economic sanctions. Obama’s EO defines sanction targets as those who undermine democratic processes, engage in violence or human rights abuses, those that limit freedom of expression, and those involved in public corruption

BTW, how many National Emergencies does the US have today? Venezuela is #31.

The WH fact sheet referenced above argues that Venezuela is among the most corrupt countries in the world. Fine, but it has the same score as Yemen, while it beats Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well Uzbekistan (another US ally). And all of them are worse on human rights than Venezuela.

From Emptywheel: (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)

In other words, the Administration is claiming that Venezuela’s corruption and human rights abuses present a much bigger threat to the US than a string of countries we’ve already destabilized that are worse in terms of corruption and human rights, [including]…Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s more severe human rights abuses.

Reuters was quick to point out that the sanctions did not threaten Venezuela’s energy sector or broader economy, for good reason: We are Venezuela’s top trading partner, and they were the fourth-largest supplier of crude to the US in 2014. And how exactly is Venezuela, a nation of 29 million, with a small military, a threat to the US?

In 2002, there was a brief, military coup attempt in Venezuela, which arrested then President Hugo Chavez. During the period he was detained, George W. Bush promised quick recognition of the coup plotters. But before Washington could formally recognize the coup government, a mass uprising by Venezuelans and parts of country’s military led to Chavez’s release from captivity.

The Venezuelan economy is in terrible shape, and Maduro’s polling badly. You’d think the administration would be smart enough to do nothing, and not create an America-centric rallying point for Maduro, who now gets to say that our sanctions foreshadow another 2002-style coup.

Threat to US national security? Of course Venezuela is a threat. Obviously it was behind 9/11, and is close to acquiring WMD, and something about yellow cake…?

It’s not about oil. It’s never about oil.

We have used sanctions to impose our will successfully on Iraq and Iran. The jury is out on whether sanctions will work with Russia. Targeting Venezuela, as we did Cuba, where most of the rest of the world didn’t cooperate with our plan, is an overreach by Mr. Obama.

Hashtag #47 Traitors

Twitter has turned on the Republicans who signed the letter to Iran. Outraged Americans on Tuesday blasted the Senate Republicans for sending a letter to Iran’s leaders, sparking a top trending #47Traitors hashtag on Twitter. The attack got started following the Daily News’ front-page coverage of the unprecedented open letter to Iran:

The Daily News is a right-leaning paper, owned by Mort Zuckerman, who is a staunch supporter of all things Israel. It’s interesting that their editors took this on. We covered the wretched Republican epistle here. The Iranians expressed amusement at the Republican’s notion that they do not understand the US government. How ignorant do you have to be to talk down like that to another country in a so-called diplomatic exchange? Do the Republicans really think the Iranians are an uneducated people?

Here is part of Iran’s Foreign Minister’s response, which is an act of diplomatic trolling. And depending on your point of view, it is either hugely insulting or hilarious (or possibly, both):

…it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Iran knows that third party investment will flood into Iran if there is a nuclear deal, and sanctions are lifted. It would be interesting to see a Republican Congress try to reverse a nuclear agreement, and then work with Israel to attack Iran, which would then include French, British, German, Chinese, and probably some American investments. (A side note: The Wrongologist raised a couple hundred million dollars for the Iranian National Oil Company in the pre-Ayatollah era of his banking career.)

The 47 Traitors say that Obama can only legally conclude an “executive agreement” with Iran and have it remain in effect only for the remainder of his presidency. Once again, they are incorrect. They continually talk about the “alliance” between Israel and the US. But, there is no treaty creating an alliance between Israel and the US. All of the many agreements are “executive agreements.” Mostly because Israel wants it that way, and their position is easy to understand:

In a defense treaty, the US would commit to defend Israeli territory in case of attack. Israel’s problem with that is both the “territory” part, and the “attack” part.

1. Defining attack: Would violent Palestinian resistance against occupation and expropriation qualify as an attack? Would a stray rocket or mortar round constitute an attack, or does it need to be a barrage? Does it need to be men or vehicles crossing Israel’s border? Does it need to be an attack by only state actors (Iran) or would non-State actors (Hezbollah) be enough?

2. Defining territory: Israel’s “territory” would have to be defined, and Israel doesn’t want anyone looking too closely at that. Would the US defend the 1948 borders? The 1967 borders? The 1973 borders? What about the Golan Heights? What if someone attacks the ski resort or the vineyards that Israel built there? And what about the Sheeba farms? That are an Israeli outpost inside of Syria. What if someone attacks an Israeli in East Jerusalem? Or in a settlement in the West Bank? None of that is Israeli territory under international law.

And, regarding a legal basis for a charge against Republican traitors, here is the relevant part of the Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

But, the lunacy of what the 47 Traitors have done is best shown on Twitter. Here is a tweet that captures the emotional maturity of today’s Republicans by Steve Marmel (@Marmel) :

Finally, the Republican Party is moving on from the mistakes of the George W. Bush era to make new, even bigger mistakes. #47Traitors.

Republican Senators Usurp Presidential Power

Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin reports that a group of 47 Republican senators, led by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), wrote an open letter to Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei, warning that any nuclear deal Iran signs with President Obama’s administration is unlikely to last after Mr. Obama leaves office. Here is a snippet:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system…Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement…The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

The full text of the letter is here. Seven Senate Republicans did not sign the letter. It is a pretty condescending way to insert yourself into nuclear negotiations being conducted by 6 nations with Iran. Their premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” The problem is that these Senators seem to have an incomplete understanding of our constitutional system.

Their letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” Yet, a Senate web page says:

The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification…

Ratification is the formal consent that the nation will be bound by the treaty. Senate consent is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification in the US.

None of this detracts from Sen. Cotton’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency, but, in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson to a foreign government, the Republicans have made an embarrassing error.

But it’s no secret that the administration wasn’t planning to seek Congressional approval to lift Iranian sanctions if a nuclear deal is struck. The NYT reported last October:

The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

While Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate sanctions, Congress can take that step. Mr. Obama’s advisers concluded last year that the White House would probably lose such a vote. The Times quoted a senior WH official: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation [for] any comprehensive agreement for years…

It’s no secret that Republicans don’t like what they’re hearing about the negotiations with Iran, and they have hit on an interesting tactic for weakening them. Republicans would have trouble passing any new Iran sanctions in order to disrupt a deal, since they would have limited Democratic support and would need to overcome a presidential veto.

But, you don’t need to hold a vote to write a letter.

So, these 47 Republican Senators usurp the role of the president during a nuclear treaty negotiation. The Constitution does not give the Senate the right to undertake negotiations with a foreign government, or to threaten a government we are negotiating with, as a part of their role to “advise and consent” to treaties.

Having a world view that distrusts Iran is understandable, but trying to undermine good faith negotiations with a foreign government just hurts America. It is clear that Mr. Obama has been building his deal on unsteady ground, particularly since Democrats lost control of the Senate last November.

It is also true that Republicans are doing Netanyahu’s bidding, attempting to scuttle any deal that slows or halts Iranian nuclear enrichment, but does not completely dismantle Iran’s program.

We are so lucky to live in an age when the real patriots (Republicans) understand that laws do not apply to them. Laws like the Logan Act, passed over 200 years ago, which forbids unauthorized meddling in foreign affairs.

These are the same people that equated simply questioning the Bush government’s actions in Iraq with terrorism, by burning Dixie Chicks CD’s, back when people bought CD’s.

Quite the elastic set of principles in that bunch.

With this letter, they’re beating the drums for a larger war in the Middle East, this time, with Iran, much in the same way they did in Iraq. Republicans have become enablers of the politics of fear. They have become far too easy to rattle, and too willing to say no preemptively on so-called principle.

Rather than shaking our heads and moving on, we need to remember that, when you don’t turn out for elections, things can always get worse. This is a textbook example.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 8, 2015

March is Wrongo’s favorite month, because it has March Madness™ and Daylight Savings Time.

Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Selma march. On Jan. 14, 1965, newly elected Alabama Gov. George Wallace said in his inaugural address in front of the Alabama State Capitol:

Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny…and I say…segregation today, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

On March 7, 1965, the first Selma to Montgomery march began and ended with the events of “Bloody Sunday,” when 600 civil rights marchers, asking for the right of black Alabama residents to register to vote, were attacked by state and local police with billy clubs and tear gas at the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

On March 9, 1965, another march by 2,500 this time, including many who had come from other parts of the country, was led by Dr. King and others to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where a court order prevented them from going all the way to Montgomery.

Finally, on March 21, 1965, Federal District Court Judge Frank Johnson ruled that the march could proceed and, the 4-night march began in Selma. 8,000 started the march, but only 300 were allowed to make the entire 54-mile trek to Montgomery. Let us return to March 25, 1965, and read some of Dr. King’s words to the nation that day:

I know you are asking today, “How long will it take”?…I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.” How long? Not long, because “no lie can live forever.”
How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

On to a busy week in the laughable. The ACA was on trial in the Supreme Court:

The DOJ cites Ferguson, MO police for institutional racism:

Netanyahu and the Republicans see things the same way:

Hillary’s email flap may or may not be a big problem, but it reminds America of Bill:

Some folks seem to be changing their minds about Hillary after the email flap:

Reading List Q1 2015

Here are books that the Wrongologist read over the past few months. All were about war, both new and old, and all are highly recommended:

April 1865, The Month That Saved America by Jay Winik (2001). Richmond fell in April 1865. Followed by Appomattox. After that, there was Lincoln’s assassination, and a nearly-successful plot to decapitate the Union government. Then came the real possibility of prolonged Southern guerrilla warfare, which Jefferson Davis considered, and Lee would not. Had Davis decided on guerrilla war, it might have ended any chance at a national reconciliation. This is a great (and short) history of the end game of our Civil War.

The Republic of Suffering-Death and the American Civil War (2008) by Drew Gilpin Faust. It’s hard for us to appreciate just how deadly the Civil War was: 620,000 dead soldiers, (2% of the US population at the time), at least 50,000 dead civilians, an estimated 6 million pounds of human and animal carcasses to deal with on battlefields. When the war began, neither army had burial details, graves registration units, means to notify next of kin, or provisions for decent burial. They had no systematic way to identify or count the dead, and until 1867, no national cemeteries in which to bury them. In an unusual twist, in 1866, the Union Army opened an office in Ford’s Theater to record deaths, house the war records and assist families to find lost loved ones. In 1893, it collapsed, killing 22.

The mortality rate in the South exceeded that of any country in WWI. In addition, the South lost nearly 2/3rds of its wealth in the war.

Embattled Rebel (2014) by James M. McPherson. This short book lets you view the Civil War through the eyes of Jefferson Davis. Davis was an interesting character, he was a one-eyed and sickly micromanager.

McPherson shows how Davis gradually lost support of many Southern politicians, and a few of his generals. He was a West Point graduate, he had fought alongside many Civil War generals on both sides, and he appointed generals who were his West Point buddies. He had long personal feuds with General P.G.T Beauregard, and later, with General Joseph Johnston. Both would not keep Davis informed of their maneuvers, their true troop strength, or their tactics. McPherson summarizes the flawed strategic and logistics position of the Confederacy: The lack of well-trained, well-armed men, the lack of effective railroads, and the lack of usable waterways. The Confederacy started the war undermanned, understaffed, and under-equipped, and it went downhill from there.

Here are three books about the Afghan and Iraq wars, two that deal primarily with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and one that deals with official corruption.

Redeployment (2014) by Phil Klay. Redeployment is a collection of stories around the experience of soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These stories have no sappy sentimentality or macho muscle-flexing. They are as real and honest as anything you’ll find being written about how these wars have affected America’s young men and women who were sent there, often multiple times, and who have been irrevocably changed by it. A shattering, must-read book.

Fire and Forget: Short Stories from the Long War (2013) Edited by Matt Gallagher. This collection offers a deeply personal look at the human ravages of our Middle East wars; the impact of fear, violence, destruction and death on its warriors, both male and female alike. It portrays PTSD as a nightmare; the psychic suffering of re-integrating into society with brain injuries, trauma such as faces burned off or limbs and genitals blown away. This is truth-telling that only those who were there can write. “Play the Game“, by Colby Buzzell shows the ball of emotions a combat vet experiences as he wanders around Los Angeles in a fog. Mariette Kalinowski’s amazing story, “The Train“, is perhaps the collection’s most affecting story. If there are Americans who still mistakenly believe that women weren’t damaged by serving in combat, they need to read “The Train” to see how PTSD is not an illness of just one gender.

Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War (2014) by James Risen. Risen reveals a litany of the unseen costs of our war on terror: From squandered and stolen money, to abuses of power, to wars on decency, and truth, all in the name of fighting terrorism. Risen makes two overarching points: First, the enormity of waste and corruption generated during the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq. Consider: The US government, eager to reflate Iraqi currency post-Saddam, sends plane after plane load filled with US hundred-dollar bills from the US to Baghdad. Why? Because printing new Iraqi Dinars would take too long. A large proportion of that cash simply goes missing.

Second, Risen makes the point that the false legitimacy of surveillance and torture as promulgated by GW Bush, Cheney, the CIA, NSA and their Justice Dept. acolytes that morphed our security apparatus into one that believes total surveillance of American citizens is not only desirable, but necessary.

Our government has done some things that are as shameful as those of its wartime enemies. And it has worked very hard to cover them up.

What are you reading?

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 1, 2015

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them” – Albert Einstein

Israel PM Bibi Netanyahu is addressing Congress on March 3rd about his problems with a potential Iranian nuclear deal. He is looking to turn Republicans in Congress against any deal, an effort designed to undercut President Obama’s negotiations. Bibi has big problems with Mr. Obama, but he has apparently already found a soul mate in Saudi Arabia.

According to the Times of Israel, it is looking as if two former enemies have developed a behind-the-scenes alliance against Iran. Saudi Arabia has agreed to let Israeli warplanes overfly Saudi territory while attacking Iranian nuclear sites. From their report:

Saudi Arabia is prepared to let Israeli fighter jets use its airspace if it proves necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear program, an Israeli TV station reported Tuesday, highlighting growing ties in the shadow of Tehran’s nuclear drive.

This works for Israel since using Saudi airspace provides Israeli planes a direct route for reaching Iran. It means they won’t have to fly around the Persian Gulf, which would take more time and fuel. The Times says that Israel and Saudi Arabia also share intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program at a very detailed level. The alliance works for the Saudis, who are also concerned about a possible agreement coming out of the Geneva. Netanyahu has warned repeatedly that the Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, although Iranian officials insist the nuclear program is purely for civilian use.

The Times of Israel reporting suggests that Netanyahu may have laid the groundwork for his own plan to attack the Iranian nuclear sites, if the international negotiations are successful.

Bibi rocks the House: