The Iraq Question

At one point, it seemed like it was beginning to fade from our memory. It was becoming "ancient history". And with so much to worry about at home, why must we think about it again?

But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.

The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.

In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.

Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.

US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).

What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.

By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.

Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.

As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.

Republicans Stand Tall Against... REPUBLICAN Ideas!

When did this...



Become this?





When a Democrat became President?

Of course, Boner's capitulation to crazy teabaggers died in The Senate last night... And Boner is looking increasingly irrelevant in this whole debt ceiling fiasco.

The events of the past 24 hours have been beyond bizarre. We have, in effect, been conducting a legislative thought experiment around the question, “What is the least conservative debt-ceiling bill that can pass without Democratic votes in the House?” A few minutes ago, we learned the answer. But the answer doesn’t matter.

There is exactly one question worth asking now: What is the debt-ceiling compromise that can win the support of the House, Senate and the White House? That means winning the support of Democrats as well as Republicans. That’s what every effort in every chamber should be oriented toward. Instead, Boehner has spent the past two days wasting his political capital assembling an irrelevant coalition of conservatives. [...]

To govern is to compromise. And when you’re in charge, you have to govern. [Emphasis mine.] [...]

Lately, Boehner has not been governing. After he failed to pass a conservative resolution to the debt crisis without Democratic votes, he should have begun cutting the deals and making the concessions necessary to gain Democratic votes. That, after all, is what he will ultimately have to do. It’s what all this is supposed to be leading up to.

But Boehner went in the opposite direction. He made his bill more conservative. He indulged his members in the fantasy that they wouldn’t have to make compromises. It’s as if Pelosi, facing criticism for dropping the public option, had tried to shore up her support by bringing a single-payer health-care bill to the floor. Even if that would have pleased her left wing, what good would it have done her? Her job was to prepare her members to take a vote that could lead to a successful outcome.

This is what a few crazed Congressional Republicans have caused.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So what are we supposed to do? Throw ourselves into a likely Constitutional Crisis? Play with platinum coins? How on earth can the supposedly greatest nation on earth conduct its official business like this? Now wonder why the rest of the world is either laughing at us and looking at us with total disgust and disdain.

So why didn't teabaggers object to George Bush's reckless spending on billionaire (tax cut) bailouts, bank bailouts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pharmaceutical industry bailouts (Medicare Part D as passed in 2003)? And why didn't teabaggers object to Ronald Reagan raising the debt ceiling twice as fast as Barack Obama has? And why didn't teabaggers demand an illogical and irrational "Balanced Budget Amendment" (that never accounts for recessions, natural disasters, wars, etc.) during any Republican Presidency?

So get ready for it. I'll have to repeat myself again. This is madness!

And get ready to do it again.

Joe Heck: Email, Phone (202) 225-3252

Dean Heller: Email, Phone (202) 224-6244

These Republicans need to stop flip-flopping on their own fiscal policy and stop letting crazed teabaggers hold America hostage. They need to raise the debt ceiling and do so without threatening Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and/or any other cuts to the vulnerable who can least afford it.

So Obama Got Osama... May We Now Bring Our Troops Home?

The morning after the big news dropped, the nation is still in awe of what's happening.

Osama bin Laden, the charismatic mastermind and founder of al-Qaida, a global terrorist network that radically reshaped American foreign policy and propelled the country into two bloody, long-term wars in Muslim countries, was killed Sunday in a firefight with U.S. troops in a compound outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad.

President Obama, in a rare televised address to the nation late Sunday, announced that a small team of U.S. troops had killed bin Laden and seized his body earlier in the day in a helicopter-borne commando operation.

Senior U.S. officials said no other countries were involved in the raid, raising the potential for diplomatic fallout once the initial celebration and congratulations are over.

The United States considers Pakistan a key ally in the war on terror, but the relationship between the two is a complicated and tenuous one at best.

According to President Obama, U.S. intelligence officials determined last August that bin Laden was likely hiding "within a compound deep inside Pakistan," Obama said during his address from the White House late Sunday.

And Nevadans are starting to react to what happened.

"Tonight, Americans join the world in marking the end of this symbol of hatred who died with the blood of thousands on his hands," Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said in a statement Sunday night. "The U.S. pledged it would hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden for the crimes he committed and nearly a decade after the tragedy of September 11, justice has been served. This is a tremendous victory for America and a promise kept to the families of the 9-11 victims."

“As the face of global terrorism, bin Laden will forever be a reminder of how deeply we must cherish our freedom, and so it is fitting we come together as Nevadans and Americans to remember the victims of the 9-11 attacks,” Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval said in a statement. “We are also grateful for the relentless courage and dedication of our Armed Forces who continue to keep us safe from harm.”

“This is the most significant victory in our fight against al-Qaida and terrorism, but that fight is not over," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement Sunday night. "As we remember those who were killed on that dark day in September and their families, we also reaffirm our resolve to defeat the terrorist forces that killed them and thousands of others across the globe. Because of courageous Americans in our military and intelligence community, their leader is now gone.”

This most certainly is a great development. It now looks like The Obama Administration will follow through on its plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's death may force us to rethink our view on both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Oh, and did I mention it may be wise to rethink our presence in Afghanistan?



After all, hasn't the mission actually been accomplished? It supposedly was 8 years ago, after George Bush quickly lost interest in capturing bin Laden as invading Iraq suddenly became his cause du jour. There really wasn't any reason for invading Iraq, and now we're learning bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan... NOT Afghanistan. So what are our troops now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Certainly, al Qaeda is still alive and efforts must still be made to thwart them and other terrorist groups. But at this point, do we still need to fight two wars that were sold on the premise of "taking out bin Laden"?

Osama Bin Laden... Is Dead... But Is "War on Terror" Over?

It's here. It's happened.

Osama bin Laden has been killed, a United States official said Sunday night. President Obama is expected to make an announcement on Sunday night, almost 10 years after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In so many ways, what Osama bin Laden planned nearly 10 years ago has defined the last decade. Out of 9/11, we've seen global strife over interventionist vs. imperialistic foreign policy, whether democracy can regain a foothold in The Middle East, how relevant our own Constitution really is to America's "rule of law", if Christianity and Islam can finally coexist peacefully, and so much more. Think about it. Since 9/11, we Americans have had a whole lot of issues to deal with...

And we've had to witness so many thousands of families endure the grief and the pain of those terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. We're about 4 months away from the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The first withdraw of troops from Afghanistan is scheduled to occur within the next 60 days, and more troops are planned to be redeployed from Iraq.

So what does this mean? Obviously, Osama bin Laden is dead and the figurehead of al Qaeda is gone. So what happens next? What happens in Afghanistan? What happens in The Middle East? What happens in America (with our civil rights)?

I'm eagerly awaiting President Obama's speech. Without a doubt, he's just accomplished something so many have been pursuing over this last decade.

Memo to GOP: Don't You Know What the Definition of "Stimulus" Is?

Ah... Another week, another day, another chance for the GOoPers to bash the federal stimulus. Yes, that's right, they still don't like economic recovery. So what would happen if Johnny Casino, Suzy Lowdown, and Lil' Tark Shark were to get their way and Nevada were forced to let go of unspent stimulus funds?

It's not a pretty picture, to say the least.

Were that to happen, Dennis Freimann has perhaps the best vantage point on the potential effect. The No. 2 in charge at Nevada’s Recovery Act office, Freimann said if leftovers from the state’s $2.1 billion share of the money were returned, “Then we’re talking about a lot of people losing their jobs.” [...]

The Recovery Act is bringing $2.1 billion to Nevada — $1.2 billion in direct aid to residents, including unemployment benefits, a $250 one-time check to seniors, income tax cuts, COBRA health insurance subsidies and an expansion of Medicaid health insurance for the unemployed.

Another $924 million went to Nevada agencies to pay for teachers’ salaries, highway repairs, housing rehabilitation, forestry improvements and other programs. [...]

The Nevada Recovery Act office tallies 2,500 jobs saved or directly created by the $924 million sent to state agencies.

But economists put the actual number at 20,000 by factoring in the $1.2 billion in direct aid programs and the multiplier effect: If folks keep their jobs and have money to shop, store clerks keep their jobs, too.

“The idea that we’d be returning money we desperately need is ridiculous,” said Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, who voted for the bill.

“We’re going to keep every penny that Nevada gets,” Berkley said. “Every senior in Nevada got a $250 check. Every disabled vet — I have 18,000 of them — got a $250 check. We also received a good amount of money for transportation and infrastructure. That’s creating jobs. We are spending that. There are good, important programs being paid for by the stimulus.”

Thank goodness Shelley Berkley, along with Harry Reid and Dina Titus, gets it. We'd be foolish to let go of money that can continue to be used to save jobs, create jobs, provide direct aid to those most in need, and fuel what's looking like a promising start to economic recovery in this country and here in Nevada.

And it's just hilarious to read about all these Republicans supposedly "concerned about fiscal responsibility". Really? So they forgot about what they did when George W. Bush was President? I don't remember them crying "fiscal responsibility" when he started two wars, passed loads of ridiculous tax cuts for the super-rich, and green-lighted tons and tons of the very "pork barrel spending" that Republicans claim the stimulus is (even though it isn't "pork", it's actual help).

And what's their solution now? More tax cuts for the super-rich, of course. Remember how that worked out? Desert Beacon does.

In the wake of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts we got a gross domestic product increasing by 13.9% over 19 quarters, for an average annual rate of 2.8%, well below the 3.4% GDP growth rate of the previous four cycles. The gross domestic income statistics weren't any brighter either: "activity expanded at only a 2.3% rate, more than a full percentage rate slower than the 3.6% GDI rate of past cycles." [EPI] And that job growth? As of 2004 the U.S. had only 1.6% more jobs than at the last business cycle peak 58 months previously. "At this stage of previous cycles jobs had grown by an average of 9.1% and never less than 6.5%. Private sector jobs were only 1% higher than in March 2001, compared to 9.1% in previous cycles, and the lowest previous employment gain was 6.9% in the private sector.

In terms of employment, the case for tax cuts wasn't substantiated: "In making the case for the tax cuts of 2003, the Bush Administration acknowledged that strong job growth should be expected without tax cuts. It projected that 4.1 million jobs would be created between mid-2003 and the end of 2004 without the 2003 tax cuts, and that 5.5 million jobs would be created with the tax cuts. In fact, Congress enacted even deeper tax cuts than those on which the Bush Administration’s estimates were based. Even so, only 2.6 million jobs were created over that 18-month period. Thus, by the Bush Administration’s own analysis, the 2003 tax cuts failed to create more jobs than would have been expected without the tax cuts."

It's not like we weren't warned. In February 2003, 450 top economists, including 10 of the 20 American Nobel prize winning experts warned the Bush Administration that the 2003 tax cuts would have a negative, not positive, effect on the U.S. economy. [Letter] "Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort. Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income." They were right.

If, like Senator Ensign, we adopt the notion that tax cuts, and only tax cuts, are the key to expanding our gross domestic product, increasing our own gross domestic income, and creating more employment, then in the face of statistical proof to the contrary the only way forward is more tax cuts.

And if this isn't enough for you, Desert Beacon has even more on Johnny Casino's and the GOP's hypocrisy on "fiscal responsibility". Oh, and by the way, if the stimulus were so evil why are Johnny Casino, Arizona's Johnny Mac, and other GOoPers still lining up for more stimulus funds? Isn't that just more hypocrisy coming from them?

Oh yeah, that's right, we're talking about the Republican Party. They're always pro-hypocrisy, no matter how many of their other positions change daily (and nightly, for that matter).

Bogden Renominated for Nevada US Attorney

It looks like Harry Reid may get his way after all. Only eight days after The Sun wrote about former US Attorney Daniel Bogden possibly being passed over for his old job, we find out that he will return after all.

A day after it was revealed that Bush administration strategist Karl Rove had played a greater role than previously acknowledged in the political purges of U.S. Attorneys, the Obama administration announced that it is nominating one of those Bush-era casualties back to his post.

On Friday, the White House announced the nomination of four U.S. Attorneys, including Daniel G. Bogden for the District of Nevada. Bogden's bio, as submitted by the White House, glossed over the controversial episode in which he lost his job several years ago. He was listed as "a partner in the Nevada law firm of McDonald Carano Wilson" who had "previously served as United States Attorney for the District of Nevada from 2001 to 2007."

But for those who followed the dismissal of U.S. attorneys in late 2006, Bogden's name is quite familiar. He was one of seven or eight U.S. attorneys who was dismissed by the Bush White House for what is widely believed to be political motivations, such as the unwillingness to investigate weak charges of voter fraud or political corruption.

Bogden, like his other fired colleagues, had initially been appointed by President Bush, which suggests that he is a Republican (there are no records of Bogden making political donations). That he would be reinstated by a Democratic administration to the position he lost is undoubtedly meant to be a message from the Obama White House that they are elevating law above politics, or at least removing partisanship from the Department of Justice.

Good on Obama and Reid. Bogden was unfairly fired by Bush for simply doing his job. He clearly deserves his job back. A US Attorney should be concerned about defending our Constitution, not allowing politicians to destroy it.