President Obama on the "fiscal cliff" agreement

To contact us Click HERE

The President reached an agreement with Republicans and Democrats in Congress on the "fiscal cliff" that prevents a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses, while fulfilling the President's promise to ask the wealthiest Americans to begin to pay their fair share to reduce the deficit. President Obama recorded a video to update supporters like you on what's in the agreement and what it means for you -- watch it and share it with friends and family: http://my.barackobama.com/Fiscal-Cliff-Agreement It's thanks to people like you who spoke up and contacted your members of Congress throughout this debate that we were able to avoid a crippling tax hike. As we address our ongoing fiscal challenges, the President will do exactly what he said he would on the campaign trail -- working for the middle class and all those fighting to get into it, and building an economy from the middle out, not the top down. There will be more soon. For now, thanks for all you do, and happy new year. Messina Jim Messina Campaign Manager Obama for America

5 things you should know about last night's vote.

To contact us Click HERE

Five things you should know about last night's vote. There's a lot of spin out there about the deficit deal that was cut over the holiday. We wanted to share our thinking on the deal. Over 20,000 CREDO Action members called their senators, their representatives, the White House and Congressional leadership to stop a bad deal. And we were joined by thousands of other progressives in advocating to save Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. And we most definitely had an impact. Cuts to Social Security benefits, which the White House proposed in final negotiations, were blocked. Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 was also shot down early on when it was floated as a trial balloon. Action by voters who raised their voices made a difference in the debate. Unfortunately, the White House, which was in a strong position when it went into negotiations with Republicans, chose to cut a bad deal in order to make the overhyped "Fiscal Cliff" deadline. Instead, we should have waited for a new Congress to be sworn in on January 3 — with a Senate which will include progressive champions like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and a House with more Democrats and fewer Tea Party Republicans. CREDO, along with other progressive groups like PCCC, MoveOn, DFA, ColorOfChange, and others, have said all along that no deal was better than the bad deal on the table. But last night the House ratified the White House's deal with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. And the White House made the Bush tax cuts permanent for a huge chunk of the wealthiest 2%, giving away much needed leverage for staving off future cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. As Grover Norquist, the anti-tax conservative zealot who famously said his goal was to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," tweeted before the vote: "Congress about to make permanent most of the temporary tax cuts that Democrats voted against in 2001 and 2003. Permanent beats temporary." And Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican House member from Oklahoma crowed, "I would prefer not to raise taxes on anybody. But we protected almost every American. We did it at a higher income level than the President campaigned on. And again, frankly, we've denied him I think his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward."1 The deal didn't address the debt limit or even the triggered cuts (called the "sequester") set in place by the failed 2010 debt ceiling deal. So in just two months, we'll reach a crisis again, and because a key leverage point for raising revenue (rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans) has been surrendered, we'll be in the fight of our life to protect our Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare from benefit cuts. From our perspective, here are five things you need to know about last night's deal. 1) The Bush tax cuts that were finally set to expire are now permanent. The Bush tax cuts were set to expire on Jan. 1, 2013. President Obama and many Democrats won election in 2012 based on a promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans making $250,000 and above. Had Congress done nothing, the Bush tax cuts for all Americans would simply have expired at midnight on December 31. But the deal that just passed made the Bush tax cuts permanent for households making up to $450,000. This represents a $9,200 tax cut for people making more than $35,000 a month.2 And it will take an affirmative act of Congress to actually raise taxes to undo this hand out to some of the richest Americans (a virtual impossibility with the current Congress). 2) The estate tax exemption just passed is a pure giveaway to the nation's wealthiest families. As Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik explains:3 There's no purer giveaway to the wealthy than this. The final deal raises the tax to 40% from 35% on estates over $10 million. (That figure is for couples, whose estates are each entitled to a $5-million exemption upon their deaths.) The alternative was to return to 2009 law, which set the tax at 45% on couples' estates more than $7 million. Who pays the estate tax? In 2011, about 1,800 taxpayers died leaving estates of more than $10 million. Their average estate was somewhere from $30 million to $40 million. Their heirs cashed in on some of the most nimble tax planning on Earth: Although the statutory top rate was 35%, the average rate on estates of even $20 million-plus (the average gross value of which was $65 million) came to only 16.2%. 3) The payroll tax expiration raises taxes on the middle and working classes. For the last two years, the payroll tax that wage earners pay on their first $113,000 of income to fund Social Security was temporarily reduced by two percentage points. While the mechanism of this tax cut was problematic from the perspective of those worried about fully funding Social Security, it was a form of economic stimulus that helped put more money in the pockets of working Americans. So most progressives who opposed the funding mechanism still thought that it should be phased out over time or replaced with some other kind of equivalent tax cut (at least until the economy improved). Instead, the payroll tax holiday was allowed to end abruptly and without anything to replace it, which will result in a jarring two percent reduction in the take-home pay of most workers. Since the payroll tax only applies to the first $113,000 in income, people who make more than that will see a relatively smaller tax increase. And combined with the now-permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, some of the richest Americans will see a net reduction in the taxes they owe whereas working and middle class workers will see a tax increase. 4) The deficit isn't really the problem. The deficit hysteria that has become part of the conventional wisdom in DC is really just a way for wealthy elites and corporate interests (and their allies on Capitol Hill) to push for austerity and end programs that benefit most Americans. America is the richest country in the history of the world and yet we're told by the deficit scolds that we're too poor to fund education or the FDA or pay for food stamps to keep Americans from going hungry. Meanwhile, the very same politicians who plead poverty want to give away billions in unneeded corporate welfare, spend more money than ever to fund the biggest military in the world and cut taxes on the extremely rich. Not to mention the fact that the cost of borrowing is at historic lows. For more on this topic read Dean Baker's piece "Look Beyond the Fiscal Cliff."4 5) The debt ceiling wasn't addressed. In two months Republicans will take hostages again, and we'll be in the fight of our lives to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The existence of the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" was itself the result of a terrible deal President Obama cut the last time Congress had to raise the debt ceiling. This set up a constellation of automatic tax increases and spending cuts that Congress was feverishly trying to avoid, and which paved the way to yesterday's vote. But with the Bush tax cuts (one of the Republicans' top priorities) now off the table, we'll spend the next few months dealing with the automatic across-the-board spending cuts (known as the "sequester"), the end of the continuing resolution on the budget that funds the government, and the need once again to raise the debt ceiling. All of these provide the Republicans with opportunities for hostage-taking, and we know they have their sights set on cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. As Republican Congressman John Fleming told the Huffington Post: "We still have more opportunities. We've got the debt ceiling coming, sequestration. So we're going to get taxes off the table. The president can't say, 'We've got to raise taxes first before we get to spending cuts.' We will have already done that. Now the topic will be spending cuts, from this point out."5 There were some positive things in the bill that was passed. There was no negative change in the way cost of living increases to Social Security benefits are calculated. Unemployment benefits were extended for over two million Americans who are still looking for work. The Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit were extended for the next five years. And the Wind Production Tax Credit was extended for another year, to name a few. But overall, as Rep. Jim Moran said, "We're going to look back on this night and regret it."6 And even Majority Leader Harry Reid tossed concessions suggested by the White House into his Senate fireplace.7 Reid was soon replaced in negotiations with Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell by Vice President Joe Biden who struck the final deal. Jim Moran was joined by seven other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in voting no on making the Bush tax cuts permanent for Americans making over $250,000 a year. They were: Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Pete DeFazio, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Brad Miller and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici. In the Senate, Tom Harkin also stood up and alone on the floor of the Senate explained that permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts was an absolute deal breaker. These progressive legislators deserve our thanks. Click here to thank the progressives in the House and Senate who voted to hold out for a better deal and opposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent.Becky Bond, Political Director CREDO Action from Working Assets Automatically add your name: Learn more about this campaign 1. Leading House Republican says Obama's deal gave away all his leverage, PCCC's Daily Change, 1/1/13 2. The 'fiscal cliff' con game, Michael Hiltzik, LA Times, 1/2/13 3. ibid. 4. Look beyond the fiscal cliff, Dean Baker, CNN.com, 1/2/13 5. Fiscal Cliff Vote: House Republicans Caving, Senate Deal Coming to a Vote, Huffington Post, 1/3/12 6. Rep. Jim Moran on Fiscal Deal: 'We're going to look back on this night and regret it', PCCC's Daily Change, 1/2/13 7. Harry Reid Threw Obama Fiscal Cliff Proposal Into Burning Fireplace, Huffington Post, 1/2/13

Iran's endorsement of Obama for re-election

To contact us Click HERE

It was probably an endorsement presidential candidate Barack Obama would have welcomed four years ago, but might not be a plus this time around. Four years ago, Mr. Obama repudiated then-President George W. Bush's policies toward the Islamic Republic, claiming that a new policy was in order to address the issues with Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Obama at that time espoused a policy of "engagement" with the mullahs in Tehran, believing that he could reason with them and bring about positive change in their positions.

I have been either working or following events in this part of the world for almost four decades. I usually laugh to myself when a novice comes forward with his belief that merely talking, maybe using different words, is going to change long-held positions and ideas. The people of the Middle East have been dealing and double-crossing each other and the rest of the world since the world began. To think that an organizer from south Chicago was going to change the Iranian leadership by force of persona was naive at best, arrogant at worst.

Four years later, the Iranians have yet to slow their uranium enrichment program, and President Obama's policy of "engagement" had failed to yield any results. The only things that have impacted the Iranian quest to develop a nuclear weapon are the cyber attacks on the uranium enrichment effort itself and increased economic sanctions on the country. The sanctions are in place over the President's wishes - he must still think that at some point, he is going to be able to negotiate with the Iranian leadership.

Mr. President, we've been down this road how many times since you've been in office? What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Every time there are talks, it yields the same results. The Iranians agree to talk about having more talks. All the while, the centrifuges continue to spin and their stockpile of enriched uranium increases.

Mr. President, do you sense a pattern here? The Iranians have made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in talks - talks for them are merely a tactic to delay actions against them. To use one of your favorite phrases: let me be clear, they do not want to talk to you.

However, the Iranians do want to see you re-elected so you can continue your what many would describe as misguided policies. The fact that the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani favors your re-election should give you pause - that endorsement essentially validates the failure of your position.

In Speaker Larijani's own words, "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational...."

Those are troubling words, especially coming from the leader of Iran. Yes, that Iran - the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, the people who brought the world Hizballah, the people who killed American hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s, the people who seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took and held 52 American hostages in 1979-80, the regime that trained, funded and equipped anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan (and may still be doing so), the people who have vowed to eradicate the State of Israel, the people who are hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and the means with which to deliver those weapons. Yes, them.

The thought that the Iranian leadership want you re-elected should concern you. It sure does concern me.

Let's get past the sex and concentrate on Benghazi

To contact us Click HERE

CNN - Piers Morgan Tonight - November 12, 2012

I appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan on November 12 to talk about the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus. Since it was a panel discussion, I only had limited time to make a few comments. Here are those points, with a bit of expansion. (Watch the segment here.)

I have been invited back to be on the November 13 show to discuss this issue more fully.

Iraq and Afghanistan
General Petraeus did a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, it was General Petraeus who convinced President Bush to commit additional combat forces for what is now called "the surge." That, combined with the Sunni Awakening, broke the back of al-Qa'idah in Iraq (AQI) and rendered them ineffective as a fighting force. The presence of additional American troops forced the Shi'a militias, particularly that of Iran's fair-haired child Muqtada al-Sadr, to back down.

Unfortunately, President Obama's decision to not pursue the option of keeping American forces in Iraq past the December 31, 2011 date specified in the Status of Forces Agreement undid many of those gains. There was a provision in the SOFA as negotiated by the Bush Administration to allow for troops to remain based on the security situation. The realization that American forces would still be in Iraq past 2011 kept al-Qa'idah and the militias in check.

In my analysis, the security situation in late 2011 was perilous enough to warrant talking to the Iraqis about continued American support. Unfortunately, President Obama chose to withdraw all of the troops. While "ending the war in Iraq" might have made a great campaign talking point, it was inaccurate. The war in Iraq continues and the situation continues to worsen. Quitting a war neither ends it nor wins it.

In Afghanistan, the general again convinced the President, this time Barack Obama, to deploy additional combat forces to increase the tempo of the fighting. It succeeded, but only for a short while, for two reasons. The President did not authorize the number of troops General Petraeus thought was required for the mission, and once deployed, the President announced the timetable for the withdrawal not only of the surge forces, but all American forces.

Announcing an arbitrary withdrawal schedule merely telegraphs the date of victory to the insurgents. This is not, as promised, "ending the war responsibly." It is, in essence, quitting. Again, quitting a war neither ends it nor wins it.

CIA Director
General Petraeus is remarkable military officer, trained at West Point and educated at some of America's finest universities. He has distinguished himself in several military leadership roles. However, none of those qualify him to be the nation's top spymaster.

The Central Intelligence Agency has two main functions. First is the collection and production of intelligence to support national-level decision makers - we are mainly speaking about the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Its second mission is the conduct of covert operations, those things that must be done in secret. That involves things like providing arms to insurgent groups - the Kurds, Libyans and hopefully the Syrians, come to mind. It also includes direct actions with Defense Department special operations forces, such as the killing of Usamah bin Ladin. CIA paramilitary officers also conduct drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

Much of this work is distasteful and requires thinking outside the generally accepted military box. It requires a different skill set to manage people who are taught to lie, cheat and steal, albeit for their government. Directing the CIA requires a professional intelligence officer - either a case officer who recruits and runs spies, or a special activities officer who understands covert operations.

Sex and Benghazi
The most important point I tried to make Monday night was the need to get past the sex scandal and focus on what happened in Benghazi. This resignation gives us that opportunity. Petraeus is the "go to guy" for what happened out there. Virtually everything that transpired that night in Benghazi was either in the Director's purview, or he had access to the information. The CIA base in Benghazi was much more involved in what was happening in that part of Libya than the consulate.

General Petraeus would also have had access to the decision-making process that resulted in no military response. The CIA operations center would have been involved with this crisis from its start to its finish.

Also of interest is the timing of the general's resignation. If there were political considerations involved - and I don't know one way or the other - I do not believe it was tied to the election, but rather to the upcoming testimony before Congressional committees about what transpired in Benghazi. The important point here is, that the American people finally have an opportunity to get the real story, since next to no one places any credibility in the ever-changing Administration account.

General Petraeus is no longer an active-duty military officer, nor is he any longer the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - thus no longer part of the Executive Branch, no longer a part of the government. He has no official standing to prevent him from detailing exactly what happened in Benghazi, and possibly more importantly, what was happening in Washington. He is the "go to guy" - he can tell us who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it.

General Petraeus is not scheduled to appear before any of the Congressional oversight committees. Despite President Obama's spokesman's words, "The president is confident that Acting Director [Michael] Morrell is fully informed and capable of representing the CIA in a hearing about the incidents in Benghazi," I would rather hear it from someone no longer answerable to the President. That someone is David Petraeus.

Obama Administration opposes tougher Iran sanctions?

To contact us Click HERE

The Obama Administration's rhetoric, usually delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, maintains that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and that this Administration has imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. Despite that, the President has threatened to veto a bill imposing even tougher sanctions on the Islamic Republic. That does not seem consistent.

For those of you who do not follow the Middle East sections of the media, here's what is happening. In an unusual bipartisan move, the U.S. Senate voted 94 to zero to amend the defense authorization bill with sanctions further restricting trade with Iran. The new sanctions would apply to precious metals, graphite, aluminum and steel, metallurgical coal and software used for integrating industrial processes. These are the types of materials that can be used in a nuclear weapons program. This amendment ups the ante in American efforts to cripple those sectors in Iran - this will get the attention of the decision makers in Tehran and not just an impose further economic hardships on the Iranian people.

So why does the Obama Administration oppose this step, a step that might actually have an impact on the recalcitrant regime in Tehran? You would think the President would welcome sanctions that would help him achieve his commitment to prevent the fundamentalist Shi'a regime from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Despite the Administration's previous efforts - these "crippling sanctions" Mrs. Clinton keeps touting (mostly forced on it by the legislative branch), the Iranian nuclear program continues virtually unhindered.

According to chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, the current international sanctions protocols have not had any effect on Iran's nuclear activities - the Islamic Republic continues to enrich uranium at a steady pace, and shows no signs of changing their policy. Sanctions have had an effect on the Iranian economy - inflation is rampant and the value of the Iranian rial has virtually collapsed. While that has hurt the average Iranian, it has done nothing to hinder progress towards the development of nuclear weapon.

There is another policy that has not hindered Iran's nuclear program. It is the Obama Administration's repeated efforts to negotiate a resolution to this crisis - efforts which began as soon as Barack Obama took office in 2009 and have periodically resurfaced each time the Iranians offer to talk yet again. The Iranians, much more skilled in Middle East bargaining than the seemingly naive Barack Obama, have never agreed to anything except to meet again for more talks.

There has been no positive result whatsoever from the Obama policy of "engagement." While the Iranians agree to talk about talks, the centrifuges at multiple facilities continue to enrich uranium. The only chance of a peaceful resolution to this crisis is to force the Iranians to negotiate. Thus far, the sanctions and offers of "engagement" have only worked to Tehran's advantage. Unless the United States, the United Nations or the rest of the world can impose truly draconian sanctions that get the attention of the regime, negotiations will fail.

If negotiations fail, there will be one of two outcomes. Either the Iranians will be successful in acquiring nuclear weapons, or the Israelis will assess that the Iranians are close to such capability and mount an attack on the facilities. Either outcome is problematic, to say the least.

That said, if sanctions are going to be effective, they have to be strong. The Senate amendment is a start. The President needs to accept the fact - quietly so that he does not have to admit failure - that the Iranians are not going to fall victim to his wit and charm. Go for the sanctions.

Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

To contact us Click HERE

Halabjah, Iraq - 1988

Is Syrian President Bashar al-Asad about to order his armed forces to use chemical weapons on their own people? According to media outlets citing "U.S. officials," the Syrian military has mixed the chemical components that make up the nerve agent Sarin (GB). Sarin has been used in the past in neighboring Iraq - in 1988, Iraqi Air Force fighters dropped Sarin-filled bombs on the Kurdish town of Halabjah in northern Iraq, killing over 5,000 people. Later that year, Iraqi forces used chemical weapons against Iranian troops during four major battles, making Iraq the only country to have used nerve agents on a battlefield.

Syria's chemical weapons are no secret. The Director of National Intelligence, in an unclassified report to Congress in 2006, provided this assessment of Syria's chemical and biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can be used to deliver them. It does not address Syrian air force fighter-bombers that can also carry chemical weapons. (See my earlier article, Syria's chemical weapons and the uprising.)
_________
Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January to 31 December 2006. (Read the entire report).

UNCLASSIFIED
Chemical and Biological. Syria continued to seek dual-use technology from foreign sources during the reporting period. Syria has had a chemical weapons program for many years and already has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile. In addition, Syria is developing the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals.

Syria's biotechnical infrastructure is capable of supporting limited biological agent development. We do not assess the Syrians have achieved a capability to put biological agents into effective weapons, however.

Ballistic Missile. Syria's ballistic missile program is a key component to its strategy to deter external threats and is a priority in defense planning and spending. Syria possesses one of the largest ballistic missile forces in the Middle East—composed of Scud-class liquid propellant short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), including Soviet—and North Korean—origin Scud missiles. Additionally, Syria fields the SS-21 Mod 2 SRBM. We judge that Syria's operational missile force can employ chemical as well as conventional warheads. Syria is developing a version of its Scud-D missile with greater accuracy and that is more difficult to intercept.
__________

The Obama Administration has reacted with its usual vapid rhetoric.

"Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Asad and those under his command: The world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

If Bashar al-Asad thought there would really be serious consequences, he would not have given the order to his armed forces to ready the chemical weapons. Just like al-Asad's primary sponsor and supporter - Iran - the Syrian president does not take American threats seriously.

I hope Bashar is making a serious miscalculation. I hope that I have underestimated Barack Obama's understanding of the situation in the Middle East. I have been to Halabjah - I have seen the results of nerve gas attacks on defenseless civilians. I have been to the Iraqi battlefields in 1988 - I have seen the results of nerve gas attacks on Iranian troops.

Perhaps this is a gamble on al-Asad's part - "Someone grant me asylum or I'll go out with a bang."

If Bashar al-Asad descends to the level of Saddam Husayn and does use chemical weaspons, he needs to suffer the same fate as his Ba'thi cousin - delivered by either the Syrian people or an American missile. Unfortunately, our record of holding people "accountable" is pretty weak.

ADDENDUM - Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

To contact us Click HERE

This is an addendum to my earlier article, Syria about to use chemical weapons on its own people?

This Syrian opposition video shows chemical warfare protective equipment seized following a battle between the opposition and the Syrian army on the road between Damascus and the Damascus International Airport. That area has seen some of the heaviest fighting and regime air strikes over the last month. During the past few days, the opposition has surrounded the airport in hopes of shutting it down. Several airlines have canceled flights to Damascus.

According to new reports citing "U.S. officials" as the source, the Syrians have prepared some of their chemical weapons for use. It is one thing to prepare the weapons, but there is another, equally important factor in the employment of chemical weapons - you must protect your own troops who have to operate in the chemical environment. In the intelligence business, the deployment of chemical warfare protective gear is a key indicator of potential chemical warfare use.

This video indicates that the Syrian army is issuing protective gear to its combat units.



I have gisted the Arabic narration on the video, keyed to the time code.

0:01-1:10. This materiel was seized by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) during a battle with regime forces on the [Damascus International] airport road. It consists of chemical warfare protective equipment carried in ZIL-131 vehicles. There are suits, coveralls, overshoes, filters, boxes of combat chemical protective suits.

1:10-1:33. This is decontamination equipment found in the ZIL-131 trucks. You can see the hoses, brushes, decontamination fluid and other materials.

1:34-1:50. This is poisonous material to be used by the regime in air attacks.*

1:50-2:00. These are Russian chemical warfare protective filters.

2:05-2:40. This is how the suits are worn. This gear is now in the hands of the FSA, and will be used to protect ourselves in case of a chemical attack by the regime.
_______________
* I am not sure this is accurate. Since all of the other gear appears to be defensive, I suspect it is more decontamination fluid.

Pretty sobering. If the Syrians are not planning to use chemical weapons, there is no need to issue this protective gear.

Syrian prisoners confirm Scud use

To contact us Click HERE

Four Syrian army soldiers captured by the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) confirm that the Syrians have launched Scud missiles at opposition targets in the country. This video was posted on YouTube by the Free Syrian Army unit calling itself the al-Qalamun Volcano (burkan al-qalamun) Brigade.



The FSA captured these four soldiers of the Syrian army 51st [Missile] Battalion of the 155th [Missile] Brigade. The 155th Brigade is headquartered near the city of al-Quyafah, located at 33°44'23"N 36°35'53"E. There are large missile garrison areas just southwest of the city.

The soldiers gave their names when asked. When the interviewer asks who is responsible for missile operations, the prisoner second from the left provides the information. He responds with the name Staff Colonel 'Ali Yusif Hamudi, commander of the 51st Battalion, and brigade commander Ahmad Ghanam. When asked who else, the prisoner responded with the name Staff Colonel Dhahir Hadad, commander of the 78th [Missile] Battalion.

At time code 1:01, the prisoner said that they had fired seven missiles, five during the day and two at night. He confirmed that he had witnessed the launches, and that they were launched at Darat 'Azah (36°16'47"N 36°51'36"E) in the Aleppo Governorate.

Comment: Darat 'Azah has been the scene of intense fighting over the last week. It is adjacent to the garrison of the Syrian army's 111th Regiment at 36°15'35"N 36°53'38"E that was seized by elements of the FSA last week.

General Norman Schwarzkopf (1934-2012)

To contact us Click HERE

General Norman Schwarzkopf and Major Rick Francona - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia , 1991

I received word yesterday that one of the military heroes of our time, and my one-time boss, General Norman Schwarzkopf, had died. I served as his personal Arabic interpreter during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. He was 78 years old.

I first met General Schwarzkopf at the Pentagon as he was on his way to his new position as the commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. I was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), serving as the Assistant Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East.

As part of his orientation to his new command, my boss and I briefed the general on our recent support to Saddam Husayn and the Iraqi military in their eight year war with Iran. As part of that effort, I spent much of 1988 in Baghdad as a liaison officer to the Iraqi armed forces Directorate of Military Intelligence. It was though our provision of intelligence that Saddam's forces were able to defeat the Iranians on the battlefield.

When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush declared that the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait "will not stand." A few days later, the President ordered General Schwarzkopf to begin the deployment of American combat forces to Saudi Arabia to defend the kingdom against a possible Iraqi attack. Almost immediately, the general himself moved to a forward headquarters in Saudi Arabia.

General Schwarzkopf was in need of an Arabic interpreter to help him deal with his Arabic-speaking allies as well as his Arabic-speaking enemies. I received a call at home from a senior officer (and friend) at the Central Command headquarters, asking me if I was interested in being General Schwarzkopf's personal Arabic interpreter - I jumped at the chance, but was concerned that DIA might object. I was wrong - DIA was happy to provide my expertise, or as they put it, "supporting the warfighter." I also learned later that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell had put out the word: "when CENTCOM calls for support, the answer is yes." I was on the ground at CENTCOM Forward in Saudi Arabia in two days.

General Schwarzkopf was interested not only in my Arabic language skills, but my previous experience in Iraq with the Iraqi army and air force. While in Baghdad in 1988, I had worked with several of the same officers that were now facing us in Kuwait and southern Iraq. One of these officers was Major General Wafiq al-Samarra'i, the Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) for the Iraqi armed forces.

In 1988, Wafiq (then a brigadier and deputy DMI) was the officer I worked with in providing intelligence information on Iranian targets. By virtue of the information we had provided, he had gleaned some insight to our intelligence capabilities, and would be using this information in his assessments and analysis for Saddam Husayn. Likewise, I had gained an appreciation for Iraqi intelligence and military capabilities through not only working with intelligence officers in Baghdad, but by traveling to the battlefields and observing the Iraqi army and air force in their operations.

Soon after I began my duties at CENTCOM, I was called to meet with the general. He asked me if I could teach him to speak Arabic. I replied - with all due respect - that I could teach him some basic conversational things, but learning Arabic is not a part-time endeavor. After I tried to get him through some basic greetings, the press of preparing to invade Kuwait and Iraq ended, thankfully, the language training.

I felt privileged to sit in on what I knew was going to be history. I, too, was a Vietnam veteran (I was previously a Vietnamese linguist) and was a small part of the rebuilding of the American armed forces into the most lethal and effective killing machine in history. The Iraqis may have been able to defeat the Iranians (with our intelligence assistance), but they were not going to be a match for the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world. The result was a foregone conclusion - the only question was how much American blood it would cost.

It was easily one of the highlights of my career. I wrote a book about my experiences in Iraq in 1988 and my later service as General Schwarzkopf's interpreter and advisor. The book can be found in libraries or online.

Years later, I was hired by NBC News to appear on their family of networks as a military analyst providing my insights into the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. One of my fellow military analysts was none other than retired General Norman Schwarzkopf. We appeared on camera together a few times. I will always remember his kind words, "As you well remember, Rick, when we took on Saddam...."

Right, general. You and me.

It was an honor and privilege to have served as his interpreter. It has, at times to my dismay, defined my military career. No matter what I did before or after that - and I like to think I have made some real contributions - I am best remembered as "Rick Francona, he was General Schwarzkopf's interpreter."

Syrian Air Force losses in 2012

To contact us Click HERE

Syrian Air Force Mi-17 shot down over northern Syria

According to Syrian opposition sources with a generally reliable record, the Syrian Air Force suffered 144 aircraft losses in 2012. Here is the breakdown of the numbers:

Total:  144

Helicopters:  83
Combat aircraft: 63

Shot down:  106
Destroyed on the ground:  38

By governorate:
Idlib:  46
Damascus:  32
Aleppo: 27
Dayr al-Zawr:  24
Hamah:  6
Homs:  5
Dara':  2
Latakia:  1
Al-Raqqah:  1

By month:
March:  1
June:  3
July:  8
August:  30
September: 15
October:  16
November:  30
December:  41

My comments:

The primary anti-aircraft weapons available to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are anti-aircraft guns that they have captured from the Syrian military, primarily the 12.7mm and 14.5mm AAA guns, but also 23mm and 57mm guns. Lately, they have acquired shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles (SA-7/18/24) that have been used effectively.

Soon after the initial losses, there was an immediate change in Syrian Air Force tactics. The pilots began flying higher, faster and using decoy flares to protect against the heat-seeking missiles.

The "combat aircraft" figure includes fighters and the L-39ZA trainer/light attack aircraft. The losses among the L-39 have been high, and the FSA has been able to down several MiG-23 fighters.

I believe all of the helicopters shot down or destroyed were Mi-8/17 (HIP) general purpose helicopters, many used as assault platforms mounted with S-5 55mm and S-8 80mm rocket launchers, machine guns, and as a platform to drop the homemade "barrel bomb" that terrifies the population. (See my article, The Syrian "barrel bomb" - a terror weapon.)

Although the Syrian Air Force has operated the Mi-25 (HIND) gunship, there have been no documented losses in the civil war. If publicly available estimates are correct that the Syrian Air Force possessed about 100 operational Mi-8/17 helicopters, and 83 have been destroyed, that is a major loss.

The Syrian Air Force's complete domination of the skies is one of the major advantages enjoyed by the regime. In almost every instance where senior FSA commanders are interviewed, they state that the major obstacle they face is devastating airpower. If they are not able to mitigate regime airpower, they may not be able to win the fight.

Jack Klugman on how he and Tony Randall gaybaited ABC execs; Randall on how one Odd Couple gay-censored script became his favorite episode

To contact us Click HERE
Jack Klugman intro to first video below:
You're going to see Tony and me hugging and kissing a lot. We did this to irritate the network executives. You see, they thought two guys living together... people will think we're gay, and in those days it would bring the ratings down. That's why they brought in the Pigeon Sisters and that stupid beginning about how our wives left us. Today, you cannot have a successful series unless you have a gay person on it.

@5:47, Tony Randall to Jack Klugman, in his underwear: "Don't let your thing show like that!"
@5:56, a series of clips showing Klugman and Randall gay-baiting ABC and Paramount;
@6:04, Tony Randall to Klugman: "Wanna have some F-U-N?
@6:54, a spit-take exchange between Tony Randall and Al Molinaro (in front of a studio audience):

Randall: I understand your wife is pregnant.
Al: I understand you've been fooling around with her.
Randall: Oh, I heard it was Oscar.
Al: I thought Oscar was a fag.
Randall: No, I heard that you were.
Al: I thought you'd never ask.

Randall on casting Jack Klugman as Oscar Madison: "We were sitting in the office of an agent named Milton Goldman, and we were racking our brains to think of who in the world could do it [Jack Klugman initially turned down the role]. We didn't have anyone and we were due to shoot, and he said, 'I've got it! Shelley Winters!' That's what you go into show business for — the laughs... Finally they convinced Jack to do it.



Matt Rousch @0:08 of second video: I'd like to focus on a few individual episodes of the Odd Couple that stand out, one being the episode "Fear of Flying" because it seems like there were some changes required by the network...
Randall: Yes. That happened twice. We had very good script. It began with me by happenstance finding something on Oscar's desk, an article in his typewriter he was working on. He was working on 'Homosexuality in Sports'  and I misunderstood it and thought it was a confessional and I said "Gee, you'd think if either one of us was, it would be me." ...That whole show was never made. You couldn't touch that subject. So, in the 'Fear of Flying' — which is my favorite of all the episodes; it was the funniest, I think — we end up taking a chartered flight. It turns out the chartered flight is a gay group, a chartered plane. They wouldn't let us do that.
     So at the last minute Gary [Marshall] rewrote it. Gary under pressure is unbeatable. He made them a parachute jumping club... It was responsible for, I think, the funniest joke I've ever come up with, because that was my line, I don't mind telling you. Before they jump, I go to the bathroom. And when I come back, the plane's empty. We never could get the line out. I just kept looking around. The line was: 'Weren't there a lot of people here?' The audience was laughing so hard you couldn't say the line.

Charlie Sheen goes damage controlling to TMZ:'I meant to say maggot but I have a lisp'

To contact us Click HERE

This weekend, Charlie Sheen hosted the opening of his hotel bar in Cabo, Mexico, El Ganzo, where he cheerfully hurled a homophobic slur at a not-especially-gay audience, specifically saying, "How we doing? ... Lying bunch of f**got a**holes, how we doing?"
     AKSARBENT is running this because we think it A) his excuse is funny as hell, B) we don't think Sheen even thinks about homosexuality long enough to disapprove and C) even if he does, he ceased long ago to be responsible for anything that comes out of his mouth.
     Martin Sheen's unruly son offered TMZ another, alternative explanation, just in case they didn't like the first: "I meant no ill will and intended to hurt no one and I apologize if I offended anyone."

Log Cabin Republicans won't say who paid for their anti-Hagel NYT ad; in NE, a pro-Hagel ad paid for by Jewish son of a Buffett Berkshire-Hathaway millionaire

To contact us Click HERE

"Bobby" Eisenberg placed a four-column, below-the-fold
ad in last Saturday's Omaha World-Herald supporting
the nomination of former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel.
Eisenberg's parents were early Warren Buffett investors.
(A $10,000 1956 preBerkshire-Hathaway investment
in Buffett Associates, Ltd is now worth about half a
billion dollars..

Gay journalist Glenn Greenwald, writing for the Manchester Guardian, tried to find out who is using the Log Cabin Republicans to take down a possible Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense nomination. LCR wouldn't tell Greenwald who paid for their full-page NYT ad, which reputedly cost in excess of $140,000, money that evidently the LCR doesn't have lying around.

I posed several questions to LCR about the funding and motive behind this ad.
     In response, the group's Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign "is being funded by a number of donors". But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those "donors" are from the self-proclaimed "pro-Israel" community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.
     As for why LCR would suddenly object to the anti-gay record of Hagel despite a history of supporting more virulently anti-gay Republicans, Cooper claimed that "LCR is particularly concerned about Chuck Hagel as a potential Defense Secretary because of the role he would play in continuing to oversee the implementation of open service of the military." But he did not respond to my follow-up inquiry about why, then, LCR endorsed Mitt Romney - who has long supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other anti-gay measures - as President.
     Why would this group be so moved by concerns about a possible Defense Secretary's anti-gay record that they take out a full-page ad against him in the New York Times, but just three months ago endorsed someone who is at least as anti-gay for the position of Commander-in-Chief, which obviously has far more influence on such policies than a Defense Secretary?
     What makes this all the more inexplicable is that, a couple of weeks before the LCR ad was placed, the very same R. Clark Cooper spoke out in praise of Hagel to the Gay City News:

"I recall working with Senator Chuck Hagel and his staff during the Bush administration and he was certainly not shy about expressing his criticisms. But despite his criticisms, Hagel voted with us most of the time and there was no question he was committed to advancing America's interests abroad. As for his nomination to be secretary of defense, it is well worth noting that Senator Hagel is a combat veteran who has hands-on experience in the field. The battlefield is not just theory for him."

At some point thereafter, LCR decided not only that Hagel must be publicly smeared as anti-gay and anti-Israel, but that the group just had to take an extraordinary and incredibly expensive step - a full-page ad in the New York Times - to do so. And then magically, the substantial funding for that anti-Hagel ad materialized.
     While I agree with those who insist that a Hagel nomination would not meaningfully change administration policy, the goal of the anti-Hagel smear campaign is to ensure that there can be no debate and no diversity of views on Israel when it comes to top government officials.

Netflix spent $400,000 lobbying House, Senate to let them tell Facebook what you watch

To contact us Click HERE
(And ThinkProgress says Facebook spent $1.6 million on this.) The new bill has already been adopted by the House, and is now on its way to President Obama’s desk. Adam Serwer at Mother Jones has the latest:

Netflix's Reed Hastings
soon can disclose
your viewing habits
(Photo: Wikipedia)
Netflix: 1-866-579-7172

Last Tuesday, the Senate quietly altered a key privacy law, making it much easier for video streaming services like Netflix to share your viewing habits. How quietly? The Senate didn’t even hold a recorded vote: The bill was approved by unanimous consent. (Joe Mullin of Ars Technica was among the first to note the vote.) [...] Video streaming companies that want to share your data now only need to ask for your permission once. After that, they can broadcast your video-watching habits far and wide for up to two years before having to ask again.

Barney Frank blasts Chuck Hagel

To contact us Click HERE
In a statement issued on his last day in the House of Representatives, Barney Frank excoriated Hagel's 14-year-old attack on gay US Ambassador James Hormel and Hagel's antigay voting record:

'Then-Senator Hagel’s aggressively bigoted opposition to President Clinton’s naming the first openly gay Ambassador in U.S. history was not, as Sen. Hagel now claims, an aberration,' Frank said in a statement. 'He voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel.  And to those of us who admire and respect Mr. Hormel, Sen. Hagel’s description of him as aggressive can only mean that the Senator strongly objected to Hormel’s reasoned, civil advocacy for LGBT people.'
Added Frank: 'I cannot think of any other minority group in the US today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.'