Political Correction RSS

Political Correction RSS http://mediamattersaction.org This link is for use by RSS-enabled software to retrieve the latest blog posts from Political Correction en-US Copyright 2012, Media Matters Action Network Rep. Huelskamp Thinks "Religious Freedom" Only Applies To His Beliefs http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202070005 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/huelskamp1.JPG" border="0" alt="Rep. Tim Huelskamp" width="135" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) provides some of the <a href="http://huelskamp.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3887&Itemid=300123" target="_blank">clearest evidence you'll ever see</a> that many conservatives fundamentally do not understand what "religious freedom" means: <blockquote> In addition to ensuring that chaplains will not be coerced to perform or participate in any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service or function that is contrary to their own conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs or those of their faith group, the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act will ensure ... that military facilities or other property owned by the Department of Defense cannot be used to perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman. </blockquote> Sure enough, Section 3 of Huelskamp's "<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3828:" target="_blank">Military Religious Freedom Protection Act</a>" reads in full: <blockquote> SEC. 3. USE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS SITE FOR MARRIAGE CEREMONIES OR MARRIAGE-LIKE CEREMONIES. A military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense shall not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman. </blockquote> That's an explicit prohibition on the use of military facilities for religious ceremonies that recognize the union of a same-sex couple. Several churches already allow the blessing of same-sex unions, including the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16episcopal.html?_r=1" target="_blank">Episcopal Church</a> and the <a href="http://www.lcna.org/mm/what-do-lutheran-churches-say" target="_blank">Evangelical Lutheran Church in America</a>, and it's only a matter of time before more follow in their footsteps. But such ceremonies would be banned under Huelskamp's "Religious Freedom Protection Act." Allowing DOD facilities to be used for religious ceremonies involving "one man with one woman" but disallowing their use for religious ceremonies involving two men or two women is the exact opposite of protecting religious freedom. Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202070005 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:38:20 EST The Post And Courier Misleads Its Readers On Iran-Cuba Threat http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202070004 The editors of The Post and Courier, one of largest newspapers in South Carolina, sound like they're getting information about foreign affairs from right-wing alarmist websites. In <a href="http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2012/feb/06/irans-tropical-toehold/">an irresponsible editorial</a> yesterday, the newspaper scares its readers by inflating a recent trip that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made to Cuba into some looming national security crisis. <blockquote> Given the support both nations have provided to international terrorists, the Iran-Cuba connection can only be viewed ominously. It would likely prolong the life of the appalling Cuban regime while giving Iran, which is preparing to field nuclear-tipped missiles within the next few years, a possible base of operations against the United States. Cuba needs a new tenant that will, like the former Soviet Union, give it highly favorable terms of trade for its exports. In 1960 Fidel struck a deal with Moscow providing petroleum in exchange for sugar, and that deal, through ups and downs, kept Cuba's economy above water until 1990. It also provided a base for Soviet military activities that almost led to nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis, 50 years ago. But the Cuban economy quickly went down when the Soviet Union collapsed, and not even Fidel's friendship with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, access to cheap Venezuelan oil and trading relations with most of the world have helped restore the old order. The Castros may be willing to risk a new and more effective multinational embargo by trading with Iran, provided they get a good price. Meanwhile, Iran is looking for trading partners, as it faces broader, tougher Western sanctions. More importantly, like the old Soviet Union, it is seeking points of pressure against the United States. Mr. Ahmadinejad renewed his connections with other anti-American leaders in Latin America, including Mr. Chavez and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. </blockquote> While Iran's activities in Cuba are certainly a cause for concern, there is no reason for the level of alarm that is raised by The Post and Courier. For starters, Iran and Cuba have had a good relationship for several decades, including during the Cold War. And Iran's not the only one. As the editors themselves acknowledge, Cuba has "trading relations with most of the world." In fact, Cuba even has limited trading relations with the United States, something many members of Congress would like to see expanded. The editors are reading way too much into this visit. For instance, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16785073">recently made a state visit</a> to Cuba to discuss trade. How is Ahmadinejad's visit an indication Cuba wants to go towards authoritarian Iran but Rousseff's more important visit not a signal that Cuba is opening up? In addition, no one seriously subscribes to the idea that Cuba supports international terrorists. As Jeffrey Goldberg <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/don-t-lump-cuba-with-iran-on-terror-list-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html">recently wrote</a>: <blockquote> Here is some of what we know about Cuba. Cuba is an impoverished autocracy. Its superannuated leaders are gradually opening their country's economy. Cuba is reducing the size of its military, it has condemned al-Qaeda and it poses no national-security threat to the U.S. No serious intelligence analyst believes that Cuba is still funding or arming foreign insurgencies. </blockquote> The Post and Courier editors also write that Iran is "preparing to field nuclear-tipped missiles within the next few years." There are many legitimate concerns about Iran's nuclear program and the intentions of its leaders, but there is no evidence that Iran will "field nuclear-tipped missiles" in the near future. Secretary of Defense <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-08/iran-nuclear-weapons/52451620/1">Leon Panetta</a> and Director of National Intelligence <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Iran-More-Willing-to-Conduct-Attack-on-American-Soil-138413784.html">James Clapper</a> have both said in recent weeks that Iran has not yet made the decision to develop nuclear weapons. Either the editors of The Post and Courier know more about Iran's intentions than the U.S. intelligence community or they're shooting from the hip with no concern for accuracy. It's important for local papers to cover international issues, but in an editorial that deals with war and peace, the least they should do is to consider the facts. Walid Zafar http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202070004 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:33:59 EST The America & Israel Lockstep http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202070003 In his pre-Super Bowl interview on Sunday night, President Obama went farther than ever before to assert that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical. Obama even one-upped Vice President Joe Biden, who has repeatedly said that there must be "<a href="http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=194410">no daylight — no daylight</a>" between our policies and theirs. Obama's statement was more disturbing because he was not speaking in the abstract but about the possibility of war with Iran. The president <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE81501C20120206">said</a>, "My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel." I'll repeat that: "My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel." That is a remarkable statement, so much so that I'll leave it to someone with more impressive credentials than my own to challenge it. Paul R. Pillar is a 28-year veteran of the CIA who, before his retirement, became chief of analysis at the agency's DCI Counterterrorist Center. He now teaches at Georgetown and writes for The National Interest. He also served in Vietnam between 1971 and 1973. Here is <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/what-our-number-one-priority-6470?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">his reaction</a> to the president's statement: <blockquote> Wait a minute-shouldn't the security of the United States be the number one priority of the president of the United States? Rather than merely sharing the top spot on the priority list with some foreign country's security? </blockquote> He continues: <blockquote> Any national political leader in the United States should be expected to give clear, consistent, overwhelming priority to U.S. interests-never equating, much less subordinating, them to the interests of any foreign state. Relationships with foreign governments can be useful in advancing U.S. interests, but they are always means, not ends. ... Suffice it to note that the policies of the current government of the foreign state in question are not only not to be equated with U.S. interests but are seriously damaging those interests, whether through risking war with Iran, undermining efforts short of war to resolve differences with Iran, or associating the United States with a highly salient and unjust occupation. Even with an alternative government that was less destructive (to Israel's own interests, let alone to those of the United States), the interests of the United States should not be equated with the interests of this foreign state any more than to those of Denmark, Thailand, Argentina or any other foreign country, no matter what fondness individual citizens may feel toward those or other places. </blockquote> Pillar goes on to mention the statements of the various Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) whose pledges to Israel are even more self-abnegating from an American point of view. He reserves special scorn for Newt Gingrich's top donor, Sheldon Adelson, (expected to soon move over to the Romney campaign) who <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/27/10249298-gingrich-funder-isnt-trying-to-buy-the-presidency-aide-says">has said</a> that he regrets serving in the U.S. military over Israel's. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all made clear that, to them, Israel is not a foreign country but an adjunct of the United States (somewhere near Florida, perhaps).  The good news — if there is any — about these statements from the president and his opponents is that it is unlikely any of them are sincere. I certainly do not believe that Obama, in any way, puts Israel's interests on par with those of the United States. Not even close. Frankly, I don't think the Republicans do either. The ugly part is that these candidates believe that making such statements is necessary to please donors (and perhaps some voters). Where would they get that idea? Well, they get it from the various organizations (led by AIPAC) that constitute Binyamin Netanyahu's lobby in America, as well as from members of the House and Senate who are Bibi's cutouts. (Check out AIPAC's <a href="http://www.aipac.org/en/in-the-news?newsid=%7b6FA3F5CC-4256-47F0-8147-5EF2E04E40E2%7d">website</a>.) That is why Obama caved on the issue of Israeli settlements (going so far as to veto a United Nation resolution condemning the, even though it was completely in sync with long-standing U.S. policy). That is why we pulled out all the stops to prevent the United Nations from recognizing a Palestinian state. That is why Obama insists that war with Iran remains "on the table" while unconditional negotiations with the Iranian regime have apparently never been contemplated. And that is why it is quite possible that the United States could find itself at war with Iran either directly or because we join Israel in a combined military assault. Pillar points out that in the same interview Obama said the U.S. is "going to make sure we work in lockstep" with Israel on Iran. As Pillar notes: <blockquote> If working in lockstep means that Israel defers to U.S. interests and preferences, that would be fine for the United States. But of course the deference nearly always works the other way around. </blockquote> After all, it is America that is the superpower while Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the world. It should be said that the Israeli people (most of whom oppose war with Iran) do not benefit from the supine position in which our politicians approach their government. As for the two Iran hawks running Israel's foreign policy, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, they can hardly be blamed if they view these statements as evidence that the United States will not oppose anything they do. Congress, of course, will do what AIPAC tells it to do. In short, Israel is freer to get us and itself into a war with Iran that will cost God knows how many lives and shock the world economy into a deeper recession than the one we are in. Knowing Netanyahu and Barak, it will be hard for them to resist this temptation. On March 4, some 10,000 AIPAC delegates from around the country with gather in Washington for the group's annual policy conference. The president and some 350-400 members of Congress <a href="http://www.aipac.org/pc">will be in attendance</a>. (Candidates from both parties will raise huge sums of money in special side rooms deemed independent of AIPAC so that the organization can continue to claim that it does not fund candidates.) And the message the politicians will hear is that AIPAC is ready for war. If the past is prologue, every reference to diplomacy by speakers from the president on down will be met by silence. Every reference to war will be met with thunderous applause. The government officials and candidates will go home happy to have pleased some key donors. The Israeli government officials will go home believing that America will back absolutely anything they choose to do. As for the American people, they will barely know that any of this is happening. MJ Rosenberg http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202070003 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:53:35 EST Mitt Romney's Working-Class Whites Problem http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202070002 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/romneynh.JPG" border="0" alt="Mitt Romney" width="135" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> President Obama's so-called "<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/the_myth_of_obamas_jewish_problem/" target="_blank">Jewish Problem</a>" has received a great deal of attention, with headlines like "<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576568710341742174.html" target="_blank">Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote</a>" appearing regularly, even though the president is likely to win a <a href="http://www.forward.com/articles/145934/" target="_blank">comfortable majority</a> among Jewish voters this fall. Obama's purported "<a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/01/26/poll-obamas-got-a-hispanic-problem" target="_blank">Hispanic problem</a>" faces similar <a href="http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/12528019120/2012-election-polls-latino-results" target="_blank">factual hurdles</a>. Maybe, then, it's time for attention to turn elsewhere: Mitt Romney's problem with working-class white voters, a key part of the Republican coalition in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" target="_blank">recent</a> <a href="http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/" target="_blank">elections</a>. As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent notes, these <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/is-obama-winning-back-blue-collar-whites/2012/02/06/gIQAby29tQ_blog.html" target="_blank">voters aren't too happy</a> about the fact that Mitt Romney pays a very low tax rate on the millions of dollars he makes every year:  <blockquote> [A] big majority of blue collar whites, 67 percent, says that Romney's not paying his fair share in taxes, suggesting Obama's emphasis on tax fairness may be helping him make some headway in winning them back. </blockquote> The Washington Post-ABC News poll Sargent referred to also found that 49 percent of whites who earn less than $50,000 a year think of Romney's wealth as a "negative because it suggests he benefited from opportunities that are not available to most people," compared to just 40 percent who see it as a "positive because it suggests he has achieved the American dream." White non-college graduates are split roughly evenly on questions of whether Romney did more to create or cut jobs in his business career and whether his wealth is a positive or a negative. And last week, in the wake of Romney's statement that he <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010007" target="_blank">isn't concerned about the poor</a>, the Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/02/lower-income-republicans-say-government-does-too-little-for-poor-people/" target="_blank">noted</a> that "57% of lower-income Republican and Republican-leaning voters said the government does too little for poor people." (Pew didn't break the data down by race, but given that the vast majority of Republican voters are white, it's safe to conclude that lower-income white Republicans think the government does too little for the poor.) Romney's business career is central to his campaign. (It has to be — he has only four years of experience in elected office, during which he compiled a record he prefers to run away from.) It's a <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-my-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth" target="_blank">crucial part of his economic message</a>. But working-class whites, whose votes he needs in large numbers, don't seem to see his wealth as a positive, don't think he pays enough taxes, and disagree with his view of government help for the poor. Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202070002 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:27:11 EST Niall Ferguson Thinks War With Iran Is Just One Big Joke http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202060002 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/NiallFerguson.jpg" border="0" alt="Sen. Tom Coburn" width="125" height="160" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson is out with a new piece in <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/05/israel-and-iran-on-the-eve-of-destruction-in-a-new-six-day-war.html">The Daily Beast</a> arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "There are plenty of arguments against an Israeli attack on Iran," the subhead of the article explains. But "all of them are bad." Ferguson writes: <blockquote> There are five reasons (I am told) why Israel should not attack Iran: 1. The Iranians would retaliate with great fury, closing the Strait of Hormuz and unleashing the dogs of terror in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq. 2. The entire region would be set ablaze by irate Muslims; the Arab Spring would turn into a frigid Islamist winter. 3. The world economy would be dealt a death blow in the form of higher oil prices. 4. The Iranian regime would be strengthened, having been attacked by the Zionists its propaganda so regularly vilifies. 5. A nuclear-armed Iran is nothing to worry about. States actually become more risk-averse once they acquire nuclear weapons. I am here to tell you that these arguments are wrong. </blockquote> What comes next is not what you would expect; Ferguson does not explain why these concerns (which are straw man arguments he's summarized in ridiculous ways) are wrong, as you'd expect, but jokes away the worries without even mentioning the real dangers of war. Like <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201112220007">Matthew Kroenig's</a> much-discussed article in Foreign Affairs, which tried to make the case for a U.S. strike, Ferguson mentions potential consequences of war but makes no serious effort to address the five points he's outlined. Both writers suffer from the same flaw: downplaying failure while being overly optimistic about success. Any doubt that Ferguson takes war with Iran lightly is eliminated by his depiction of an imaginary conservation between President Obama and David Axelrod in which the president orders his people to provide support for an Israeli attack on Iran — "line up those bunker busters" — but only after hearing that he isn't polling well in Florida. Frivolity aside, the piece is most noteworthy not for what is mentioned but for what Ferguson avoided writing about: An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will not stop the country's nuclear program, and almost certainly will convince decision-makers there that they need to weaponize to protect against future attacks. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has made clear, an attack <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/10/366866/panetta-iran-attack-delay-consequences/">would at most delay</a> Iran's program by a few years. That fact alone should be enough to put much of this dangerous speculation to rest. Walid Zafar http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202060002 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:57:35 EST Rep. Walberg Pushes Fast And Furious Conspiracy Theory http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020007 During today's House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) echoed the gun lobby's <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201106150019">conspiracy theory</a> suggesting that Operation Fast and Furious was "set up to go wrong" in order to undermine the "Second Amendment liberties of law-abiding citizens." In fact, an official report issued by the House Oversight Committee's own chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), <a href="http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/ATF_Report.pdf">found</a> that the "purpose" of Fast and Furious was to "build a large, complex conspiracy case" targeting high-level Mexican cartel members. Further, as has now has been documented extensively in a <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf">report</a> by House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), similar misguided tactics were used in several cases during the Bush administration. Nonetheless, Walberg is more comfortable pushing conspiratorial accusations than discussing the reality of these misguided ATF tactics. <blockquote> WALBERG: No admission [by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein], other than now when brought on the carpet and brought into the public light, that this has gone wrong, was set up to go wrong, and frankly I believe was set up to go wrong in order to deal with Second Amendment liberties of law-abiding citizens and pushing into a perception that it was the problem of the Second Amendment as opposed to law enforcement, and more importantly, Mr. Attorney General, your oversight of an agency, of a department of individual leaders in that department that have not been held accountable. HOLDER: Well, with all due respect and,, I mean this with great respect, the notion that this was an operation set up to do something to impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens is absurd. </blockquote> Listen: <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="320" height="24" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,24,0"> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://politicalcorrection.org/embed/cfg2?f=/static/clips/2012/02/02/22753/cspan-20120202-holder.flv" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="allownetworking" value="all" /> <param name="src" value="http://cloudfront.politicalcorrection.org/static/flash/pl52.swf" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="24" src="http://cloudfront.politicalcorrection.org/static/flash/pl52.swf" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="config=http://politicalcorrection.org/embed/cfg2?f=/static/clips/2012/02/02/22753/cspan-20120202-holder.flv"></embed> </object> Walberg is <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/republicans_buy_into_nras_fast_and_furious_gun_control_conspiracy_theory.php">not the first Republican</a> to adopt this conspiracy, which is a favorite of the National Rifle Association and their allies in the right-wing media. Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Joe Walsh (R-IL), and Dan Lungren (R-CA) have all embraced similar claims. Lungren was rebuked by Holder after raising the issue at a December hearing.<a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020007">More...</a> Chris Brown http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020007 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:32:39 EST Sen. Coburn And The Occupy Movement http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020006 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/coburnbudget.JPG" border="0" alt="Sen. Tom Coburn" width="140" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> When the Occupy Wall Street protests began last fall, it may have seemed unlikely that the problems they targeted would take a central place in the national political discourse. After all, the massive and growing gap between the super-wealthy and everyone else — as well as the structural problems that ensure that gap — are not exactly new developments, but they had been largely ignored by political and media elites for years. When the protests began, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109290009" target="_blank">the media paid little attention</a>. Conservatives, of course, dismissed their message as the irrelevant and incoherent whining of America-hating leftists. Yet the protests struck a chord with the public. That's because the problems they've addressed are instantly recognizable to most Americans, liberal and conservative alike.  Here's Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress, during his 2004 Senate campaign: <blockquote> [Coburn] blamed much of the "dislocation of jobs from this country" on the quest to improve "options and stock profits for chief executives officers of multinational corporations." "They have no loyalty to America," Coburn said. "What they have a loyalty to is their own fortune." [...] Coburn's approach to slashing drug prices may not appeal to companies producing those drugs. "I would first of all have the pharmaceutical industry give us a justification for spending $7 billion on television advertising for drugs they can't get without a prescription," Coburn said. "If you eliminated that tomorrow, you'd cut the price of drugs 3.5 percent. "I would hold hearings in the Senate on the lack of competitive nature. Ask anybody. Go out and buy Aciphex, Protonix, Prilosec, Nexium and ask for the price, they're all priced within pennies of each other. They all do exactly the same thing. Why doesn't one of those pharmaceutical companies cut the price a whole lot to get more market share? Why haven't they? Because they're colluding, that's why. And so I would have oversight in terms of the lack of competition in the pharmaceutical industry." [Oklahoma City Journal Record Legislative Report, 4/5/04] </blockquote> That's a conservative Republican, running for office in one of the most conservative states in America, making an argument that would fit in at any Occupy rally: CEOs are padding their own profits at the expense of American workers, and big drug companies are guilty of price-fixing. Coburn's <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201107190009" target="_blank">solutions</a> tend to be run-of-the-mill right-wing anti-government nonsense that would devastate the poor and middle class in order to help those who need it least, like big oil companies. But his longstanding comfort launching rhetorical attacks on CEOs and <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201111160003" target="_blank">millionaires</a> helps explain the success of the Occupy protests: They tapped into sentiment common among conservatives as well as liberals, as a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/mitt-romney-poor-people_n_1250208.html?1328210544" target="_blank">new Pew survey shows</a>: <blockquote> Low-income Republican voters say the government does too little for poor people, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Over half of Republican-leaning registered voters earning less than $30,000 a year — 57 percent — say the government doesn't do enough to help the poor, while only 18 percent of these say it does too much, Pew found. [...] The poorer voters surveyed were much more likely to agree, however, with the statement that "a few rich people and corporations have too much power in the U.S." Among low-income Republicans polled, 70 percent agreed with that statement, compared with just 39 percent of wealthier likely Republican voters. </blockquote> Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020006 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:49:04 EST Does Mitt Romney Understand The World? http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202020004 Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney likes to talk a good game on foreign policy. He says that when he's president, America will once again be the greatest country in world, implying that we've fallen behind because of the policies of the Obama administration. After winning the Florida primary earlier in the week, he again <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/5-lessons-the-florida-primary-taught-us/2012/01/31/gIQAz82TgQ_blog.html">repeated</a> the "<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/">Pants on Fire</a>" claim that "President Obama has adopted a policy of appeasement and apology." Beyond the necessity of appeasing the base by attacking the incumbent president, Romney hasn't shown any meaningful knowledge of world affairs, much less demonstrated that he understands that the world around him is changing in dramatic ways and that as president, he'd have much less power to dictate how the world should be run. In a piece in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-post-american-world-demands-a-new-approach-from-the-us/2012/02/01/gIQAba5ziQ_story.html">Washington Post</a>, Fareed Zakaria highlights some of things candidate Romney should learn (or come to accept) in the weeks and months ahead if he actually wants to be taken seriously on foreign policy. <blockquote> Twenty years ago Turkey was a fragile democracy, dominated by its army, that had a weak economy constantly in need of Western bailouts. Today, Turkey has a trillion-dollar economy that grew 6.6 percent last year. Since April 2009, Turkey has created 3.4 million jobs - more than the European Union, Russia and South Africa put together. That might explain Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's confidence and his country's energetic foreign policy. Look in this hemisphere: In 1990, Brazil was emerging from decades of dictatorship and was wracked by inflation rates that reached 3,000 percent. Its president was impeached in 1992. Today, the country is a stable democracy, steadily growing with foreign-exchange reserves of $350 billion. Its foreign policy has become extremely active. President Dilma Rousseff is in Cuba this week, "marking Brazil's highest-profile bid to transform its growing economic might into diplomatic leadership in Latin America," the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. Brazil's state development bank is financing a $680 million rehabilitation of Cuba's port at Mariel. For three decades, India was unable to get any Western country to accept its status as a nuclear power. But as its economy boomed and Asia became the new cockpit of global affairs, the mood shifted. Over the past five years the United States, France, Britain and others have made a massive exception for New Delhi's nuclear program and have assiduously courted India as a new ally. I could go on. </blockquote> These three emerging powers are seeking a greater role in the international system. Turkey and Brazil, in particular, are charting independent foreign policies that might be in the best interest of their respective nations, but not always in line with Washington's objectives. India, too, which has strengthened military ties with the U.S., is sometimes unwilling to go along with U.S. policy. The country recently announced, for example, that it would <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-india-oil-exports-idUSTRE8110OS20120202">continue to buy</a> oil from Iran. So far on the campaign trail, Romney has had little to say about Turkey, Brazil, or India. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) foolishly said during a debate that Turkey was governed by "<a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201170009">Islamic terrorists</a>," Romney remained silent. He should have come to the defense of an important NATO ally, one that accepted <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/world/europe/turkey-accepts-missile-radar-for-nato-defense-against-iran.html">a missile defense system</a> on its soil and has sought to play a constructive role in the Arab Spring. Romney doesn't display the sort of nuanced understanding of foreign affairs that is critical to determining effective policy in the 21st century. In his worldview, you always agree with and work with your allies and constantly seek to isolate and undermine your foe and adversaries. But allies, especially critical allies, don't always behave the way you want them to. And sometimes, you need to work with foes and adversaries to achieve your larger goals. For instance, Romney, a <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/romney-blasts-new-start-treaty/">vocal critic</a> of the New START Treaty, might not comprehend that the administration's so-called reset with Russia is critical to isolating Iran. Romney has <a href="mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/fact-sheet-mitt-romneys-strategy-ensure-american-century">promised</a> to "reset President Obama's 'Reset' with Russia," meaning a reversal to the Bush administration's failed efforts at ignoring Russia and hoping that its power would magically go away. Romney just can't be taken seriously on foreign policy until he acknowledges that Latin America is more than Chavez and Castro, that the Middle East is more than Israel and Iran, and that as much as he might worry about Russia and the rise of China, the two Security Council countries are critical to doing anything meaningful on the world stage. On his campaign site, <a href="mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/fact-sheet-mitt-romneys-strategy-ensure-american-century">he pledges to</a> "deny Russia any control or veto over the system." Come on; that's ridiculous. Mitt Romney will tell his base what they want to hear. But it's clear that the Republican frontrunner is nowhere close to understanding how challenging it is to make policy in an ever-evolving world arena. Hackneyed rhetoric might sell <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich_n_1225937.html">on the campaign trail</a>, but it certainly won't at the United Nations or Geneva. Walid Zafar http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201202020004 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:19 EST Why Romney And The GOP Want To Convince You That The Poor Have Too Much Money http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020003 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/romneyreg.JPG" border="0" alt="Mitt Romney" width="125" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> Substantively, Mitt Romney's statement that he isn't concerned about poor people matches up perfectly with his policy proposals, which <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010007" target="_blank">demonstrate a callous disregard</a> for the wellbeing of anyone who isn't already well-off. But that doesn't mean Romney's comments were a sincere and straightforward articulation of his agenda: This is, after all, a candidate whose only sincere commitment is to <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/romneys-eerie-post-flip-flop-consistency.html" target="_blank">saying whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear</a>. And, indeed, Romney's explanation for his lack of concern about the poor was characteristically disingenuous, pointing to the very social safety net he proposes to destroy as evidence that we needn't be concerned for those who rely upon it.  More likely, Romney's comments were an invocation of a decades-long right-wing narrative designed to drive a wedge between the poor and middle class, to the benefit of a handful of wealthy elites. That narrative is an essential element of the right's approach to politics: After all, a movement that exists primarily to consolidate wealth and power in the hands of as few people as possible won't exist long without a successful divide-and-conquer strategy. Recognizing that they need the votes of more than just the nation's millionaires and billionaires — and that the middle class shows up to vote more reliably than the poor, <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201110040015" target="_blank">particularly</a> if you make it <a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/676110/gop-backed_voter_id_laws_are_preventing_poor_people_from_voting/" target="_blank">extremely difficult for the poor to do so</a> — conservatives have long worked to convince the middle class that the reason they are struggling is that the poor have it too good. Hence Ronald Reagan's apocryphal tales of Cadillac-driving "welfare queens": anything to distract the public from policies that redistribute wealth upwards, not downwards.<a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020003">More...</a> Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202020003 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:18:05 EST Meet Dutch Sheets, Another Gingrich Faith Adviser http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201202020002 <h3>Who Is Dutch Sheets?</h3> After Endorsing Newt Gingrich, Dutch Sheets Was Named To Gingrich's Faith Leaders Coalition. From a Newt Gingrich press release: <blockquote> Dutch Sheets has endorsed Newt Gingrich for president, and will be joining the Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition. Dutch Sheets is the author of 18 books, including the best seller Intercessory Prayer. Throughout his 34 years of ministry he has pastored, taught in several colleges and seminaries, served on the board of directors of numerous organizations and has become recognized as an international leader on the subject of prayer. In a statement, Pastor Sheets explained that his endorsement is for the "most important election of our lifetimes" "Newt Gingrich is only one that I can confidently say has the heart, experience, backbone, Constitutional brilliance, and intellectual strength to defeat Obama and lead America back to greatness" said Sheets. "The America we know and love-indeed, the America God and our founding fathers dreamed of and birthed-cannot survive another 4 years of the current leadership in Washington." [Newt Gingrich Press Release, <a href="http://blog.4president.org/2012/2012/01/pastor-dutch-sheets-endorses-newt-gingrich-for-president.html">1/25/12</a>, via blog.4President.org] </blockquote> Sheets: Election Of Obama Means "God Has Now Turned Us Over To Our Enemies. ... We Have A Muslim President." In a video uploaded to YouTube.com, Sheets says: <blockquote> Because I knew, when I saw this happening, and it finally occurred, it is not just going to bring further judgment on America. This is a part of the judgment. God has now turned us over to our enemies for a season. But He only does that— He only disciplines those He loves. He is not finished with America. He hasn't written us off unlike some people I hear. And we are not going to lose everything God has done in America. We are going to be on the forefront, cutting edge, of this great awakening that comes to the world. America has a role to play in this. We have a Muslim president. But God is going to-and maybe he's going to turn to God. We pray for him. Maybe he's going to turn and become a person God uses in more than just some of the ways that we appreciate [YouTube.com, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wD7OIjjALlI#!">10/31/11</a>] </blockquote> Sheets: "The Pro-Death, Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Islam, Humanistic Forces Have Cast Their Net Over Broad Portions Of Our Government." On his website, Sheets writes: <blockquote> Change is so imperative. The forces of the antichrist movement in America, who are also against what our founders envisioned, have been very focused and have made incredible gains in the past 50 years. Washington D.C. is indicative of those gains and the changes that are needed. I was there earlier this month for a prayer gathering. The spiritual atmosphere of the city was noticeable [sic] oppressive and "dark." The pro-death, pro-homosexual, pro-Islam, humanistic forces have cast their net over broad portions of our government, which they mock God and His word. [DutchSheets.org, accessed <a href="http://www.dutchsheets.org/">1/31/12</a>] </blockquote> Sheets: Terrible Things, Including Terrorism, War, And Natural Disasters, Will Happen In America Because We've Turned Away From God. From a letter Sheets wrote: <blockquote> If God brought corrective but serious judgment to Israel, we are horribly deceived if we think it will not happen to us. If something doesn't happen to lessen this judgment-and it can be lessened-we are headed for very difficult times. The economy is going to be devastated. The stock market will go well below where it went a few months back-a crash is coming, and soon. More terrorism and violence will occur in our land, perhaps even war. In my spirit I've seen buildings crumbling and cities burning. Devastating natural disasters will take place. In general, hard times will be prevalent. Why is this so? Because we have turned from God and His ways. Consider the true condition of America. This assessment is bleak but accurate. [ElijahList.com, <a href="http://elijahlist.com/words/display_word/8589">3/17/10</a>] </blockquote> Sheets: "We're Supposed To Try" To "Take Over Everything And Rule The Earth Completely For The Lord." From a sermon Sheets gave, uploaded to YouTube.com by Right Wing Watch: <blockquote> I'm not at all implying, as some try to teach, that we're gonna take over everything and rule the earth completely for the Lord and that He has to wait for that to happen until He returns. We're not teaching that. But we're supposed to try. It is our condition. I know there's gonna be sheep— there are gonna be sheep and goat nations. I'm not— there's no insinuation here that we're going to take over everything. But our assignment until He comes is to bring His kingdom rule into the earth so that our region looks like heaven again. [YouTube, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHx4Klkycs&feature=player_embedded">1/12/12</a>] </blockquote> <ul type="disc"> <li>Dominionists Believe Christians Should "Rule Earthly Institutions." As The Daily Beast's Michelle Goldberg writes: "Put simply, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism" target="_blank">Dominionism</a> means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America's most radical theocrats, it's long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing." [Daily Beast, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html">8/14/11</a>]</li> </ul> Media Matters Action Network http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201202020002 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:29:53 EST Sen. Coburn Blocks September 11 Memorial http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010009 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/coburnnervous.JPG" border="0" alt="Sen. Tom Coburn" width="130" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border: 1px solid black;" /> Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who previously <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201105190005" target="_blank">held up a bill providing benefits for sick 9/11 responders</a>, is now <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72292.html" target="_blank">blocking funding</a> for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at ground zero: <blockquote> Sen. Tom Coburn is blocking legislation that would provide $20 million a year in federal funding for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at ground zero, demanding that co-sponsors of the bill come up with cuts to pay for the spending, his office confirmed to POLITICO. "Our debt is our greatest national security threat, and Dr. Coburn makes no apologies for forcing Congress to make choices and avoid unnecessary borrowing," said John Hart, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Republican. "If providing federal funding for this effort is a critical national priority, the sponsors should pay for this effort by reducing spending on lower-priority programs. </blockquote> This is the kind of substantively meaningless stunt Coburn likes to pull: The $20 million in funding for the September 11 memorial is less than 0.001 percent of the federal budget. It would have essentially no effect on our debt. Coburn has built his reputation as a fiscal hawk by <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201109220007" target="_blank">grandstanding like this</a>.  If Coburn really wants to find a way to pay for the September 11 memorial, he could stop <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201109090008" target="_blank">standing in the way</a> of Democratic efforts to eliminate tax breaks that give five hugely profitable oil companies $2 billion a year. Eliminating those breaks would pay for the memorial, with $1.98 billion left over for deficit reduction. Of course, that would mean standing up to the oil and gas industry, Coburn's <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00005601&newMem=N" target="_blank">second-largest source of campaign funds</a>, so he'll probably just keep blocking the September 11 memorial instead. Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010009 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:06:33 EST Why Doesn't Rep. Issa Want Former ATF Chief Melson To Testify? http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010008 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/issasmirk.JPG" border="0" width="132" height="195" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border: 1px solid black;" /> In a <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf#page=4">letter</a> introducing the conclusions of the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff report on Operation Fast and Furious and other gunwalking operations conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) since 2006, ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) writes: <blockquote> The Committee also rejected my request to hold a public hearing with Kenneth Melson, the former Acting Director of ATF, the agency primarily responsible for these operations. Although Committee staff conducted an interview with Mr. Melson, the public has not had an opportunity to hear his explanations for why these operations continued for so many years without adequate oversight from ATF headquarters. </blockquote> If Oversight Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his committee's Republicans really want to get to the bottom of why these flawed ATF operations were allowed to take place and who knew about and approved them, why wouldn't they want the ATF's former leader to testify? Perhaps because it would give Melson a forum to publicly answer questions about one of the mysteries of the GOP's response to Fast and Furious: What were Republican congressmen told about the operation in a briefing Melson provided to them nearly two years ago, when the operation had already seen more than 1,000 firearms trafficked to Mexican drug cartels?<a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010008">More...</a> Matt Gertz http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010008 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:22 EST Mitt Romney's Policy Proposals Reflect Lack of Concern For Poor — And Middle Class http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010007 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/romneydebate.JPG" border="0" width="130" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> On CNN this morning, Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-im-not-concerned-with-the-very-poor/2012/02/01/gIQAvajShQ_blog.html" target="_blank">declared</a> that he is "not concerned about the very poor." That may seem like a stunningly out-of-touch statement coming from a quarter-billionaire who wants to be president, but Romney has been pretty clear about this all along. <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201050012" target="_blank">Romney's tax plan</a>, for example, would give those who earn more than $1 million a year a 14.5 percent increase in after-tax income, while those earning less than $20,000 would see their after-tax income go up less than 1 percent. That's the tax plan of a candidate who is far more concerned with lining the pockets of rich people like himself than with the ability of the very poor to afford food and shelter. (Romney's tax plan suggests he isn't very concerned about the middle class, either: People earning under $100,000 a year would get an increase in after-tax income of less than 4 percent — less than one-third the increase Romney and his fellow millionaires would get.) Romney's budget proposals demonstrate even greater disregard for the very poor — and the somewhat poor, and the middle class. In his speech in Florida last night, Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mitt-romneys-florida-republican-primary-speech-full-text/2012/01/31/gIQA8tYKgQ_blog.html" target="_blank">promised</a> that as president, "without raising taxes, I will finally balance the budget." But balancing the budget while enacting his tax policies and increasing defense spending — <a href="http://mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/10/fact-sheet-mitt-romneys-strategy-ensure-american-century" target="_blank">another Romney promise</a> — is only possible via massive cuts to programs that poor and middle-class families rely on.  According to the <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3658" target="_blank">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a>, Romney's plan would require cutting every program, including Social Security and Medicare, by 21 percent in 2016 and 36 percent in 2021. If Social Security were excluded from cuts, Romney would have to cut everything else, including Medicare, by 30 percent in 2016 and 54 percent in 2021. And that would have a devastating impact on America's poor and middle class, as CBPP explained: <blockquote> <ul> <li>Medicare would be cut by $153 billion in 2016 and $1.4 trillion through 2021.  Achieving cuts of this size solely through reducing payments to hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers would threaten beneficiaries' access to care. Thus, beneficiaries would almost certainly face large increases in premiums and cost-sharing charges.</li> <li>Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would face cumulative cuts of $946 billion through 2021. ... [I]t would leave 34 million people uninsured who would have gained coverage under health reform.</li> <li>Cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) would throw 10 million low-income people off the benefit rolls, cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or some combination of the two. These cuts would primarily affect very-low-income families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities.</li> <li>Compensation payments for disabled veterans (which average less than $13,000 a year) would be cut by one-fourth, as would pensions for low-income veterans (which average about $11,000 a year) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for poor aged and disabled individuals (which average about $6,000 a year and leave poor elderly and disabled people far below the poverty line).</li> </ul> </blockquote> Elaborating on his lack of concern for the poor, Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-im-not-concerned-with-the-very-poor/2012/02/01/gIQAvajShQ_blog.html" target="_blank">said</a>: "[W]e have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it, but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor." But Romney has a policy agenda that wouldn't strengthen those programs — it would tear even larger holes in the safety net.<a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010007">More...</a> Jamison Foser http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201202010007 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:44:17 EST New Book: Iran Sanctions Only If Coupled With Diplomacy http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201201310008 <img src="http://politicalcorrection.org/static/images/tparsi.jpg" border="0" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-left: 12px; float: right; border-image: initial; border: 1px solid black;" /> News on the Iran front is getting more and more complicated. I am not referring to the situation at Iran's nuclear facilities but to the one here in Washington, where Congress, deep into election-year fundraising and thinking about the March AIPAC policy conference, is crafting yet another sanctions bill. There is no reason to go into the details. But suffice it to say, this new set of sanctions, like the rest, will primarily hurt ordinary Iranians, not the government. As one Iranian citizen, writing under a pseudonym, described the situation this week in the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-view-iran-article-1.1013094?localLinksEnabled=false">New York Daily News</a>: <blockquote> These days, ordinary Iranians like my mother are becoming increasingly aware of a new economic reality in their lives. Sanctions already in place have plunged the country's economy into a crisis; more robust sanctions that will be enacted come spring on our financial system and oil trade will cause even more pain for an already-suffering populace. </blockquote> Isn't life in Iran difficult enough under the regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Why punish ordinary people more? Did we punish the Poles or the Bulgarians for living under communism? Did we punish the people of the Soviet Union because their government had a nuclear arsenal primed to destroy us? No. In fact, we <a href="http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Richard-M-Nixon-D-tente-with-the-soviet-union.html#b">gave</a> the people of those countries food. As President Richard Nixon (like President Ronald Reagan later) liked to remind us, our adversary was the leadership of the Soviet Union, not the average citizens in the different Soviet republics. But that is not how we have been approaching the Iran. Not by a long shot. In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Single-Roll-Dice-Obamas-Diplomacy/dp/0300169361/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327960462&sr=8-1">A Single Roll of the Dice</a>, a comprehensive new book about U.S.-Iran relations since President Obama came to office, Iran expert Trita Parsi examines the effect that the purely punitive approach (i.e., sanctions) can have on changing the Iranian government's behavior. Specifically, Parsi points out that "sanctions have become an alternative to policy" rather than an instrument of policy. He explains that "if diplomacy is pursued again" it must be "for the sake of resolving the conflict, not for the sake of creating an impetus for more sanctions." Abandoning a sole reliance on sanctions is Parsi's first of six recommendations for establishing a diplomacy track with Iran that will succeed. The second is "do not put unnecessary limitations on U.S. diplomats." Diplomats should not be limited to one official channel but should engage in dialogue with the multiple power centers that exist throughout the country. <blockquote> If direct engagement with these political centers and factions is not immediately possible, negotiators must be willing to give them time so as to neutralize these stakeholders' inclinations to scuttle a deal of which they were not a part. Pressuring Iran's fractured political system to give a quick "yes" usually results instead in "no." </blockquote> Unfortunately, Parsi's advice on this score has already been contradicted in the recently passed AIPAC-drafted sanctions law, which not only circumscribes a diplomat's ability to talk to Iranians but forbids any diplomacy without advance approval by congressional committees. (This patently unconstitutional provision is unlikely to withstand court challenge, although AIPAC certainly won't bless such a challenge.) Third, he says, the U.S. and its allies should accept that Iran will not abandon all enrichment of uranium, especially at levels that are necessary for medical reasons (radioactive isotopes) but are too low for use for weapons. Iran is already enriching uranium, so that train has already left the station. In fact, the United States has already accepted Iranian enrichment, but is under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to hold the line against any enrichment. Parsi writes: <blockquote> At this stage the only feasible negotiations are those regarding how enrichment in Iran can be inspected, verified, limited and controlled. </blockquote> Fourth, diplomacy cannot be limited solely to the nuclear issue but should also include the human rights situation: <blockquote> A healthy, sustainable relationship with Iran cannot be built if the current reservoir of American soft power among the Iranian population is squandered for the sake of a nuclear deal. Just as Iranians' respect and admiration for American achievements, values and culture would be jeopardized in the event of a military attack on Iran, silence on human rights will also likewise deplete this crucial strategic asset. </blockquote> Fifth, take advantage of our NATO ally Turkey's relationship with Iran: <blockquote> While Washington has been uncomfortable with Turkey's perceived leniency toward Iran, it has overlooked how Turkey's maneuvering has checked Iran's attempts to fill the vacuum caused by America's decline in the region. ... Instead of treating Turkey's approach with suspicion, Washington and the EU should utilize Turkey's ability to elicit Iranian cooperation. </blockquote> Finally, "Washington must play the long game, with a focus on the long-term benefits of engaging Iran and the dangers of noncommunication." This is not a radical idea as is evidenced by the message delivered by Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/20/324318/mullen-iran-any-channel/">said</a> last year, "We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other. If something happens, it is virtually assured that we won't get it right — that there will be a miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world." All the recommendations on Parsi's list can be summed up in one word: Talk. I'll add my own recommendation to the list: Do not back down when AIPAC barks or directs its congressional cutouts to scream bloody murder every time it suspects that the U.S. is considering diplomacy with Iran. I remember from my days at AIPAC that the thing it was most afraid of was that a president would break with the policy it dictated and explain to the American people why. As the former (and most effective) executive director of AIPAC, Thomas Dine, often said to me, "If the president takes to the airwaves and explains why his position is in the U.S. interest and the position we are pushing isn't, it will be us who folds, not him." I have only highlighted one section of Parsi's book, but the rest is just as smart and incisive. To date, it is the best book there is on U.S.-Iranian relations in 2012. Warhawks in Iran and Israel and neocons in Washington won't like this book (they will find Parsi's propensity for dividing blame among Iran, the United States and Israel maddening) but, for the rest of us, it provides just what we need — a well-written history of how we got to the brink of war with Iran and how we can still avoid it. I hope President Obama reads it; I have no doubt that he agrees with Parsi that diplomacy, not more pain and killing, is the answer to the looming threat of war. MJ Rosenberg http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201201310008 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:09:36 EST Rep. Issa Ties Himself In Fast And Furious Knots http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201310006 This morning, the Democratic staff of the House Oversight Committee <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5575:cummings-issues-report-detailing-five-years-of-gunwalking-operations-in-arizona&catid=3:press-releases&Itemid=49" target="_blank">released</a> a <a href="http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> finding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) failed Operation Fast and Furious was initiated by the ATF's Phoenix Field Division as part of a strategy dating back to the Bush administration, and that there is no evidence that senior officials in the Obama Department of Justice authorized gunwalking in that case. On Fox News this morning, Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) tried to invalidate the report's conclusions with an avalanche of flawed logic and hypocrisy.  <div class="im"> <div class="im"> <blockquote> ISSA: They released this last night around midnight, but last Friday in the dump done by the Justice Department late on Friday in order to avoid any kind of real review over the weekend, what they showed was that Lanny Breuer, on the very day that we were being given a false statement, February 4, he was in Mexico lobbying for continuation of gunwalking. So, you know, if you just read the administration's dump, which of course they undoubtedly had ahead of time, they would have known that their whole report was based on a premise that was false. ... Three days after the Friday dump, the evidence given to us, finally, by the administration, goes even further. It shows that Lanny Breuer was still a believer in Fast and Furious and programs like it.  </blockquote> Watch: <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="320" height="260" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,24,0"> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://politicalcorrection.org/embed/cfg2?f=/static/clips/2012/01/31/22707/fnc-hn-20120131-issalogic.flv" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="allownetworking" value="all" /> <param name="src" value="http://cloudfront.politicalcorrection.org/static/flash/pl52.swf" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="260" src="http://cloudfront.politicalcorrection.org/static/flash/pl52.swf" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="config=http://politicalcorrection.org/embed/cfg2?f=/static/clips/2012/01/31/22707/fnc-hn-20120131-issalogic.flv"></embed> </object> </div> Note Issa's very slippery use of the phrase "Fast and Furious and programs like it." He's using that turn of phrase because the <a href="http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2012/01/DOJdocs.pdf">documents in question</a> don't show that Breuer knew anything about the flawed gunwalking techniques used in Fast and Furious itself. Instead, Issa is referring to a suggestion made by Breuer during a meeting with Mexican law enforcement officials about the possibility of a <a href="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/response-issa-20120127.pdf#page=3">cross-border coordinated operation</a> in which U.S. law enforcement would follow suspected straw purchasers to the Mexican border, where they would be arrested by Mexican officials and prosecuted for illegal possession of guns. Curiously, Issa has previously explained how operations that involved coordination with Mexican authorities were "just the opposite" of Fast and Furious — when they occurred under the Bush administration. </div><a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201310006">More...</a> Matt Gertz http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201310006 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:39:09 EST