5 Quick Political Facts for Today (3/2/15)

Can’t avoid the impending Iran deal and the circus now around it but more good news on gay marriage.

  • Climate change was a contributing factor to the war inside SyriaThis has been suggested before but now a team of scientists put together a report explaining this fact for the world to understand.  They also mention refugees arriving from Iraq as a contributing factor (who caused that again?).  But it’s cool everybody because all we have to do is send senile Senator Inhofe over to Syria with a few snowballs and this whole mess will be cleared up quickly.  Peace is on the way!
  • Netanyahu’s lies are starting to sink him.  A great video on AJA appeared today giving you 5 things he will refuse to admit when he testifies to Congress and is worth watching to give you a quick version of why we should barely pay attention to him.  The Intercept also put together a good piece pointing out the many times he has “cried wolf” over the years.  Both pieces mention his testimony to Congress about Iraq’s advanced nuclear technology in 2002.  Listening to Netanyahu about other country’s nuclear ambitions is like listening to idiot preachers continually predicting the end of the world.  No matter how many times these tools are wrong, the foolish still think they speak the truth.

    See this 90%? That’s the percentage of things I say about Iran that are utter lies. The 10% that is truthful is when I say the name of the country correctly.
  • John Boehner is one of the foolish and can’t hide it.  Boehner defended his invite to Netanyahu by stating “Congress wants to support Israel and wants to hear what a trusted ally has to say”.   Yes, because Bibi has no way of transmitting his message to Congress in any other way than to give a speech there during an Israeli election year.  No one will put a camera on him or a microphone in front of his mouth.  Poor fella.  It was like he was a ghost prior to giving his speech.  By the way, Mr. Speaker.  What is the cost of this versus, say, a conference call with Bibi?  I mean, you guys are fiscal conservatives so this is the cheaper route, correct?
  • Iran is and has been a rational actor throughout all of this and there is no evidence they are pursuing a nuclear weapon.  An excellent read from The Atlantic focusing on this reality but one section is worth quoting here and should be constantly noted about the situation:

That’s why the Bush administration’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said Iran is “guided by a cost-benefit approach.” It’s why Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2012 that “we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.” It’s why Benny Gantz, then head of the Israel Defense Forces, declared the same year that “the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.” It’s why Meir Dagan, the longtime head of Israel’s intelligence agency, called the Iranian regime “rational” in an interview with 60 Minutes. And it’s why Ron Burgess, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that “the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or provoke a conflict.” Could all these men, who analyze intelligence about Iran for a living, be wrong?

  • Nebraska’s ban on gay marriage has been struck down by the courts.  Another state is added to the ranks of those on the right side of history.  I guess they wanted to be able to say they legalized gay marriage prior to the Supreme Court legalizing it across the nation this coming June.  No reason, at this point, to be a state that has to be drug kicking and screaming across the finish line by the federal government.

5 Quick Political Facts for Today (2/15/15)

  • John Boehner apparently has no idea what goes on in Congress despite being the Speaker.  Boehner stated it was important to investigate Benghazi again because some questions haven’t been answered, like these:

“Why wasn’t the security for our embassy in Libya given to our ambassador after repeated requests the night of the event,” Boehner continued. “Why didn’t we attempt to rescue the people that were there? Why were the people there told not to get involved?”

All of those questions have already been answered and answered multiple times by the Congress Boehner allegedly leads.  Maybe he didn’t notice the last report since the Republicans strategically released it on a Friday late in the day so the news cycle wouldn’t pick it up.  This was done, of course, since it debunked every argument they’ve made about questions still existing about the attack.  Regardless, the propaganda machine continues…

  • Republicans further show their immoral and disgraceful position on hard-working immigrants.  The GOP is out to stop immigrants with children who have worked jobs and paid taxes to the government for years from getting proper benefits for their contributions.  And it should be noted that many illegals have paid taxes and been a boost to federal tax coffers, particularly since they get little out of federal programs.  Some other commonly believed myths are busted in the article and should always be pointed out when discussing the issue:

Over the past decade, immigrants in the U.S. illegally have paid an estimated $100 billion in Social Security payroll taxes, even though few will ever be able to collect benefits…At least half are paying income and payroll taxes…Even if these immigrants pay taxes, they are ineligible for most federal programs. They cannot legally get food stamps, unemployment benefits, Pell grants or federal student loans. They cannot get Medicaid, except for emergency medical services, and are ineligible for subsidies under Obama’s health law.

  • Shiites are now reacting to ISIS brutality with brutality of their own, which has been going on since “Mission Accomplished”.  If people chose to ignore the fact that Shiite death squads were executing Sunnis in Iraq as soon as Saddam Hussein was out of power, that’s their choice to be ignorant.  But violence begets violence and that situation forced people to turn to more violent groups like ISIS so they could take revenge for the countless murders of their friends and families.  This isn’t to say it was/is right for anyone to join an extremist group or death squad.  But it does show how horrible the U.S. plan for post-invasion Iraq was just an absolute disaster and there is little that can be done by the U.S. to fix this bloody situation now.  And with this vicious reaction by Shiites against Sunnis, this situation is continuing to get worse.
  • The West is still disgracefully and inexplicably supporting the brutal monarchy in Bahrain.  Great piece by one of the activists for change in Bahrain who recently had his citizenship taken away from him after years of punishment, including torture, for expressing his opinion and calling for a better government in his home country.  It is a very reasonable question to ask why the West continues to display such hypocrisy on democracy when it comes to certain areas of the world.  (Spoiler alert: it’s oil.)
  • Egypt purchases military planes from France at the expense of its people.  I mentioned the purchase of the Rafale fighters a few days ago but this article points out two further realities of the purchase.  First, it’s not needed: “One thing is very clear,” says (Jon) Alterman (senior vice president and director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies). “On the basis of national priorities there is no military urgency to buy more combat aircraft.”  Second, by spending the money on the military instead of infrastructure or social programs (clearly taking a cue from the U.S., unfortunately), this means the spending won’t go to put Egypt’s unemployed to work, which includes more than half of its citizens under the age of 25.  Stupid priorities now will equal a bad situation in the future.

Embarrassingly Stupid Attack by Boehner’s Gov Page on Obama’s Foreign Policy

John Boehner’s government page decided to continue the attacks on President Obama’s alleged foreign policy failures by using a curious strategy: showing how much of an idiot Boehner, himself, is on foreign policy.

Let’s address the lunacy included in the post:

When Libya became leaderless, America infamously led from behind – then our posts in Benghazi were attacked.

I’m assuming Boehner wanted an American invasion to sort things out in Libya, which I’m sure would have been wildly popular among the voters (not really).  If only we had invaded to install a leader the U.S. liked and approved, everything would have been peaceful forever, just like in Iraq (not really).  The post also fails to mention the reason Libya became leaderless was because of Obama approving airstrikes that helped oust Gaddafi.  As for Benghazi, I’ll get to that.BO

The reset button with Russia was an embarrassing failure, underscored when a hot mic caught President Obama’s assurances to Vladimir Putin that he’d have “more flexibility” after the 2012 election. In Syria, the president didn’t bother to enforce the red line he established, and then turned to Russia for a political lifeline. Emboldened, Putin muscled his way into Ukraine.

First off, concerning Russia, the “flexibility” statement was technically made to Medvedev, not Putin.  Splitting hairs a bit but factually inaccurate.

Secondly, the Cold War ended a couple decades ago, a fact that the warfare queens on the right still ignore much of the time.  The statement was regarding missile defense and taking steps away from that whole “mutually assured destruction” thing, something we should all crave from our leaders.

Thirdly, Boehner chooses to completely ignore something else that probably emboldened the Russians even more: the feeble reaction of the U.S. government to Russia’s invasion of Georgia.  Why would he not include that?  Maybe because it happened three months before Obama was elected president and five months before he took the Oath of Office.

Then there is Syria.  I’m assuming Boehner is ignoring the explosive Seymour Hersh article detailing why the U.S. did not attack Syria.  In fact, if he wants to prove the Hersh points wrong and show we should have attacked Syria over the use of chemical weapons, he should be calling for the release of all documents showing what the CIA was doing in Benghazi prior to the attack.

The post also fails to point out the Syrian regime did give up its chemical weapons under threat of increased international intervention.

Then President Obama set five elite terrorist commanders free from U.S. custody.

Zero mention of getting a tortured American home for this exchange.  Zero mention of the Afghanistan war coming to an end and trading prisoners at the end of wars.  Zero mention they were released to the custody of Qatar, not immediately set free.  And if these five were so “elite”, why not ask for them to be put on trial to show how provable their elite abilities are in a court of law?

Then there is the point of ISIS gaining ground in Iraq.  The criticism of the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq on false pretenses is obviously ignored here but something else should be asked.  What exactly was being done about the Shiite death squads and brutal suppression of the Sunnis in Iraq by the previous administration after the invasion?  It’s as if that has nothing to do with what is happening now.

Sometimes, it’s just amazing what ridiculous claims the right will make.

Boehner’s Op-ed: Propaganda and Fantasy

After reading John Boehner’s op-ed in the Washington Post today, one wonders how much farther he will go with his outlandish rhetoric to continue to sell his bad ideas.  The idea Boehner is trying to push with this article is the president should goad his party into believing the bad ideas of the right on the economy, the same ideas that created the financial mess in the first place.

The first chuckle I got out of the piece was the mention of the “No Budget, No Pay” deal where Congress must pass a budget or else they lose their pay.  This might be devastating to the members of Congress if, of course, it wasn’t practically a requirement to be rich before you got there.  Since the average Congressperson is “worth an average $966,001 each, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics“, I’m pretty sure they aren’t too concerned about losing their pay for a while.  The notion this type of legislation will sway Congress into action is ridiculous.  I have a better solution.  Since they’re all rich to begin, how about a new bill that says members of Congress can only make the equivalent of the federal minimum wage based on a 40 hour work week?  I mean, if teachers don’t deserve good pay and benefits because they should want to do the job, shouldn’t the same logic apply to the people in Congress?

Then Boehner makes this laughable statement:

I don’t underestimate the difficulty of this task, especially given that Senate Democrats have no interest in balancing the budget. The president also doesn’t share the goal of a balanced budget, despite frequent talk of a “balanced approach.”

No interest in balancing the budget?  Funny, I seem to remember a certain party laying down and going right along with the president as deficits exploded under the previous administration.  Let’s see, who went along with that in the previous decade when his party was in full control of the government?…Who was it?…Coming to me…Oh, yeah.  John Boehner.  This same statement could have been made during the Bush administration (and probably was, I’m sure) by just changing the word Democrats to Republicans.  The shoe just changes feet it seems.

After all of this, we are then hit with the big delusions of the piece.  Boehner first mentions how the “economy continues to limp along” despite a continually improving unemployment rate and a booming stock market.  These things shouldn’t be happening, according to the right, since the big tax increase was passed in the fiscal cliff deal.  Expect that they are.  Strange how they were wrong on that.  Guess we should believe the other snake oil they sell, right?

I can only assume he means “limping along” for a certain segment of the population.  But which?  Wall Street is hitting record highs so clearly it is not the wealthy.  I suppose his concern is with the lower economic classes of people who are in need of things like entitlements to stay on stable ground financially while the storm passes.  So he must want to shore up those entitlements, correct?  Nope:

Despite enacting $650 billion worth of tax hikes in January, they (Democrats) would rather raise taxes again and tinker around the edges on entitlements — if at all…This is not how we’ll fix Washington’s spending problem. The president knows that. During our debt discussions in 2011, he supported such reforms as raising the Medicare eligibility age and achieving savings in Medicaid. (Emphasis added)

We shouldn’t just “tinker around the edges”?  “Achieving savings in Medicaid”?  A brilliantly worded piece of propaganda that actually means cutting funding from the program and cutting it deeply, not just “tinker”.  If you’ll click on the link in the quote, you’ll see he is actually referring to the “$650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security” that was debated during the fiscal cliff negotiations.  In other words, he is worried about the economy “limping along” for certain portions of the population and he wants to help those people by cutting more funding from the programs they need and do this while the rich are getting richer off of a record high Dow climb.  And more tax hikes on those wealthy folks are out of the question because it will crash the economy just like the fiscal cliff tax hikes didn’t (in reality).  Or did (in fantasyland).  Or didn’t (again, what actually is occurring).

John Boehner apparently wants to help the people toward the bottom using the same old tried and failed right-wing policies and I think the people at the bottom have an answer: please stop your helping ways.