Pelosi Spins for Obama

Dear Representative Pelosi,

I received your letter this morning in response to my views on Syria. You point to “strong, clear, and compelling evidence that President Bashar Assad’s regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrian civilians.” That is not the issue; my objection was to the use of force rather than diplomacy. That a Nobel Peace Prize winning American president was so hell-bent to “punish Assad” that he had to be shamed and coerced into negotiations that actually address the core problem—and by the Russians no less!—is astounding and disheartening. Your implication of international support for a military strike—“the Assad regime crossed a red line – not President Obama’s red line – but the line the international community drew nearly a century ago”—is pure political spin; except for France, there was and is zero international support, including our own citizens—70% are opposed. As for the president’s demonstration of the “strength of his leadership and his willingness to exhaust every remedy before the use of force,” that too, is political fiction. While the world was calling for diplomacy rather than bombs, Obama and his faithful servants, including you, Representative Pelosi, were pounding the war drums; there was no talk either in Congress nor from the White House of negotiations or trying to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons until the Russians proposed a reasonable deal. Shame on all of you. Use this opportunity not just to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons but to negotiate a cease-fire. And instead of beating war drums, try beating peace drums for a change; begin working to outlaw not just chemical weapons but all weapons. As horrific and indiscriminate as chemical weapons are, Hellfire missiles, bombs, artillery shells and bullets are no less horrific and indiscriminate. Yes, perhaps 1,000 civilians were killed in the Aug. 21 attack, but what of the other 120,000 killed by conventional weapons? Yes, hundreds of children were killed but how many have we killed in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia with Hellfire missiles? How many thousands have our bombs and bullets killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? You were quoted in an article in the September 10 NYT (“Sharp Test Among Democrats of Loyalty to Obama,” p. A9): “I think war should be obsolete. I don’t think it is a reasonable way to resolve conflict. I think we should eliminate it as a possibility.” Why not work toward that end instead of rounding up votes for violence?
cc: President Barack Obama

9/11: Twelve Years Later

Dear Mr. President,

I’ve thought this week about how 9/11 altered history, what we’ve learned and how it changed us. Some things are obvious: in 12 years we’ve learned nothing and it’s changed us profoundly. Through ignorance, hubris and a blind lust for revenge, we invaded two countries without justification, wreaked violence and mayhem on their people, terrorized other countries with drones and Hellfire missiles, created new enemies, legalized torture, indefinite detention and targeted assassination, done away with habeas corpus and instituted the most pervasive surveillance state in human history. In our barbarity, we kill with impunity, ignore the rule of law and trample the Constitution. We’ve substituted force for foreign policy, traded freedom for the illusion of security, bankrupt our nation financially, spiritually and morally and become the main terrorist nation on the planet. The recent events in Syria have shown how automatic it is now to attack rather than negotiate or find a peaceful solution to problems. And we have yet to examine the causes of 9/11, to answer the rhetorical question “Why do they hate us?” that Bush posed and answered so flippantly and so incorrectly, a question that, considered seriously, might avert future 9/11s. We have spent trillions on war but barely begun to pay the price. More than 2 million Americans have cycled through war in Iraq and Afghanistan and 30% return from those wars suffering from PTSD. In the September 9 issue of the New Yorker, “The Return,” by David Finkel is an account of one of those soldiers who went to Iraq, lost his humanity, went numb to death, blind to brutality and now suffers from severe “moral injury.” The article follows him into a VA rehab unit, one of the few available to treat traumatized vets, where he and others try to grapple with their rage, their nightmares and their self-loathing. These men cannot escape the wars that politicians sent them to or what the military trained and ordered them to do. The article is a glimpse of what war really is, the violence, brutality and randomness of it, the unspeakable ugliness and barbarity of war that politicians call noble and honorable and heroic. There are half a million vets with PTSD. How do we bring them home? Or rather, how do we not send them in the first place? How do we outlaw not just chemical weapons, but all weapons? How do we outlaw war itself? If we never look at the roots of 9/11 how can we ever expect to end the cycle of violence?

Putin vs. Obama: Friend or Foe?

Dear Mr. President,

Either Vladimir saved your butt or pulled the rug out from under you. While you were making plans for war he was making plans for peace. I never thought I’d see the day when a Russkie president was more diplomat and peacemaker than a Nobel Peace Prize winning U.S. president. The NYT published an op-ed by him in today’s paper: “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” It made Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) “want to vomit” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/putin-op-ed-author-ketchum-nyt) but along with self-serving bullshit, Putin speaks some serious truths that need to be heard. That international law will be undermined if “influential countries…take military action without Security Council authorization.” That there are “few champions of democracy in Syria…but more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists.” That attacking another country for any reason except self-defense is a violation of international law and an act of aggression. That “military intervention in foreign countries has become commonplace for the U.S.” And that “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.” Putin is a ruthless, wily autocrat but he has stopped a military attack on Syria, a clear act of aggression by the U.S. and a violation of fundamental international law, and for that I applaud him. As a counterweight to Putin’s op-ed, the Times ran a page 1article (”As Obama Pauses Action, Putin Takes Center Stage”) to discredit his newfound diplomacy, pointing out his aggressive moves to “stamp out a growing protest movement and silence competing and independent voices…locked up illegal immigrants in a city camp, kept providing arms to the Syrian government…and gave refuge to Mr. Snowden.” How does this differ from crushing the Occupy movement, arresting Jill Stein so she would not appear at the presidential debates, prosecuting and harassing journalists, locking up whistle-blowers and arming rebel fighters in Syria? (Giving refuge to Snowden was a humanitarian act.) Finally, he hits at the root of our hubris and ignorance in his criticism of your speech Tuesday night: “I…disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the U.S.’s policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation….We are all different, but… we must not forget that God created us equal.”

The Obomber Club: Armageddon for Oil

Dear Mr. President,

Back from the G20 and nobody signed up. Even the Pope has come out against bombing Syria. Still just you and your French poodle, Hollande. I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that you just blew an opportunity to avoid more bloodshed and earn that ill-gotten Nobel Peace Prize. There you were in St. Petersburg with heads of state and all you lobbied for was to join the Obomber club. No attempt at diplomacy or peace. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), got it right the other day when he said, “We need some options out there that does something about the chemical weapons.” He proposed giving Assad 45 days to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and start destroying his stockpiles. (NYT, September 6, “Pentagon Ordered to Expand Potential Target With a Focus on Forces” p. A7) Seems more rational than punishment-bombing which is clearly a lose-lose proposition all around. It won’t change Assad’s mind (or “punish” him), will only create more chaos and misery, possibly widen the Syrian civil war into a region-wide secular war and give the extremist militants an opportunity to gain more power. Contrary to Kerry’s assurances that only 15-20% of the rebels are “bad guys,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) said the briefings he attended estimated that half the rebel fighters were extremists. (NYT, September 5, “Rebel Brutality In Syria Posing Dilemma In West” p.A1) If you’re hell-bent on bombing something, why not bomb the factories in Czechoslovakia, Holland, Russia, China and the U.S. that made and sold the chemicals to Syria that allowed them to make sarin, VX and mustard gas? (today’s NYT, “With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas” p.A1) None of your arguments hold water and your obsessive jihad to “punish” Assad has puzzled me. There’s a lot of theories out there but the one that makes sense to me is one by Nafeez Ahmed in an obscure environmental blog on the Guardian web site posted on August 30 (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines). It’s complicated but he pulls together interviews by Gen. Wesley Clark and former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, a 2008 RAND report and leaked diplomatic cables (thank you Chelsea Manning) to very clearly and succinctly lay out the case that it all boils down to the control and sale of oil and natural gas in the Middle East. Doesn’t it always come back to this? Armageddon for oil?

Feinstein Meets Bullrun

Dear Senator Feinstein,

Received your three responses last night to my views on Manning, Syria and my continuing concerns about the NSA. As usual, we disagree on everything but I want to address your letter assuring me that the collection of phone call records is perfectly legal, and that the oversight provided by the FISA court and, presumably, the Senate Intelligence Committee, is adequate. You reiterate that you are proposing legislation that will “enhance transparency and privacy protections.” I read your attached July 30 Washington Post op-ed which outlines your proposals; they merely tweak around the edges and do nothing to rein in an out-of-control agency. The latest revelations about the NSA appear in the lead article on page 1 of today’s New York Times (“N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web”) and documents yet another program called “Bullrun” which violates privacy and the 4^th Amendment. Bullrun enabled them to dictate worldwide encryption standards through stealth and subterfuge and guarantee the ability to read any encrypted message by either stealing encryption keys or coercing/forcing companies through court orders to hand them over. They have also guaranteed that both software and hardware have a back door that gives them access to networks before encryption or after de-encryption. I realize that the NSA’s primary mission is to break encrypted messages in order to protect the U.S., but when the agency was created in 1952, the intent was to spy on our perceived enemies, not on U.S. citizens. There is no longer such a thing as privacy. Every email, phone call and internet click, encrypted or not, can be read and analyzed by the NSA; the scope and capability of their spying makes the East German Stasi look lackadaisical by comparison. When will you stop defending the NSA and start defending We the People and the Constitution? One final note. Our views on Snowden are diametrically opposed but consider this from today’s article: “Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article…. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful privacy tools.” [italics mine] The Times is no fan of Edward Snowden but this is an implicit admission that his leaks are not acts of a traitor. Without Snowdens there would be no transparency, no information, no accountability and no democracy.

KerryHagelDempsey Convince the Gullibles

Dear Mr. President,
The Gullibles are falling in line. After private briefings and yesterday’s KerryHagelDempsey sideshow they’re convinced. But Gullibles are easily convinced. I listened to some of the hearing. Assurances that the intel is solid, “proof beyond a shadow of a doubt,” to do nothing is morally indefensible and will endanger NATIONAL SECURITY! So the Gullibles will go along to get along and approve an Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. As I listened, I kept thinking this was a slightly altered rerun of a show that played in 2003, that one better done on the stage of the UN with Colin Powell presenting evidence that Saddam had WMDs and if we didn’t act now he’d use them on us. Powell showed us satellite imagery, documents, diagrams, photos, even played audio, conversations proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had a robust nuclear program and stockpiles of WMDs. Powell had facts and he showed them. They were wrong, of course; there were no WMDs but the hawks got their war and here we are again, 10 years later, the same shell game only shabbier, less convincing and without proof, just speculation, assumptions and circumstantial evidence. Trust Me is the heart of the argument but there’s all those nagging contradictions. Like Kerry’s claim that the rebels are becoming more moderate when the opposite is true. Or that MSF verified that the Syrian government used Sarin in the attack while the group says they have no first-hand evidence. Or that opposition forces haven’t used chemical weapons when the UN has concluded they have. Or the numbers killed in the attack: the U.S. claims 1,429; Britain says “at least 350”; the French “at least” 281” and the rebels “up to 1,300.” Maybe Assad’s forces did everything you accuse them of but we’ve been lied to for so long by our government that trust no longer exists and truth is scarce as hens’ teeth. And what about the UN prohibition of military force without Security Council authorization except in self-defense? It takes precedence over all other international laws, even the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. If you ignore the UN’s most fundamental rule, you undermine the UN and open the way for others to do the same. And for what? There is no win in this for anyone, least of all the Syrian people. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always the rule in war, so get those boots ready to put on the ground, Mr. President. Here we go again.

Congress Sings "Obombem" in Two-Party Harmony

Dear Mr. President,
The choreographers and speechwriters are hard at work polishing talking points and lining up politicians. The play is about to begin. McCain and Graham first. Deference to old warhawks, recalcitrant Republicans vowing a Nay vote on a limited strike; demanding regime change. You meet, assure them that “limited” is flexible, expansive, includes air strikes, rockets, missiles, who knows what. They fall in line, they’re good to go. Now Boehner, Cantor and Pelosi, House leaders sing in two-party harmony—they’re good to go, too. Faithful party hack Pelosi adds that she doesn’t think Congressional approval is necessary. Shredding the Constitution is a bipartisan sport. She also declares the August 21attack “outside the circle of civilized behavior.” Is raining 216 cruise missiles on a country that poses no threat to America within the circle of civilized behavior? All day, Hagel and Kerry work Congress and one legislator after another is “satisfied,” “reassured,” “comfortable.” You found the one issue with bipartisan support—war. An unclassified report, “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013” released Friday is on the White House web site. “We assess with high confidence” and “U.S. government assessment” dominate the report but there are no details, no proof and no evidence. It’s clear the intelligence came from those old reliable assessors, the CIA and the ever-truthful NSA. The more I read the less convinced I was and then I came to this: “We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.” But UN inspectors reported they have and I think maybe Putin et al, is right, that the chemical attack was not from the military but an accident by rebel fighters who received chemical weapons from Saudi Arabia and didn’t know how to handle them. Of course, “national security” prohibits revealing details: no names, no maps, no photos or videos, no transcripts of calls, nothing that might convince a reasonable person. And then there’s the moral issue. You’re right to be outraged at the photos of dead children, victims of the attack. But your outrage is selective, Mr. President, absent when the children killed are victims of American drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen or Afghanistan. Is it okay to kill children with Hellfire missiles or cruise missiles or 50-caliber machine guns from helicopters and C-130 gunships but not okay to kill them with chemical weapons? Is there really a moral difference?