Iraq War Officially Over

I've been trying to figure out what I want to say about the end of the Iraq War all day. It seems simultaneously enormously important and curiously small, the final bulletpoint in an eight-year war that was supposed to last six months.

I did not support the war, in which than 1.5 million US troops eventually served, more than 30,000 of whom were injured, many of them catastrophically, and more than 4,500 of whom died, but I appreciate the service of the people who fought it, [TW] most of whom did the jobs asked of them with decency.

The numbers of injured, dead, and displaced Iraqis are not so certain. To the people of Iraq, most of whom also comported themselves with decency, even in circumstances that would challenge anyone's will to be decent, I hardly know what to say, except that I'm sorry.

I just don't know that there's anything I could write, nothing that isn't some trite bit of partisan opportunism. No one wonders who I blame for this mess. I don't need to say it again.

So here is a picture of President Obama, at Fort Bragg, celebrating with the troops that he brought home.


There are still 15,000 troops in Iraq, and US foreign policy is still a garbage disaster, but, right now, in this moment, I just want to enjoy the image of our President, welcoming the troops home.

Fourteen Senators Are Mad As Hell

Okay, they're not mad as hell; they are Democrats, after all. (And one Independent.) But they're definitely at least mildly displeased with the HHS' absurd decision regarding Plan B and with President Obama's support of that decision, so they have written a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting a scientific explanation for her decision:

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter. We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.

As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.

We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.

The letter is signed by Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Daniel Akaka (HA), Carl Levin (MI), John Kerry (MA), Tom Harkin (IA), Al Franken (MN), and Frank Lautenberg (NJ). Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is an Independent and caucuses with Senate Democrats, was the fourteenth signatory.

Greg Sargent quite rightly notes that the letter "is strongly worded stuff, particularly when directed at a Democratic president. It stops just short of accusing the Obama administration of deliberately ignoring science in making this decision. It also puts the administration in an awkward spot. Either it produces a scientific rationale that's acceptable to these Senators, which will will be extremely difficult at best, or it will face more criticism for failing to justify its policy, reinforcing the sense that this Democratic administration abandoned science and put politics first."

This is the last thing the President needs in an election year—which is something he should have thought of before throwing women and trans men under the bus. Again.

Indefinite Military Detention: Revised Defense Bill Still Gives President Authority To Lock Up Citizens ~ Bill Expected to Pass This Week

Snip ~ The legislation is likely to pass the Senate and the House this week.

December 13, 2011

Indefinite Military Detention: Revised Defense Bill Still Gives President Authority To Lock Up Citizens

Washington, Congress would give the president ultimate authority to detain American citizens indefinitely in military custody under the final version of a defense bill expected to pass this week.

The National Defense Authorization Act was facing the threat of a presidential veto after the White House complained that it restricted the administration's ability to fight terrorism and raised "serious and unsettled legal questions." The conference committee working out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill added and amended several provisions in an attempt to produce legislation that would pass muster with President Barack Obama, who appealed personally for fixes.

But the version released Monday night still contains the authority to indefinitely imprison suspects linked to al Qaeda or associated groups, including citizens captured in the United States.

"We have [in the bill] the authority to detain without charge or trial terrorism suspects," said Raha Wala, a lawyer with the Law and Security Program of the group Human Rights First. "There aren't any material changes to the indefinite detention provision," he said in a conference call organized by the progressive National Security Network.

Continues ...read more ..

To try to meet the White House's concerns, lawmakers shifted the responsibility for granting waivers under the legislation from the Defense Department to the president. They also added language to state that civilian law enforcement retains the authority to investigate and interrogate terrorism suspects, even though the bill requires that those suspects be held by the military.

Opponents argued that although agencies like the FBI would still be allowed to investigate in theory, the compromise could prove unworkable in practice. They questioned how civilian authorities will work with their military counterparts, who could take over any terror-related case unless the president grants a waiver.

"What does that actually mean in practice?" asked Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network. "It's unclear, and the people who have to implement it think it's unclear, and it's just inviting years of litigation. ... In some ways, it makes it even worse."

"The national security establishment really comprehensively rejects these provisions as representing the militarization of our justice system," Hurlburt added. "You're deliberately throwing things back into the courts, which is a very strange thing to be seeing."

Proponents have argued that the bill is designed is to spell out what is already being done so that there is less uncertainty surrounding counterterrorism efforts. They say that the military needs clear authority to ensure that the ever-changing terrorist threat can be met. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared as the Senate passed its version that the bill affirms that "the homeland is part of the battlefield."

In an effort to soothe those worried about American liberties, the Senate had already added a provision that said the detainee measure will not affect current law regarding Americans.

But current law remains unsettled. One American accomplice of al Qaeda who was held in military detention was Jose Padilla. An appeals court ruled that he could be held by the military, but the Bush administration transferred him to a civilian court before the issue advanced to the Supreme Court. Padilla was convicted in federal court, one of more than 400 such terrorism convictions since 9/11 that would, for the most part, become much more difficult under the latest legislation.

The bill also bars the expenditure of any funds to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for terrorism suspects, which likely would have to be expanded to hold all the people who could no longer remain in the U.S. court system.

U.S. allies have already complained that they do not want to turn over suspects or information that leads to imprisonment at Guantanamo, Hurlburt said, arguing that such concerns are yet another roadblock to counterterrorism efforts.

White House officials were still weighing whether to veto the new bill, which authorizes the budget and sets policy for the Defense Department. The budget itself is expected to pass separately later this week in a larger legislative package to fund the government.

Opponents of the bill said the distinction between the budget and budget authorization is key because presidents have vetoed the authorization in the past, most recently in 2007, while funding still went forward, allowing the military to function.

"We're hoping the president reiterates his veto threat," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. He argued that if President Obama signed the legislation, the authority to indefinitely detain suspects, including citizens, would become a permanent abridgment of rights.

"This would make this authority permanent. And given how broadly this definition of covered persons has been written, this is something that this president would have if he signs this into law. ... It also means that this is authority that any future president will have for decades to come," said Anders.

Even some members of the conference committee that produced the final bill were disturbed by the detention provisions.

"I do not support the two flawed detention provisions," said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) in a statement Tuesday on the measure that was shepherded along by the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"I appreciate that Senators Levin and McCain heard the concerns I raised -- which were echoed by the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and the directors of the FBI and CIA -- and made some changes to reduce the harm those provisions would do to national security," Udall said. "Those changes alleviate some, but not all, of my concerns. Therefore, when signing the conference report, I explicitly stated that I do not support sections 1021 and 1022 on detention."

The legislation is likely to pass the Senate and the House this week.

link

Tuesday U.S. Senate ~ Tax Cut Bill Expected to Pass On Tuesday ...

Snip ~ "Republicans are widely seen as using Keystone as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Democrats over how to pay for the $120 billion cost of the payroll tax cut. Democrats are pushing for a surtax on millionaires to pay for it, which almost all Republicans reject"

December 12, 2011

Republican Keystone, tax cut bill expect to pass on Tuesday

Washinton, A Republican bid to force President Barack Obama to speed up approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline project looked set to pass the House of Representatives on Tuesday but will likely stall in the Democratic-controlled Senate, aides said.

Republicans have linked the proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline to President Barack Obama's efforts to extend a payroll tax cut for workers. Some economists warn that allowing the tax cut to expire could damage a fragile U.S. economic recovery.

The top Republican in Congress, Speaker John Boehner, said on Monday he was confident the House would pass a Republican measure that includes extending the tax cut beyond this year and sets a deadline for a decision on the fate of the delayed pipeline, which has drawn fire from environmentalists.

Boehner did not predict Senate passage, but told reporters, "I think we have a good shot."

Continues ...read more ..

For the House bill to win Senate approval, 13 Democrats would need to join the chamber's 47 Republicans to provide the needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle. Only a handful of Democrats are expected to vote yes, aides said.

The State Department effectively slammed the brakes on the Republican effort on Monday. It said plans to fast-track the Keystone XL decision would violate environmental laws and force it to withhold approval.

"Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision ... the department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project," the State Department said in a statement.

Republicans are widely seen as using Keystone as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Democrats over how to pay for the $120 billion cost of the payroll tax cut. Democrats are pushing for a surtax on millionaires to pay for it, which almost all Republicans reject.

"There will be an agreement," a Republican aide said.

"It's just a matter of when," a top Democratic aide added.

Congress is due to go on holiday on Friday but may remain in session through next week if a deal remains elusive. Obama has also said he will delay his vacation in Hawaii to stay in Washington to secure an agreement.

The 4.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay to fund the Social Security retirement program will return to 6.2 percent if Congress fails to act by month's end. That would hike taxes on 160 million Americans an average of $1,000 per family.

Obama and fellow Democrats have led the charge to extend the tax break, cranking up political heat on Republicans to join in or face a voter backlash in the 2012 elections.

Chris Krueger of Guggenheim Securities' Washington Research Group, a private firm that tracks Washington for investors, said the Keystone project has helped put "Republicans on offense."

"They were getting clubbed before they dropped this into the negotiations," Krueger said. "Ultimately, it will likely get dropped but it will keep coming up in future negotiations".

Keystone backers, including trade unions normally friendly to Democrats, say the project would make the U.S. more energy independent and help create about 20,000 jobs to lower the stubbornly high U.S. unemployment rate, now at 8.6 percent.

Obama has delayed a decision on the pipeline project, pending further environmental studies. That would push the decision past next year's election and allow him to avoid angering environmentalists ahead of the campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, may offer an alternative to the House Republican bill, one that renews the payroll tax and extend jobless benefits without the Keystone provision, aides said.

But that will also likely fail, triggering negotiations between Reid and Boehner.

Aides and lawmakers say there are several areas for possible compromise in the final bill, which would also renew jobless benefits that are set to begin to expire on December31.

Republicans want to boost fees paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored entities that are the biggest providers of U.S. mortgage financing. This would save the Treasury about $38 billion and could win Democratic support.

link

Obama meets Maliki today in Washington ~ And Wednesday to announce his troops end Iraq war ...

December 12, 2011

Obama meets Maliki today in Washington .. And Wednesday to announce his troops end Iraq war

Iraqi Prime Minister began yesterday, and described the visit as «historic», because it coincides with the departure of the U.S. military from Iraq, and to resolve the many differences, and to chart the nature of future relations between the two countries, in light of rapid changes in the region.

Maliki will meet today with U.S. President Barack Obama, the day after tomorrow will go Obama to Fort specular (North Carolina) to receive the regiment of new troops returning to Iraq, and announces to the troops end the war in Iraq, although the survival of thousands of troops to help the Iraqis in the training of their armed forces.

A statement issued by the White House for Obama's visit to Fort specular: We are putting a definitive end to the U.S. war in Iraq this month, the president wants to talk directly to members of the armed forces and their families, imitators of those who will meet them at Fort specular». The statement added: President will talk about the tremendous sacrifices and achievements of the brave Americans who participated in the war in Iraq.

Continues ...read more ..

Will talk about the extraordinary event which is to end the war.

The statement said the base was chosen as a symbol of the withdrawal of it played a key role during the war in Iraq, and made members of the armed forces and their families a great service to our country.

It is planned that the Iraqi prime minister talks with Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in addition to members of Congress and U.S. business, where the talks will touch upon several issues including security, energy, education and justice.

Said White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Maliki and Obama will discuss the departure of U.S. troops to Iraq and our efforts to open a new page in the framework of the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq.

He added that President salutes the sacrifices of all those who served in Iraq and the Iraqi people to get to the promise we made friendship consolidating U.S. - Iraq at the time we end the war in Iraq. This is the third visit to Nuri al-Maliki to the United States as prime minister, was the first visit of the owners to Washington took place in July 2006 while the country was mired in the deadly sectarian violence, which killed tens of thousands, followed by a visit in July 2009 after the withdrawal of U.S. forces from centers the cities.

Observers said in Washington that the White House deliberately put Obama's meeting with al-Maliki ahead of Obama's visit to the military base to tell Obama of the troops, and the American people, that the Iraqis are satisfied with what is happening.

Because of the criticism of Obama that he hurried withdrawal, particularly because of the strained U.S. relations - Iranian and U.S. accusations to Iran that it wants to control Iraq after the U.S. withdrawal. The observers that Obama will deliver speeches before the end of the year, to focus on that in the promise was made during the campaign year 2008 to withdraw the troops. Also, Obama will focus on during the election campaign next year when re-run.

In spite of that the meeting of Obama and Maliki will address the issue of Iran after Washington imposed new sanctions against Iran, and also the Syrian issue because of the desire of the United States in Iraq's accession to the decisions of the Arab League to impose sanctions on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, observers expect to be the future of relations U.S. - Iraq is the central subject.

The media adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister, Ali al-Moussawi, told the French press: This will be his first visit, a leader of the state in which no foreign forces can rely on the same full. He added: We will discuss all aspects of cooperation and open new horizons for relations between Baghdad and Washington after it was ruled by military matters. The accompanying Maliki on his visit, Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, the chief advisers, Thamer Ghadban, and national security adviser, Falah Al-Fayad.

The White House announced, ten days ago, the draft agreement which was agreed upon by the parties for the post-withdrawal. The draft says that the two countries are committed to establishing a strong partnership based on mutual interests, which will continue to grow in the coming years. Countries are now entering a new phase in our relations, and we have a historic opportunity to strengthen our relations beyond the security side, the aim of building a multi-faceted relations through trade, education, culture, law enforcement and clean environment, energy and other important areas.

The observers in Washington that the agreement be signed by President Obama comes after three years of an agreement signed by former President George W. Bush, a «Strategic Framework Agreement». In that Convention agreed to «establish a strong long-term relations of cooperation and friendship.

She described the agreement as «the basis of a lasting relationship and mutual benefits, based on the principles of cooperation, and sovereignty, mutual respect.

Two weeks ago, during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden, Iraq, and his meeting with Maliki, discussed a draft final agreement. The two sides agreed to work together to implement its provisions. The items, in addition to the cultural, economic, and oil, an item on the «diplomatic cooperation. And that the United States will continue close cooperation with Iraq in the international fora in order to achieve common interests.

And the United States also reaffirms its support for efforts to resolve all remaining issues of Chapter VII (a reference to the Security Council sanctions imposed on Iraq under former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein).

For his part, said Adnan al-Sarraj, a member of a coalition of state law, led by Nuri al-Maliki, told «Middle East» «There's a lot of important files to be examined by the Prime Minister with the U.S. administration, from the premise that the United States left their mark on the political reality and the Iraqi military, and therefore it is essential to define the basis of this relationship in light of these facts, especially now that the Americans are about to complete a withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year.

And about the relationship of Iran - the U.S. - Iraq and whether it will be discussed in this visit, he explained OS that these important issues, according to my information, the al-Maliki will make clear to American officials that he wants to distance himself from any American conflict - Iran in the region, and that when he wants to stay relationship of friendship with the United States will not be at the expense of Iran, or vice versa.

link

Flashback 2009 ~ U.S. Will Push U.N. to Lift Iraq Sanctions .. Now and Then ...

December 9, 2011 ~ Iraq and U.S. Strategic Framework Agreement will be the next phase of relationship ... and .. *** Iraq and Chapter 7 ~ Confirmed Washington has promised to help Iraq out of Chapter VII ...

Title: 'Comprehensive Partnership'

Wednesday, 22 Jul 2009

Description: President Obama and Prime Minister al-Maliki address future of Iraq during news conference ... WATCH ~ VIDEO

July 23, 2009

U.S. Will Push U.N. to Lift Iraq Sanctions

Washington - President Barack Obama told visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the U.S. would push the United Nations to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1991 invasion of Kuwait, a move that could save Baghdad billions of dollars.

Eliminating the sanctions would be a diplomatic victory for Mr. Maliki's government and a milestone in Iraq's quest to rejoin the international community after decades of isolation under ousted leader Saddam Hussein.

Appearing with Mr. Maliki in the White House's Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he would push the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to lift the so-called Chapter 7 sanctions on Iraq, which force the country to pay 5% of its oil revenues to Kuwait as reparations for the 1991 Gulf War.

Continues ...read more ..

"It would be a mistake for Iraq to continue to be burdened by the sins of a deposed dictator," Mr. Obama said.

The meeting between the two leaders came as Washington works to redefine its relationship with Baghdad in the wake of last month's U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq's cities and the intensifying Iraqi effort to assert full control over the country.

It was Mr. Maliki's first appearance in Washington since 2006. Violence in Iraq has plummeted since Mr. Maliki's last visit, and the Iraqi leader is increasingly popular and powerful at home.

Mr. Obama played down the complaints by some U.S. military officials in Iraq that Baghdad had placed too many restrictions on American forces after they left Iraq's cities on June 30.

The president also said the U.S. would honor its promise to withdraw all of its forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, though he acknowledged that there would "be some tough days ahead" as militants try to take advantage of the drawdown to reignite Iraq's sectarian bloodshed.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Maliki both said they would work to lift the U.N. sanctions. Iraqi officials complain that the measure forces Baghdad to give Kuwait money that could better be used to rebuild Iraq's shattered infrastructure.

Earlier this week, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told a small gathering of reporters here that Iraq was sending Kuwait roughly $100 million a month because of the sanctions. He said Baghdad hoped the world body would get rid of the sanctions by the end of the summer.

Eliminating the sanctions won't be easy. The move would have to be approved by the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as by Kuwait.

At a briefing Tuesday night, a senior Obama administration official said Washington hadn't yet formally asked Kuwait to sign off on lifting the sanctions. "It's a complex issue," he said

link

Goddammit, Part Two

[Trigger warning for reference to sexual violence.]

Yesterday I wrote about the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration's decision to make Plan B available to anyone of any age without a restriction. Some people wondered if HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was acting on her own or with President Obama's approval, and there was some hope that Obama would direct HHS to back off.

Nope! And not only does the President support Sebelius' shocking move to limit reproductive rights, he is using his daughters to defend his failure to support choice.

"I did not get involved in the process, this was a decision of Kathleen Sebelius," Obama said, referring to the secretary of the Health and Human Services Department.

"I will say this. As the father of two daughters, it makes sense to apply some common sense," Obama said.

Wow.

So rejecting science in favor of anti-choice hokum is now "common sense," and the best thing fathers can do for their daughters is restrict control over their reproduction. Awesome.

You know, I don't want 11-year-old girls having the need for Plan B, because an 11-year-old girl who has the need for Plan B is an 11-year-old girl who was raped. But in the imperfect world in which we live, where 11-year-olds are raped and made pregnant, often by the family members on whom they have to rely to get access to emergency contraception, the only real options are giving access to Plan B to 11-year-olds who need it and leaving those 11-year-olds with one less option.

Whether Plan B is available isn't going to change the facts of the world. It's only going to be yet another example of how we routinely consider tween girls simultaneously old enough to be sexual targets, and too young to be allowed to be sexually empowered.

As Shaker Meganology noted in comments: "The absolute only thing this regulation does is prevent [an assaulted] child from taking control into hir own hands by obtaining Plan B for hirself, if zie wants to."

Quite right.

That is, for the record, not "common sense." It's abandoning the most vulnerable children among us and condemning them to further victimization, because we're too uncomfortable with ugly realities to look them in the eye. Better instead to cover them with a veil of mendacious bullshit masquerading as concern.

"Oh noes, what if they take the medicine wrong?" Anyone who is more concerned about a pregnant child being hurt by contraceptives than they are about that child being raped, pregnant, and forced instead to undergo an abortion or a full-term pregnancy and delivery, is living in a silly, stupid, unserious bubble of self-deceit, and no one should listen to anything they have to say on the subject of reproductive rights ever again.

Iraq and U.S. ~ Parliamentary Defense: Washington's fears of targeting its embassy in Baghdad, putting pressure on the government ...

08/12/2011

Parliamentary Defense: Washington's fears of targeting its embassy in Baghdad, putting pressure on the government

BAGHDAD - The morning

I went back to the Commission on Security and Defence Parliamentary yesterday, U.S. fears of targeting the embassy and Washington after the withdrawal pressure on the government to increase the number of U.S. troops charged with protecting the embassy, ​​confirmed that Iraqi forces can secure the necessary protection of foreign embassies in Iraq.

A member of the Committee Qasim al-Araji, in quoted by the agency «Sumerian News», that «the statements of recent U.S. and fears of targeting the U.S. Embassy is not unfounded, and its pressure on the Iraqi government to keep some of its troops beyond 2011 under the pretext of protection of the Embassy, indicating that «the Iraqi forces are able to protect the U.S. Embassy and the rest of embassies, especially as it is located inside the fortified Green Zone.

He said that the U.S. embassy was attacked in any future «affront to Iraqi sovereignty and hurt the interests of diplomacy», expressing his confidence in »the ability of Iraqi security forces to confront any aggression».

In the same vein MP said Jawad al-Jubouri in a press statement, said that «statements by a number of U.S. officials on fears of targeting their embassy in Iraq after U.S. withdrawal confirms the bad intentions», noting that «if you want the U.S. relations with Iraq, there is no justification for the launch of Such statements. called political blocs to unite their position in order to prevent the occupation from taking any justification to keep the number of troops, indicating that« there are intersections in the agendas of Foreign Affairs and have the Iraqis away from Iraq.

Continues ...read more ..

It is noteworthy that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said through videoconference with U.S. President Barak Obama need to start a new phase of strategic relations after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq on schedule end of the year 2011.

link

Snip ~ October 21, 2011

Obama spoke with Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki in a video conference Friday, after which he said both nations were comfortable with the decision on how to move forward.

The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring," Obama said.

"The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their head held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops," Obama said.

According to a statement from the Iraqi prime minister's office, al-Maliki and Obama "shared the same point of view on the need to start a new phase of strategic relations." That includes agreeing to a high-level meeting within two weeks.

Beyond the human cost, the price tag for U.S. military activity in Iraq has been steep as well.

A report from the non-partisan, government-funded Congressional Research Service found that the Defense Department spent nearly $757 billion for military operations in Iraq over the past decade, $50 billion higher than the estimate released by the Pentagon. Another $41 billion for Iraq was spent on State Department and USAID initiatives, plus $6 billion for troops' health expenses, the CRS report stated.

Paul Rieckhoff -- an ex-Army soldier who heads the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the first and largest such organization for these veterans, according to its website -- cheered Friday's announcement as "really good news for the troops serving overseas."

link

Goddammit

Plan B ruling: FDA says it wanted to ease restrictions, was overruled by Obama administration:

In a rare public split within the federal government, the Health and Human Services Department overruled a decision by the Food and Drug Administration to make [Plan B, aka the morning-after pill] available to anyone of any age without a restriction.

In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by [people] of all age. But she added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move.

"I agree ... there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all [people] of child-bearing potential," Hamburg said.

"However, this morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the Agency's decision to allow the marketing of Plan B One-Step nonprescription for all [people] of child-bearing potential," she said.

The surprising decision is a stunning blow to some doctors, health advocates, family-planning activists, members of Congress and others to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies.

There is literally nothing I can say that I haven't already said dozens of times before. This is yet another incredible disappointment.

Senate may vote this week on new payroll tax plan

December 5, 2011

Senate may vote this week on new payroll tax plan

Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to get a vote this week on his soon-to-be proposed "compromise" to extend a popular payroll tax cut, a Democratic aide said on Monday.

The aide said Reid plans to release details of the proposal later in the day, and it would represent a middle ground between rejected Democratic and Republican approaches to cover the cost of renewing the tax break set to expire on December 31.

Last week, the Senate defeated a Democratic proposal to pay for it with a tax hike on the rich. It then killed a Republican proposal to cover the cost by extending a federal worker pay freeze and downsizing the federal workforce.

Continues ...read more ..

The aide said Reid is guardedly hopeful that his proposal will win bipartisan passage in the Democratic-led Senate, and that a vote may be held this week.

"It will be a compromise - a compromise between the Republican approach and our approach," the aide said.

"It will be very difficult for Republicans who want to be on the right side of this issue to vote against it," the aide said.

Republicans were initially reluctant to embrace President Barack Obama's called to extend the payroll tax cut, citing its projected $110 billion cost next year and voicing doubt that it would stimulate the economy.

But with fears of a political backlash in the run-up to November's presidential and congressional elections, their leaders have decided to push for an extension - provided an agreement can be reached on how to pay for it.

Without congressional action by December 31, the payroll tax that workers pay would revert to 6.2 percent, up from the current 4.2 percent tax. On average, it would cost American families about $1,000 a year.

link

Primarily Gross

It's been so long since there was a Democratic incumbent in the White House that I forgot how completely goddamn boring primary season is when it's just a bunch of Republicans running around trying to out-stupid each other. Despite their desperate bid for my attention with no fewer than twelve thousand debates since June, I haven't managed to muster much energy or enthusiasm for their traveling sideshow, but I guess it's about time to discuss the epic garbage nightmare that is the potential candidacy of one of the reprobates from the field of failosaurs regurgitated from the bowels of the Republican establishment this year.

So here's the latest news: Herman Cain has suspended his campaign, while promising to "not go away." (It's okay; you can just go away. Really.) He will reportedly endorse Newt Gingrich today, who is now leading the polls among primary voters in Iowa. (He can also go away. And take Mitt Romney with him.)

It's coming down to Mitt vs. Newt. Either one would be colossally horrendo as president, and I don't imagine that one would be more of a danger to Obama in the general campaign than the other. They've both got their campaigning strengths and weaknesses, and neither one would be measurably stronger or weaker in debates: Newt Gingrich is a more confident debater, but Mitt Romney is less likely to say things like, "We should hire poor children to work at the bootstrap factory."

President Obama's biggest threat remains his own record—and the haunting echo of his own voice promising hope and change.

And, as ever, the media will be a wild card: Paul Krugman observes, both amusingly and depressingly: "All indications are, however, that Campaign 2012 will make Campaign 2000 look like a model of truthfulness. And all indications are that the press won't know what to do—or, worse, that they will know what to do, which is act as stenographers and refuse to tell readers and listeners when candidates lie."

Can't wait!

Senate Backs Military Custody of Terror Suspects

Thursday, December 2, 2011

Senate backs military custody of terror suspects

Washington, Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate moved methodically Thursday to complete a massive defense bill that would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

The Senate rejected an effort by Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein to limit a military custody requirement for suspects to those captured outside the United States. The vote was 55-45. Feinstein, D-Calif., said her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."

The issue divided Democrats with nine senators, many facing re-election next year, breaking with the leadership and administration to vote against the amendment. Republicans held firm, with only Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Mike Lee of Utah backing Feinstein's effort.

Continues ...read more ..

Overall, the deficit-driven bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than what Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

The Senate pushed to finish the bill by day's end. Its version must be reconciled with a House-passed measure in the final weeks of the congressional session.

In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. The bill's language challenges citizens' rights under the Constitution, tests the boundaries of executive and legislative branch authority and sets up a showdown with the Democratic commander in chief.

It reflects the politically charged dispute over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror after they've succeeded in killing al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.

In its veto threat, the White House said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller have opposed the provisions.

Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.

The legislation also would give the government the authority to have the military hold an individual suspected of terrorism indefinitely, without a trial. That provision had no exception for a U.S. citizen.

Feinstein offered another amendment, one that would prohibit the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without charges or trial. She has said the last time the government held U.S. citizens indefinitely was when Japanese-Americans were interned in camps during World War II.

Kirk has called the provision unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment and the right of individuals to be secure in their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Countered Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.: "We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights."

Earlier this week, the Senate resoundingly rejected an effort to strip the detainee provisions from the defense bill and instead hold hearings on the issue.

The Senate was expected to overwhelmingly approve crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump.

Last week, the administration announced a new set of penalties against Iran, including identifying for the first time Iran's entire banking sector as a "primary money laundering concern." This requires increased monitoring by U.S. banks to ensure that they and their foreign affiliates avoid dealing with Iranian financial institutions.

But lawmakers pressed ahead with even tougher penalties despite reservations by the administration.

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Kirk offered an amendment that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, David Cohen, a senior Treasury Department official, and Wendy Sherman, an undersecretary of state, warned that the amendment could force up oil prices — a financial boon for Iran.

"There is absolutely a risk that in fact the price of oil would go up, which would mean that Iran would in fact have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less," Sherman said. "And our real objective here is to cut off the economic means that Iran has for its nuclear program."

Cohen said the amendment would tell foreign banks and companies "that if they continue to process oil transactions with the Central Bank of Iran their access to the United States can be terminated."

"It is a very, very powerful threat," Cohen warned. "It is a threat for the commercial banks to end their ability to transact in the dollar and their ability really to function as major international financial institutions," and one that could push allies away from contributing to a coordinated effort against Iran.

link

This is a real thing in the world.

The Obama Made in the USA Mug:


[Image Description: Screen capture of item for sale in the Obama 2012 store: A $20 mug with an image of the president on one side, and an image of his birth certificate on the other. The product description reads: "There's really no way to make the birth certificate conspiracy completely go away, so we might as well laugh at it—and make sure as many people as possible are in on the joke. Get your Made in the USA mug today."]

LOL FOREVER. Well played, President Obama and Team. Well played indeed.

Related Reading: Obama at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

[H/T to @bluegal.]

FYI

White House: There's no sign of E.T. or UFO cover-up. Just so's you know. [Via Andy.]

The White House has responded to two petitions asking the U.S. government to acknowledge formally that aliens have visited Earth and to disclose any intentional withholding of government interactions with extraterrestrial beings.

"The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race," Phil Larson from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reported on the WhiteHouse.gov website. "In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye."

The petition calling on the government to disclose any knowledge of or communication with extraterrestrial beings was signed by 5,387 people, and 12,078 signed the request for a formal acknowledgement from the White House that extraterrestrials have been engaging the human race.

That new "online engagement feature" is going great, then.

I'm glad that our Democratic president's administration is taking time to respond to the concerns of 17,465 people (a generous figure, considering it presumes no crossover signatures) about alien contact, but continues to diligently maintain its silence on the all-out legislative assault on the reproductive rights and bodily autonomy of 52% of the population. Cool. Neat priorities!

[Related Reading: Alien Skull Found on White House Lawn.]