Daily Kos

Where have we heard this before? Shades of "atomic veterans," Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome? The Pentagon says there's no problem regarding the effects of toxins encountered in the course of their work by U.S. troops overseas—not to mention the local inhabitants. Nothing to see here, move along.

Terry J. Allen pulls back the covers a smidge:

“Open-air burn pits have operated widely at military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the Department of Veterans Affairs notes on its website. On hundreds of camps and bases across the two countries, the U.S. military and its contractors incinerated toxic waste, including unexploded ordnance, plastics and Styrofoam, asbestos, formaldehyde, arsenic, pesticides and neurotoxins, medical waste (even amputated limbs), heavy metals and what the military refers to as “radioactive commodities.” The burns have released mutagens and carcinogens, including uranium and other isotopes, volatile organic compounds, hexachlorobenzene, and, that old favorite, dioxin (aka Agent Orange).

The military pooh-poohs the problem, despite a 2009 Pentagon document noting “an estimated 11 million pounds [5,000 tonnes] of hazardous waste” produced by American troops, the Times of London reported. In any case, it says, the waste isn’t all that toxic, and there is no hard evidence troops were harmed. Of course, one reason for that lack of evidence, reports the Institute of Medicine (which found 53 toxins in the air above the Balad air base alone), is that the Pentagon won’t or can’t document what it burned and buried, or where it did so. [...]

[S]ick and dying vets, this time from Iraq and Afghanistan, are trying to trace their cancers and respiratory problems to the toxins of war. Again, the military refuses to release complete data, and claims the data show no harmful effects. Again, the assumption of culpability, and the clean-up efforts will come too little, too late.

A July article in the New England Journal of Medicine studied 80 soldiers disabled with constrictive bronchiolitis, “a very rare finding” in otherwise healthy, young non-smokers. Almost all the cases were traced to “inhalational exposures during service in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The journal lamented : “This group causes particular concern, since their potential toxic exposures are shared by most personnel who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And, oh, yes, by those left to endure the predictable consequences of expedient poisoning. You’re welcome, Iraq. 

---

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2004:

We Must Never Forget: February 5, 2003.

Colin Powell went to the UN and engaged in one the most infamous acts of Propaganda in World history.  We must never forget.

 Additionally, Powell violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, his fraternity and fidelity to the men in uniform he served with, and his  so-called Powell Doctrine, that he helped create in the mid 1980s.  He destroyed not only his reputation, but everything he stood for.  Moreover, he tuned his back on Duty, Honor, Country, all in slavish obedience to the temporary occupant of the White House.

Today, we find ourselves in a Quagmire, where 500 G.I.s will die per year, where 10,000 casualties will occur per year, where $50 to 100 Billion will be wasted per year - now and for the foreseeable future - all because Powell and company abdicated the Principle of Exit Strategy.

Today, Karl Rove sent out CIA Director George Tenent (the man sitting behind Powell at the UN) to feed the media machine, so as to distract their recollection of this date.  But we, the true patriots of this country, must never forget.

---

Tweet of the Day:

---

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Reposted from Daily Kos Elections by Steve Singiser

Things that appear certain, based on polling:

• Mitt Romney is on his way to a relatively easy win in tomorrow's caucuses in Nevada.
• Romney is also in pretty decent shape in the two late February primaries in Arizona and Michigan, two states that (on paper) set up pretty well for him.
• Gingrich's national standing, at least in the Gallup tracking polls, has taken a mighty dive.

What is quite a bit less clear, however, is if this really does portend the beginning of the end for the Republican presidential horse race. More on that after the jump. For now, the numbers from two days of polling (yesterday's Wrap having been sabotaged by a computer virus beating up my laptop):

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Romney 33, Gingrich 25, Santorum 16, Paul 11

NATIONAL (YouGov): Romney 29, Gingrich 23, Santorum 20, Paul 14

ARIZONA (Rasmussen): Romney 48, Gingrich 24, Santorum 13, Paul 6

GEORGIA (SurveyUSA): Gingrich 45, Romney 32, Santorum 9, Paul 8

MICHIGAN (Rasmussen): Romney 38, Gingrich 23, Santorum 17, Paul 14

NEVADA (PPP): Romney 50, Gingrich 25, Paul 15, Santorum 8

NEVADA (UNLV): Romney 45, Gingrich 25, Santorum 11, Paul 9

And ... as always ... the general election nums, as well:

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Obama tied with Romney (45-45); Obama d. Santorum (46-44); Obama d. Paul (45-42); Obama d. Gingrich (49-41)

NATIONAL (YouGov): Obama d. Paul (48-40); Obama d. Romney (49-40); Obama d. Santorum (50-40); Obama d. Gingrich (52-37)

GEORGIA (SurveyUSA): Romney d. Obama (51-43); Gingrich d. Obama (50-44)

MISSOURI (PPP): Obama tied with Romney (45-45); Obama d. Paul (45-43); Obama d. Santorum (47-44); Obama d. Gingrich (49-42)

Some thoughts as we head into the weekend, right after the jump.

Ezra Klein has an interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about his "Paying a Fair Share" tax reform and "about how the bill would work, whether Democrats have developed their own dogma on taxes, and what the chances are for comprehensive tax reform in the coming Congress."

It's a fairly simple piece of legislation as far as tax reform goes, creating basically an alternative minimum tax for millionaires. Where it gets slightly complicated is in an adjustment for those making between $1 and 2 million, a provision that would allow for the tax to be gradually phased in. This would avoid a “tax cliff,” where a taxpayer going from $999,999 to $1 million, would pay on a phased-in basis a portion of the extra tax required to get up to the 30 percent effective tax rate. This would also potentially prevent a problem Klein identifies of people at that threshold just evading their taxes.

The premise of the bill is simple, but the rationale lying behind it is interesting, and something Klein tries to delve into a bit, asking whether Democrats might be ceding the fight on ending the Bush tax cuts, pushing the threshold of "wealthy" from $250,000 upward, and the concern that "there’s no one left looking at taxes as a revenue measure, and asking what should be the basic question: what level of taxation do we need to fund the government we think we want, and what’s the best way to get there?"

He got a semi-answer from Whitehouse:

SW: Kent Conrad is fond of pointing out that in God knows how many years, 50 years or something like that, America has never had its budget in balance with revenues less than, if I remember correctly, 21 percent of GDP. So if you’re looking at the times in the past when we’ve gotten our act together and gotten our budget balanced, you come in at 21 percent. If you’re substantially below that, you’re doing protracted deficits or cutting very significantly into spending. So I think it is an important point, but in the meantime, I think it’s important that we restore some confidence in the tax code on the part of the American public by getting rid of the egregious loopholes.

Klein's question was more to the point of when are Democrats going to start talking about the necessity of revenue to keep the government functioning, which is the larger argument that needs to be made against the nihilism of Republicans who basically just want to sell it off. From a short-term political perspective, the Buffett Rule push makes a lot of sense. Now is the moment to seize the argument of economic inequality, of tax fairness and to force Republicans to vote on it.

But the long-term case for a progressive tax structure and for the necessity of it to allow for a government that works—the existential fight we're in right now—needs to be made.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson Veda Shook, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, explains why the "compromise" on union issues (that do not actually belong) in the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill aren't actually a compromise. While the proposal drops Republicans' earlier insistence that workers who don't vote in union elections should be counted as having cast anti-union votes, it adds a host of new hurdles to workers wanting to form unions.

For one thing, in some cases, an existing union would just be dissolved. "In a merger," Shook explains, "if the larger workforce is non-union, there would simply be no election to determine representation of the combined group. The union and the contract would simply go away."

In other cases, though, hurdles galore. Accompanying the new 50 percent threshold to call for a union representation election, management would control all the information on how many people might be eligible to vote and who they were. That means they could pad the numbers required to get to 50 percent. Then, because the requirement threshold would now be written into the statute, it would be subject to litigation. That would not only allow companies to drag out the process, the union cards the workers had signed would be subject to discovery. It's a perfect opportunity for management to intimidate union supporters.

This is no compromise. Tell Congress to pass a clean FAA bill, without the union-busting.

Well, there's partisanship and then there's the American people.

Gallup asked the question of adults as to their level of support for five economic proposals expected in the State of the Union speech. Here's the same list of proposals broken down by partisanship. Note that the support from Republicans drops off for the "big government alternative energy" and the "tax the rich" proposals:

Yet the Big Government jobs education idea is a political winner with everyone, including a bare majority of Republicans. While one might argue that "Big Government is fine so long as it's about me (and keep your hands off my Medicare)" is popular with everyone, the real underlying message is this:

It's all about jobs.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson The Super Bowl comes to Indiana just days after the passage of an anti-union law in the state. With the NFL Players Association having vocally opposed that law, it's an opportunity to draw attention to labor issues in the state. At the same time, you don't want to be the assholes who actually disrupted the Super Bowl, so there's a line to walk here. Indiana AFL-CIO President Nancy Guyott issued a statement saying that "the Indiana State AFL-CIO does not plan nor condone any attempts to disrupt the Super Bowl," including a reminder that "the Super Bowl in Indianapolis is made possible because of the very working men and women our movement represents and that our state legislature has attacked."

At the same time, unions are highlighting not just the recent anti-union vote but ongoing labor struggles in the state. Think Progress reports that:

The AFL-CIO will have a “constant presence” at Super Bowl events, [Indiana AFL-CIO Communications and Outreach Coordinator Jeff] Harris said, but its actions will be informative rather than disruptive. The union, which encouraged workers to meet with their state representatives in the days before the law passed and organized rallies outside the statehouse Wednesday, will pass out leaflets and pamphlets around Super Bowl village and Lucas Oil Stadium, the site of the game, Harris said.

Unite Here has planned a Friday afternoon rally at the Hyatt Regency Indianapolis, where 20 workers may lose their jobs as Hyatt switches from one low-wage subcontractor to another; the original subcontractor was recently sued for wage theft. DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, is slated to participate in that rally.

Despite the well-reasoned and comprehensive consideration by the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House that President Obama's recess appointments last month were constitutional, 39 Senate Republicans have decided to join in challenges against them in an as-of-yet to be determined court, or case.

The senators said in a letter Friday that they will file a friend-of-the-court brief to support legal action arguing that Obama overstepped constitutional boundaries when he tapped Richard Cordray to lead the consumer agency and appointed three members to join the NLRB.

“American democracy was born out of a rejection of the monarchies of Western Europe, anchored by limited government and separation of powers,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by as this president arrogantly casts aside our Constitution and defies the will of the American people under the election-year guise of defending them.”

While they don't specify which actual case they'll be joining, they just wanted the world to know that, yeah, they're still pissed about it and mean to do something, the specifics of which are to be determined. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have filed one case against the NLRB appointments, which provides a potential case for them to join.

As Kaili Joy Gray pointed out earlier here today, the Komen Foundation hasn't reversed its decision not to fund grants for Planned Parenthood. It's made one of those phony apologies designed to deflect criticism rather than renounce its previous stance and its public leadership is still pretending that its move was not political. So all those folks, including some Congresspeople, who uncorked the Champagne to toast the defeat of the pink giant are celebrating prematurely.

What is worth celebrating, however, is the instantaneous and spontaneous and powerful reaction of the blogosphere and social media that first spotlighted Komen's decision, splattered it from coast to coast, drove a hugely successful fund-raising effort for Planned Parenthood and—assisted by Komen's incompetent management of the crisis it had created—permanently damaged the foundation's brand, bringing to light information that few Americans have previously heard. That is a victory. And it shouldn't be nay-said.

But while quaffing the bubbly, that victory should be recognized for what it is: self-defense. Together, those of us who believe in ensuring that women without means can get basic and preventive health care as well as exercise their reproductive rights, fought what amounted to a rearguard action, struggling to hang onto ground gained long ago. It's not unlike other struggles in other arenas, like those we engage in these days to hang onto the gains of the New Deal and Great Society while right-wing forces do their damnedest to dismantle them. But what we need is both self-defense and offense.

What we've witnessed and participated in during the past two days has been a skirmish in an on-going war with relentless, ruthless foes. This was not an isolated event but a line item on the agenda of a right wing movement determined to return us to the way things were. For the record, those weren't the good old days.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Late Night Snarksters Document Teh Crazy:

"I don't know whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich won [in Florida], but we do know one thing for certain: tomorrow both of them can go back to ignoring Latinos."
---Stephen Colbert
-
“Newt may be toast already. The Republican establishment have the knives out for him. Tom DeLay said Newt Gingrich was the most despicable human being he has seen since shaving this morning.”
---Bill Maher
-
“Mitt Romney is getting some heat today for something he said on CNN. He said he's not concerned about the very poor. ... Romney said the quote was taken out of context and that he absolutely cares about the poor. In fact, his campaign bus runs on the tears of the poor."
---Jimmy Kimmel
-
"Rick Santorum says Newt Gingrich is too hot, Mitt Romney is too cold, but he's the 'Goldilocks candidate.' Yes, nothing gets voters excited like comparing yourself to tepid porridge."
---Craig Ferguson
-
"A new website just came out that’s designed to calculate how long it takes Mitt Romney to earn your salary. So from now on, whenever Mitt Romney is running late, he can call there and say, 'I'll be there in five teachers.'"
---Conan O'Brien

Lots more at Dan Kurtzman's place. Oh, and something I heard this week on The Daily Show that you should know about:

Jon Stewart: Your opponent, Scott Brown, has said the media doesn’t give you tough questions, so I'm going to start you off with one that I think is very difficult and somewhat complex. You're running for Senate in Massachusetts, [but] you're in New York right now. Who's the better quarterback, Tom Brady or Eli Manning?

Elizabeth Warren: I hate to tell you this, but Tom Brady. The Pats are gonna spank the Giants. We're gonna git'cha! I'm sorry, it's just reality.

We have nothing further to add.

Your west coast-friendly edition of  Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Oh, for the love of:

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush and prominent right-wing pundit, secretly helped guide Komen Foundation’s disastrous strategy regarding Planned Parenthood. Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations” at Komen last December. According to a source with first-hand knowledge, Fleischer drilled prospective candidates during their interviews on how they would handle the controversy about Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Well, consider me properly chastened. I should have known right off the bat that, when some group manages to botch up a situation beyond all hope of credible recovery, there was going to be a connection to the George Bush crowd.

Well, from this we know several new things. First, that the Planned Parenthood "issue" was in the fore of Nancy Brinker's mind during the search for a new VP of Communications (the article cites her as being "at her wits end about how to proceed"). And second, that the Planned Parenthood "issue" was a major selection criteria for the position. One can presume, from recent events and from the rigidly conservative stance of Fleischer himself, that they were looking for a particular ideological answer.

So the Komen Foundation was, in December, looking for someone to help them roll out a strategy for properly caving to the right. And the guy they put in charge of the search? Ari Fleischer. That Ari Fleischer, proud face of such great Bush initiatives as shut up, Iraq will be a cakewalk, nobody here mentioned Valerie Plame and these new tax cuts will be great for the economy.

Yeah, I can't imagine how putting a Bush guy in charge of that process could possibly have ended up as a gargantuan public clusterfuck.

Well, that didn't take long. For years there has been a coordinated campaign among the right to defund Planned Parenthood, to subject it to as many spurious new "requirements" and "investigations" as it possibly can, and to attack any group that associated itself with it, even in the most marginal ways. This included the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which gave Planned Parenthood money and was therefore deemed unclean.

But it took only about two days for those very same conservative figures to declare that the blistering public outrage against the Komen Foundation for caving in to those demands (mind you, there was precious little pressure involved with the "cave," as the shift appears to be mostly due to the group's own ideological stances) was itself "gangsterism" and the like. In other words, and as usual, it's conservatives who are the real victims here.

A multi-year concerted effort to shut down a nonprofit for ideological reasons, one even pursued in the halls of Congress: not just fine, but applauded. A pushback against said partisan efforts? Tyranny! Villainy! Oppression!

It's not a made-up sentiment: I'm quite convinced they genuinely feel that way. Their larger premise is, after all, that all non-conservative positions are inherently invalid, therefore any actions you might take to sabotage something non-conservative are inherently legitimate. Merely criticizing those conservative moves, however, are not. It's entirely directional, you see.

More below the fold.

Reposted from Comics by Tom Tomorrow

Editor's note: Today it is my sincere privilege and honor to introduce our newest cartoon contributor, an artist destined to be the maraschino cherry atop the hot fudge and whipped cream sundae that is the Daily Kos Comics page -- Ruben Bolling.  I have known Ruben since at least 1995, and admired the inventive wit and keen intelligence of his weekly strip, Tom the Dancing Bug, for longer than that.  And I'm hardly alone in recognizing his talent -- he won the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists in 2011, and has received the AAN award more times than anyone can count.   There's even a live-action motion picture in development based on one of his recurrent characters.  So please join me in welcoming Ruben (if that is his real name) into the clutches of the Great Orange Satan, where he'll be a regular in the TGIF/happy hour slot each week.  -- Tom Tomorrow