White House memo says Afghanistan has not posed a threat for 7 or 8 years

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fine, so why are we still there? The supposed troop reduction is much too little and much too slow. We can't afford wars like this. It's especially bad when there isn't even a threat any longer. Read the rest of this post...

$20 billion per year to provide A/C for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Somehow many can think of quite a few ways $20 billion could be spent back home. We really need to unload those unnecessary wars and start focusing a lot more on the problems in the US. NPR:

The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion.

That's more than NASA's budget. It's more than BP has paid so far for damage during the Gulf oil spill. It's what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia.

"When you consider the cost to deliver the fuel to some of the most isolated places in the world — escorting, command and control, medevac support — when you throw all that infrastructure in, we're talking over $20 billion," Steven Anderson tells weekends on All Things Considered guest host Rachel Martin. Anderson is a retired brigadier general who served as Gen. David Patreaus' chief logistician in Iraq.

Read the rest of this post...

Celebrate marriage equality & tell the President to "evolve already" - buy an AMERICAblog t-shirt

BUMP: In honor of our marriage equality victory in New York, and our ongoing fight for equality nationwide, Joe and I have partnered with the "Don't Panic!" t-shirt company to offer you AMERICAblog's very own marriage equality t-shirt collection - all shirts are only $19.99, and they're top quality.

Don't Panic! has agreed to donate a large portion of the proceeds of the sale of each shirt to AMERICAblog.  Each shirt we sell, in a very real way, will help us finance the continuing operation of the AMERICAblog family of sites (as you may know, running the blog is my full-time job, and it's nearly a full-time job for Joe as well).

Don't Panic!, you might recall, did all those great t-shirts like "2QT2BSTR8" and "Nobody knows I'm a lesbian" and "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is."  They also have a reputation for selling really good quality shirts, not some cheap imitation that becomes misshapen when you wash it.  And they're socially conscious as well.  In addition to them helping us spread the word about marriage, and help finance the blog, Don't Panic! has helped AFER, helped us work against the constitutional amendment on marriage back in 2004 with Don'tAmend.com, and helped us all the way back in 2000 on StopDrLaura.com, when Don't Panic!'s t-shirts were the ONLY way we were raising money to get Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV show canceled (and we did).

We've decided to go with the "evolution" theme since, as you know, Joe Sudbay asked the President about marriage equality last October and got the now famous reply, "attitudes evolve, including mine."  As Joe wrote earlier this week, it's time for the President to "evolve already." AP and the Washington Post have both now picked up on the "evolve already" meme, and it's all over Twitter.  You can help us spread that message with an AMERICAblog marriage equality t-shirt.

Every image we've published in this post is a t-shirt we're now selling via Don't Panic!'s AMERICAblog shop.  And as I said, they're only $19.99 each, high quality, and a large portion of the proceeds of each sale goes to AMERICAblog.  So you're helping us spread the word, and support the blog, with the purchase of each shirt.  And what better way to celebrate our wonderful victory in New York, and to urge the President to "evolve already" - buy an AMERICAblog marriage equality t-shirt today.

More about "Don't Panic!":

The company launched in 1990 with the “Nobody Knows I’m Gay” t-shirt sold from a booth at the annual Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Festival. In three months, Hynes had sold more than $30,000 worth of shirts. After a triumph at the 1990 Gay Games in Vancouver, BC (more than 4,000 shirts sold almost immediately) Hynes left his day job as a music studio coordinator to sell his shirts full time.

Hynes’ string of hits continued with messages like “Closets Are for Clothes”, “2QT2BSTR8”, and “I Can’t Even Think Straight”. In February 1993, the company’s fame grew with “LEAVE CHELSEA ALONE” in support of Chelsea Clinton. From Time Magazine to Good Morning America to USA Today to Britain’s The Word TV show, the shirt won acclaim (not to mention a thank you note from then President Clinton) as one of the years hottest. With innovative “firsts” like the “Bad Hair Day” hat, Freedom Lights, the worlds first queer Christmas tree lights; OUTch! the first ever gay watch collection, and the first gay tumbler set, Don’t Panic! keeps winning new fans.

To give back to the communities that support it, Don’t Panic! established “Miracles Happen”, an acclaimed merchandising program, in 1992. Through sales of a striking red ribbon enclosed in a glass ornament (happily promoted in ads by Cher), caps, and T-shirts, “Miracles Happen” raised more than $80,000 for the American Federation for AIDS Research (AmFAR). More recently, in 2000, Don’t Panic! Worked with John Aravosis of StopDrLaura.com to raise money and awareness that ultimately let to the cancellation of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV show. In 2004 Skyler worked with Robin Tyler and John Aravosis of the DontAmend.com to help stop the movement to amend the constitution to make marriage between same sex couples illegal. (Don't Panic! founder Skyler Hynes and his partner Martin Finkelstein were married in Montreal and have 9 years old twins.)

Joe's "evolve already" post.
Obama: "Attitudes evolve, including mine." Read the rest of this post...

Wisconsin: Supreme Court Justice Ann Bradley confirms reports that David Prosser choked her in anger

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Bradley has issued a statement confirming reports that fellow Justice David Prosser (he of the "suddenly found" 7000 votes) did indeed choke her in anger in her office before witnesses.

Her press release states (via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel):

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," she said. "Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.

"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases," she said.

"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."

I'm interested in who the "appropriate authorities" are above. If a civilian attacks a justice, that sounds like criminal assault. Does that rule apply to colleagues?

For background, look to two items. First, the source of the argument is the Court's upholding of Gov. Scott ("Reporting for duty, Mr. Koch") Walker's union busting law:

Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, quoting anonymous sources, reported Saturday that the argument occurred before the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month upholding Republican Gov. Scott Walker's bill eliminating most of public employees' collective bargaining rights.

The argument allegedly took place in front of several members of the court. ... A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision that included a blistering dissent, ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she declared the polarizing union law void.

The fight over passage of Walker's collective bargaining bill came in the weeks leading up to a hotly contested state Supreme Court election, which conservative incumbent Prosser eventually won after challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg conceded defeat in late May. Supporters of Walker largely backed Prosser in hopes he would uphold the union rights bill in a legal challenge.

Prosser is a man on a mission. If the incident occurred in front of other justices, expect a party-line split in the he said–she said vote count. I don't mean "he said–she said" in the dismissive sense; in this case, one side will actually be right, and the other side ... lying through its teeth.

The second bit of context is David Prosser himself, his apparent anger at women, especially non-conservative ones, and his temper. This is the guy who yelled at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson earlier this year, "You're a total bitch" and threatened "I will destroy you [...] and it won't be a ground war."

If you click through, note that Justice Bradley is the person who called out Prosser for his temper and language. Choking is an eerily telling way to punish someone for speaking.

This will play out, and I'll stay with it. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is 4-3, with Movement Conservatives in the majority and voting like a bloc. The names to keep in mind are David Prosser, Patience Roggensack, Annette Ziegler, Michael Gableman. The "total bitch" incident occurred while the Court was discussing ethic issues involving Gableman. As I wrote at the time:

Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler all believe that justices don't have to recuse themselves in cases involving their campaign contributors. Ziegler has additional ethics issues, having previously presided over "cases involving a bank where her husband served on the board of directors." Ziegler is also a Club for Growth and Wisc. Manufacturers & Commerce darling — and big-money recipient.

And make no mistake, Money has staked its claim on the Wisconsin Court, and seems to be getting its money's worth — so far at least.

(I still think criminal investigation is where we should be operating in dealing with guys like Prosser and Clarence Thomas. Alleged assault is still assault, and given all that Thomas has been forced to reveal, imagine what he hasn't.)

Our "give to the Wisconsin Recall" link is above. Please help; as always, thanks.

GP Read the rest of this post...

TSA stands by decision to harass and humiliate elderly woman in wheelchair

As I said yesterday, they're all class. Too bad they can't hire human beings with brains and a sense of compassion. CNN:

Reports of the incident took hold in social media, with scores of comments on the topic and reposts appearing hourly on Twitter Sunday afternoon.

The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.

"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."

Read the rest of this post...

GAO: Sexual assault investigations not a high priority for DOD; the illegal use of stamps, however...

CBS News:

Sexual assault investigations and related training for investigators are not a high priority for the Department of Defense Inspector General's Office, according to a recent government report.

The report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found the DOD IG's office has not developed a policy and sufficiently overseen sexual assault investigations conducted by the various DOD criminal investigation organizations. The report also accuses the office of not providing adequate training for sexual assault investigators. The Department of Defense Inspector General's office is responsible for reviewing sexual assault investigations to see if they were conducted properly. In 2009, 3,230 sexual assault investigations were reported.

Service Women's Action Network:

By Greg Jacob
Former Marine Infantry Captain and Policy Director, Service Women's Action Network.

The GAO report this week entitled “Military Justice: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and Adjudications” is a scathing analysis of the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of the Inspector General (IG) and its lack of attention to the issue of rape and sexual assault in the military. The report states that the DoD IG’s Office was told to develop policy and oversee sexual assault investigations in June 2006. According to the report, however, “The [IG Office] has not performed these responsibilities, primarily because it believes it has other, higher priorities.”

A controversial statement indeed, considering that the Secretary of Defense has declared on numerous occasions that eliminating sexual is “now a command priority.” The IG is one of those commands, and reports directly to the Secretary.

The mission of the DoD IG is to “Promote integrity, accountability, and improvement of Department of Defense personnel, programs and operations, to support the Department's mission and serve the public interest,” and to “serve as a benchmark for organizational excellence for the rest of the government.”

Oversight of rape investigations and preventing rape and sexual assault of military personnel clearly falls under the agency’s purview, and with the additional guidance from the Defense Secretary and the Congressional mandate from 2006, sexual assault oversight should be a clear priority. Instead, this benchmark for excellence has chosen to prioritize its valuable time and critical resources to investigating other things.

According to the 2010 DoD IG’s semi-annual report to Congress, here are some highlights of the IG’s recent work:

· An IG investigation determined that Allergan promoted Botox for off-label indications that were not medically accepted and therefore not covered by federal health care programs.

· A DOD senior official accepted sporting event tickets and parking from a prohibited source, presented coin awards to contractor employees, and used official time and government resources to coordinate and attend the event.

· A general officer misused government resources to support his private Christmas party in violation of the Joint Ethics Regulation.

· A general used official postage for unofficial purposes, and failed to use the government Travel Charge Card for official travel as required by law.

Botox, Christmas parties and stamps. These issues indeed fall under the purview of the agency. However, I would challenge Gordon Heddel, the DOD’s Inspector General to present this list to any of the over 19,000 servicemembers who the DoD estimates were sexually assaulted last year, and see if they consider these “higher priorities” than providing oversight of military sexual assault investigations.

Oversight of investigations and adjudications of sexual assaults is critical in helping to curb the epidemic of military sexual violence. Right now prosecution rates for sex crimes in the military are abysmal. According to numbers from the DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), in 2010 only 3,158 out of 19,000+ sexual assaults were reported to authorities, and less than 21 percent of the reported cases actually went to trial. Once in a courtroom, 53 percent, or 281 cases resulted in a conviction.

Ensuring cases of sexual assault are properly handled and prosecuted increases the likelihood of perpetrators facing justice. And justice—Botox and Christmas parties notwithstanding—should be the IG’s highest priority.

Greg Jacob
Policy Director
Service Women's Action Network (SWAN)

Read the rest of this post...

GOP once again rules out any tax increases to reduce deficit. Then why are we even talking about program cuts at all?

There is a serious danger of negotiating with ourselves here.

Republicans on Friday ruled out any tax increases as part of an agreement to narrow stubborn budget deficits and raise the U.S. debt limit. The federal deficit now stands at $1.4 trillion, among the highest levels relative to the economy since World War Two.

It's bad enough that Democrats have already agreed that the budget needs to be cut, rather than push for another stimulus, but with the GOP still refusing to even talk about tax increases, why are we even discussing which programs might be cut, be it Social Security, Medicare or anything else?  Because the GOP might push the country into default?  Come on.  Everyone knows that would be a disaster, and the GOP knows it too.

If the White House really thinks the Republicans are risking a world depression the likes of which no one has ever seen, then they need to keep saying that again and again and again until it sinks in, just like the GOP did with its death panels, Obama is a socialist Muslim, and every other crazy meme they've managed to sink into the public consciousness - except we're telling the truth.

Repetition is the only thing that works.  Democrats, however, often think that if they say something once, it's been said, and they can move on. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman & Wells: The Banker Busts started in the 1970s and keep getting bigger

Paul Krugman and Robin Wells have an excellent long piece in the current New York Review of Books on the history of "banker busts" from the Nixon era through today.

The piece is wrapped around a review of the book Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present by Jeff Madrick. The authors like the book (with reservations; see the review). But it gives them a chance to reflect on 2008 as one in a series of increasingly severe crises, all banker-caused, and each one taxpayer-bailed.

It starts with a walk through forgotten memories (my emphasis throughout):

Suppose we describe the following situation: major US financial institutions have badly overreached. They created and sold new financial instruments without understanding the risk. They poured money into dubious loans in pursuit of short-term profits, dismissing clear warnings that the borrowers might not be able to repay those loans. When things went bad, they turned to the government for help, relying on emergency aid and federal guarantees—thereby putting large amounts of taxpayer money at risk—in order to get by. And then, once the crisis was past, they went right back to denouncing big government, and resumed the very practices that created the crisis.

What year are we talking about?

We could, of course, be talking about 2008–2009, when Citigroup, Bank of America, and other institutions teetered on the brink of collapse, and were saved only by huge infusions of taxpayer cash. ... But we could also be talking about 1991, when the consequences of vast, loan-financed overbuilding of commercial real estate in the 1980s came home to roost, helping to cause the collapse of the junk-bond market and putting many banks—Citibank, in particular—at risk. Only the fact that bank deposits were federally insured averted a major crisis. Or we could be talking about 1982–1983, when reckless lending to Latin America ended in a severe debt crisis that put major banks such as, well, Citibank at risk, and only huge official lending to Mexico, Brazil, and other debtors held an even deeper crisis at bay. Or we could be talking about the near crisis caused by the bankruptcy of Penn Central in 1970, which put its lead banker, First National City—later renamed Citibank—on the edge; only emergency lending from the Federal Reserve averted disaster.

First National City; Citibank; Citigroup. I think there's a theme here.

The article contains much to like, and as always with Krugman & Wells, it's well-written and accessible. I'll point out two of its treats, but do read it for more.

One is the analysis of Reagan's rise as enabled, at least in part, by the government's inability to deal with externally-induced financial shocks of the 1970s:

[T]he surging inflation of the 1970s had its roots not in some general problem of “big government” but in largely temporary events—the oil price shock and disappointing crop yields—whose effects were magnified throughout the economy by wage-price indexation.

This allowed Reagan, with his "enormous capacity for doublethink and convenient untruths" to join with Milton Friedman (who comes in for his own share of criticism) in painting government as the "principal obstacle to [Americans'] personal fulfillment" (I believe this quote is Madrick's).

The second treat, and surprise, is what Krugman & Wells consider Ground Zero in the battle of the banks against New Deal regulation:

The transformation of American banking initiated by [Walter] Wriston [First National City/Citibank head from the 1960s through the 1980s] arguably began as early as 1961, when First National City began offering negotiable certificates of deposit—CDs that could be cashed in early, and therefore served as an alternative to regular bank deposits, while sidestepping legal limits on interest rates. First National City’s innovation—and the decision of regulators to let it stand—marked the first major crack in the system of bank regulation created in the 1930s, and hence arguably the first step on the road to the crisis of 2008.

There's also an excellent discussion of the Citibank-Travelers merger, which was plainly illegal at the time (Travelers owned Salomon Smith Barney, an investment bank, and Citi is a commercial bank) and the role of Sandy Weill in getting the deal (1) completed, and (2) retroactively blessed by the Feds. Done and done.

I'll let you read the authors' disagreement with Madrick near the article's end. I'm more interested in Krugman's closing in on Frank Rich's understanding, that we're watching a coup by the wealthy against everyone else. Krugman & Wells call it the "metastasized" role of money in politics.

Getting there, sir; you're very close. Now just expand that last thought.

GP Read the rest of this post...

NYT to Obama: Evolve Already

Like us, today's NYT editorial thinks Obama should evolve on marriage. Like us, today's NYT editorial thinks Obama will benefit politically from that move, particularly with his "cheerless base."

Evolve already:

Mr. Obama’s legal formula suggests he is fine with the six states that now permit same-sex marriage, and fine with the more than three dozen other states that ban it. By refusing to say whether he supports it (as he did in 1996) or opposes it (as he did in 2008), he remained in a straddle that will soon strain public patience. For now, all Mr. Obama promised was a gauzy new “chapter” in the story if he is re-elected, and his views remain officially “evolving.”

Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?

In the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama said he supported civil unions and believed marriage should be between men and women, he may have wanted to appeal to slightly more conservative voters who were wary of him.

After he took office, it became evident that Republicans intended to portray him as a radical, out-of-touch leftist no matter what he did. Supporting same-sex marriage at this point is hardly going to change that drumbeat, and any voter for whom that is a make-or-break issue will probably not be an Obama supporter anyway.

Firm support for gay marriage is, on the other hand, likely to help him among his cheerless base. Mr. Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and is presiding over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He signed the United Nations declaration on gay rights, and allowed the Census to count same-sex relationships. But he has been absent from the biggest and most difficult drive of all.

Public opinion has swung toward acceptance of gay marriage since 2008; five more states and the District of Columbia have lifted marriage bans. Thousands of gay men and lesbians now possess marriage certificates and many former skeptics have come to realize that the moral foundation of the country has been strengthened. It is long past time for the president to catch up. He often criticizes discrimination with the memorable phrase, “that’s not who we are.” Favoring this discrimination should not be who he is.

And, his current position means that same-sex couples aren't equal.

Seriously, the politics have evolved to the point where Obama is on the wrong side of history. And, not that any of us mere mortals should ever deign to give political advice to Team Obama, who, as we know, are the smartest politicos ever. But, last week, AP talked to Messina and Axelrod:

"We are going to take the old map and expand it," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in an interview at his office in Chicago. He argues that demographic trends are moving in Democrats' direction in several states, which could help them hold Virginia and North Carolina and possibly win Georgia and Arizona.

"Changes in the composition of the electorate" make the states attractive, said David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser.

One big change among the electorate is growing support for marriage. And, since Messina brought up Virginia, let's look at some numbers. The Washington Post recently polled Virginians about a variety of issues. For the first time, more people support marriage than oppose it. But, digging a little deeper, the poll shows that among young voters (18 - 29), a prime target for the Obama reelection, 73% support marriage. Not saying they'll make marriage their top priority. But, on that issue, the President looks out of touch.

At this point, no one -- on either side -- believes Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage. He made a political calculation in 2008 to oppose marriage. And, for whatever reason, he's sticking with it. Hopefully, someone at campaign HQ will look at the numbers -- and realize taking a strong position for equality could help with the otherwise "cheerless base." Read the rest of this post...

Obama won’t let middle class "carry the whole burden" on budget

Hopefully this is the case but there's not a lot of history to suggest it's going to work out this way. Obama signed off on the radical GOP tax cuts for the richest Americans who have profited enormously from this recession and he hardly has a strong history of standing up to the Republicans. Huffington Post:

Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday the Obama administration wouldn't let middle class Americans "carry the whole burden" to break a deadlock over the national debt limit, warning that the Republican approach would only benefit the wealthy.

Addressing Ohio Democrats, Biden said there had been great progress in talks with Republican lawmakers on a deficit-reduction plan agreement. But he insisted that his party wouldn't agree to cuts that would undermine the elderly and middle-class workers.

"We're not going to let the middle class carry the whole burden. We will sacrifice. But they must be in on the deal," Biden said in a speech at the Ohio Democratic Party's annual dinner.

Read the rest of this post...

Greek parliament to vote on second bailout

It's a tough vote and it's not a guarantee that it will pass. Besides meaning even tougher austerity for Greece, it also very likely means a deeper and longer recession. Bloomberg:

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou faces his second survival test in a week as lawmakers vote on a five-year austerity plan that must pass for the cash- strapped nation to secure more international aid.

Failure to pass Papandreou’s plan may lead to the euro area’s first sovereign default as Greece needs to cover 6.6 billion euros ($9.4 billion) of maturing bonds in August. The week begins with governments and banks jostling over how private investors can support Greece and will end with another round of crisis talks as Europe’s finance ministers meet in Brussels.

With 155 votes in the 300-seat legislature, Papandreou needs to unite his lawmakers in two votes this week on a 78 billion-euro package of cost-cuts and asset sales before Greece can tap a fifth loan payment from last year’s 110 billion-euro European Union-led rescue. Ruling-party lawmaker Thomas Robopoulos said June 24 he may vote against the government, joining Alexandros Athanasiadis, who opposes plans to sell a stake in Public Power Corp SA (PPC), the former electricity monopoly.

Read the rest of this post...

"Brother Number Two" Khmer Rouge trial to start in Cambodia

It's taken a very long time for this trial to start. Too long, but at least there is a trial.

The United Nations-backed trial of the four most senior surviving members of Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge regime began on Monday, three decades after its "year zero" revolution marked one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century.

The defendants, all now elderly and infirm, were among the inner circle of the late Pol Pot, the French-educated architect of the Khmer Rouge's ultra-Maoist Killing Fields revolution.

An estimated 1.7 million Cambodians - a quarter of the population - were killed through torture, execution, starvation and exhaustion from 1975-1979.

Read the rest of this post...

Nate Silver on Obama vs. Cuomo

A rather interesting piece by Nate Silver in the NYT today. Nate, along with Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, used to be the Obama administration's favored bloggers (just my opinion, but I think it's true). While the rest of us were bitching and moaning about this and that, those three were more likely to be saying something positive about the President. Not anymore. Over the past year, and especially six months, we've seen all three become decidedly more critical of the President. It suggests that concerns about the President, whether it be his leadership style or the effect of said style on policy, is spreading beyond the base and even to those who were more of a sure bet than, say, us. We are now all the "professional left." Read the rest of this post...