Chris Hedges's Blog, page 191

Trump’s Intelligence Pick Is ‘Least Qualified … Ever,’ Senator Says

Sen. Ron Wyden issued a scathing statement late Monday warning that President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as director of national intelligence is so unqualified that he could put lives at risk.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), an ardent Trump loyalist, “is the most partisan and least qualified individual ever nominated to serve as director of national intelligence,” said Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“The sum total of his qualifications appears to be his record of promoting Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories about the investigation into Russian interference and calling for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies,” Wyden said. “Furthermore, he has endorsed widespread government surveillance and shown little concern for Americans’ rights, except for those of Donald Trump and his close associates.”

“Confirming this individual would amount to an endorsement of this administration’s drive to politicize our intelligence agencies,” the Oregon senator concluded. “This is a dangerous time, and America needs the most qualified and objective individuals possible to lead our intelligence agencies. Anything less risks American lives.”

.@RepRatcliffe is the most partisan & least qualified individual ever nominated to serve as DNI. His only qualifications seem to be promoting Trump’s conspiracy theories about the investigation into Russian interference & calling for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) July 29, 2019

Wyden’s statement comes days after Trump nominated Ratcliffe—who has no background in intelligence—to replace current Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who is stepping down next month.

The president reportedly liked the way Ratcliffe questioned former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before Congress last week.

In an interview with Politico on Monday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) described Ratcliffe as “a television character that the president has watched on TV.”

Trump, said Murphy, “wants to put somebody in this position who’s going to agree with his political take on intelligence.”

“I’ll certainly do my own evaluation,” Murphy added, “but it strikes me as a very inappropriate choice for the job in a moment when we are trying to lift intelligence out of the political soup.”

Iran Won’t Let Itself Be Hemmed In by the U.S. and U.K.

This article was produced by Globetrotter , a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In late May, the shipping authorities in Panama deregistered Grace 1, an oil tanker carrying two million barrels of Iranian crude oil around the coastline of Africa and into the Mediterranean Sea. Having lost its Panamanian flag, the ship now had to carry an Iranian one.

It was this deregistration that began a serious provocation. Off the coast of Gibraltar, British Royal Marines seized and impounded Grace 1. The British said that the ship was going toward Syria, a breach of European Union sanctions. Iran denied this.

Under pressure from the United States, Panama has removed its flag from 59 vessels that are either linked to Iran or Syria. A ship without an international flag cannot buy insurance, which means that it has to almost instantly take on a different flag.

The United States has been pressuring countries such as Sierra Leone and Togo to pressure them not to put their flags on vessels that are part of Iran’s oil export trade. Carrying an Iranian flag does not allow ships easy access to insurance; the United States has pressured insurance companies to deny insurance to these ships.

Ships with Iranian flags not only have a hard time buying insurance, but they are also on the radar of customs officials who have been asked to give these ships more scrutiny, therefore delaying their progress and raising the costs for the transport of Iranian oil.

On July 26, Tehran’s leading cleric Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami said that Britain’s actions off the coast of Gibraltar—at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea—remind Iran of Britain’s colonial history. Britain, he said, is a “cunning and colonial fox.”

The chair of the National Security Committee of Iran’s parliament—Mojtaba Zonnour—said that the actions of Great Britain should be described as “bullying and piracy.”

Brazil

Two Iranian ships—Bavand and Termeh—sat for weeks in Brazil’s Paranaguá port. They were not able to refuel because the Brazilian state oil company—Petrobras—refused to sell them oil due to pressure from the United States. Sanctions and diplomatic pressure on countries that host Iranian ships have increased over the past few months.

But the situation is not entirely simple. Iran imports $2 billion of goods from Brazil per year—mainly corn, meat, and soy. Iran’s ambassador to Brazil, Seyed Ali Saghaeyan, told Brazilian officials that if Petrobras continued to deny Iran oil for its ship, then Iran would go elsewhere to buy these goods. Brazilian traders pressured the government not to alienate Iran.

Brazil’s Supreme Court’s judge—Chief Justice Dias Toffoli—ordered Petrobras to refuel the ships. The Court said that the ships have a contract with a Brazilian firm—Eleva Química—which is not under U.S. sanctions. These two ships—including three others (Daryabar, Delruba, and Ganj)—have been carrying urea to Brazil and then returning to Iran with corn.

Flashpoint

In response to the seizure of Grace 1, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detained Stena Impero, an oil tanker that carries a British flag. This ship, the Iranians say, was behaving erratically, when it was boarded by Iranian Guard officials and then detained. Stena Impero and its crew of 23 were taken to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Iran’s Guard also boarded MV Mesdar, a British ship that was sailing under a Liberian flag. Iran said that it intervened with MV Mesdar because it steered off course toward the Iranian coastline. A few hours later, MV Mesdar was allowed to proceed.

Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations sent a letter to the UN authorities offering Iran’s view of what happened with Stena Impero. The Iranians said that the tanker collided with an Iranian fishing boat, and seriously injured the fishermen. Iranian authorities radioed the Stena Impero, which ignored its warnings and sailed away from the bearings suggested by the Iranian authorities. Iran said that it is conducting an investigation of the accident.

Stena Impero’s owners denied this narrative, as did the British government. The ship is owned by a Swedish-based firm—Stena Bulk. The Swedish government has opened a dialogue with Iran and others to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait.

Command and Control

Britain’s navy began to patrol the Strait of Hormuz, between Iran and Oman, with much more aggressiveness. HMS Montrose, a navy frigate, has been engaging Iranian Guard vessels. The British government has said that all British merchant ships will now be escorted by British navy frigates—not only the HMS Montrose but also with other ships that are now on their way to the gulf.

The United States is leading a process to create a naval force that would patrol the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. has said it will send “command and control” ships to coordinate the escort naval vessels from different countries. It is likely that Britain will work with the U.S. as the Strait of Hormuz is further militarized.

But there are cracks in the coalition.

The Japanese, for instance, have said that they will not participate in this U.S.-led military operation. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that Japan wants to reduce tensions and not inflame the situation. Japan’s Defense Minister—Takeshi Iwaya—and Chief Cabinet Secretary—Yoshihide Suga—had previously indicated that Japan would join the U.S. Now, Abe said that there should be a pause on these developments. He wants to settle the dispute with Iran. Others in Asia agree.

Main Responsibility

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said, “The main responsibility for protecting the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf is mainly with Iran and neighbouring countries,” mainly Oman. Rouhani said sharply that if other countries try to create tension, “they will receive a proper response from Iran.”

Rouhani made this comment as his special envoy to France—Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi—met with France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to insist that Iran would not allow any disturbance in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan told al-Jazeera, “Any change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz will open the door to a dangerous confrontation.” Iran is simply not prepared to back down over asserting its role in the 21 nautical mile Strait of Hormuz.

About a fifth of the world’s oil goes through this narrow waterway. Most countries in the world do not want to see this flashpoint explode into open war—as was openly indicated at the Non-Aligned Movement gathering of foreign ministers in Caracas, Venezuela.

Iran has tried to be creative with its shipping. It cannot afford to be hemmed in. On June 3, according to Reuters, Hayan, an Iranian ship, left the port of Bandar Abbas for Karachi, Pakistan. Four days later, the ship’s name changed to Mehri II and it carried the flag of Samoa. A week later, Mehri II transferred its cargo to an unknown vessel. It then turned around and returned to Iran as Hayan.

 

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than twenty books, including The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (The New Press, 2007), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013), The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016) and Red Star Over the Third World (LeftWord, 2017). He writes regularly for Frontline, the Hindu, Newsclick, AlterNet and BirGün.

Iran Won’t Let Itself Be Hemmed in by the U.S. and U.K.

This article was produced by Globetrotter , a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In late May, the shipping authorities in Panama deregistered Grace 1, an oil tanker carrying two million barrels of Iranian crude oil around the coastline of Africa and into the Mediterranean Sea. Having lost its Panamanian flag, the ship now had to carry an Iranian one.

It was this deregistration that began a serious provocation. Off the coast of Gibraltar, British Royal Marines seized and impounded Grace 1. The British said that the ship was going toward Syria, a breach of European Union sanctions. Iran denied this.

Under pressure from the United States, Panama has removed its flag from 59 vessels that are either linked to Iran or Syria. A ship without an international flag cannot buy insurance, which means that it has to almost instantly take on a different flag.

The United States has been pressuring countries such as Sierra Leone and Togo to pressure them not to put their flags on vessels that are part of Iran’s oil export trade. Carrying an Iranian flag does not allow ships easy access to insurance; the United States has pressured insurance companies to deny insurance to these ships.

Ships with Iranian flags not only have a hard time buying insurance, but they are also on the radar of customs officials who have been asked to give these ships more scrutiny, therefore delaying their progress and raising the costs for the transport of Iranian oil.

On July 26, Tehran’s leading cleric Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami said that Britain’s actions off the coast of Gibraltar—at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea—remind Iran of Britain’s colonial history. Britain, he said, is a “cunning and colonial fox.”

The chair of the National Security Committee of Iran’s parliament—Mojtaba Zonnour—said that the actions of Great Britain should be described as “bullying and piracy.”

Brazil

Two Iranian ships—Bavand and Termeh—sat for weeks in Brazil’s Paranaguá port. They were not able to refuel because the Brazilian state oil company—Petrobras—refused to sell them oil due to pressure from the United States. Sanctions and diplomatic pressure on countries that host Iranian ships have increased over the past few months.

But the situation is not entirely simple. Iran imports $2 billion of goods from Brazil per year—mainly corn, meat, and soy. Iran’s ambassador to Brazil, Seyed Ali Saghaeyan, told Brazilian officials that if Petrobras continued to deny Iran oil for its ship, then Iran would go elsewhere to buy these goods. Brazilian traders pressured the government not to alienate Iran.

Brazil’s Supreme Court’s judge—Chief Justice Dias Toffoli—ordered Petrobras to refuel the ships. The Court said that the ships have a contract with a Brazilian firm—Eleva Química—which is not under U.S. sanctions. These two ships—including three others (Daryabar, Delruba, and Ganj)—have been carrying urea to Brazil and then returning to Iran with corn.

Flashpoint

In response to the seizure of Grace 1, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detained Stena Impero, an oil tanker that carries a British flag. This ship, the Iranians say, was behaving erratically, when it was boarded by Iranian Guard officials and then detained. Stena Impero and its crew of 23 were taken to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.

Iran’s Guard also boarded MV Mesdar, a British ship that was sailing under a Liberian flag. Iran said that it intervened with MV Mesdar because it steered off course toward the Iranian coastline. A few hours later, MV Mesdar was allowed to proceed.

Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations sent a letter to the UN authorities offering Iran’s view of what happened with Stena Impero. The Iranians said that the tanker collided with an Iranian fishing boat, and seriously injured the fishermen. Iranian authorities radioed the Stena Impero, which ignored its warnings and sailed away from the bearings suggested by the Iranian authorities. Iran said that it is conducting an investigation of the accident.

Stena Impero’s owners denied this narrative, as did the British government. The ship is owned by a Swedish-based firm—Stena Bulk. The Swedish government has opened a dialogue with Iran and others to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait.

Command and Control

Britain’s navy began to patrol the Strait of Hormuz, between Iran and Oman, with much more aggressiveness. HMS Montrose, a navy frigate, has been engaging Iranian Guard vessels. The British government has said that all British merchant ships will now be escorted by British navy frigates—not only the HMS Montrose but also with other ships that are now on their way to the gulf.

The United States is leading a process to create a naval force that would patrol the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. has said it will send “command and control” ships to coordinate the escort naval vessels from different countries. It is likely that Britain will work with the U.S. as the Strait of Hormuz is further militarized.

But there are cracks in the coalition.

The Japanese, for instance, have said that they will not participate in this U.S.-led military operation. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that Japan wants to reduce tensions and not inflame the situation. Japan’s Defense Minister—Takeshi Iwaya—and Chief Cabinet Secretary—Yoshihide Suga—had previously indicated that Japan would join the U.S. Now, Abe said that there should be a pause on these developments. He wants to settle the dispute with Iran. Others in Asia agree.

Main Responsibility

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said, “The main responsibility for protecting the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf is mainly with Iran and neighbouring countries,” mainly Oman. Rouhani said sharply that if other countries try to create tension, “they will receive a proper response from Iran.”

Rouhani made this comment as his special envoy to France—Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi—met with France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian to insist that Iran would not allow any disturbance in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan told al-Jazeera, “Any change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz will open the door to a dangerous confrontation.” Iran is simply not prepared to back down over asserting its role in the 21 nautical mile Strait of Hormuz.

About a fifth of the world’s oil goes through this narrow waterway. Most countries in the world do not want to see this flashpoint explode into open war—as was openly indicated at the Non-Aligned Movement gathering of foreign ministers in Caracas, Venezuela.

Iran has tried to be creative with its shipping. It cannot afford to be hemmed in. On June 3, according to Reuters, Hayan, an Iranian ship, left the port of Bandar Abbas for Karachi, Pakistan. Four days later, the ship’s name changed to Mehri II and it carried the flag of Samoa. A week later, Mehri II transferred its cargo to an unknown vessel. It then turned around and returned to Iran as Hayan.

Kamala Harris’ New Health Plan Draws Critics From All Sides

WASHINGTON — Kamala Harris released a health care proposal on Monday that sought to bridge the Democratic Party’s disparate factions. Instead, she drew criticism from virtually everyone.

Progressives took issue with the presidential candidate for stopping short of the full-scale health care overhaul embodied by the “Medicare for All” legislation. Her more moderate rivals, meanwhile, said she was trying to have it all without taking a firm position on one of the most animating issues in the primary.

The onslaught offered a preview of the Democrat-on-Democrat fighting that will likely unfold over two nights of presidential debates that begin on Tuesday. It left Harris back in the uncomfortable spot she’s been for months: explaining herself on health care. Campaigning on Monday in Detroit, she praised Medicare for All’s chief architect, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for “making sure this is a front and center topic” even as she distanced herself from his strategy.

Related Articles











Fiery Second Democratic Debate: Race, Age, Health Care and Trump



by

















All the Urgent Issues the Democratic Debates Will Leave Out



by

“I have a vision of what it should be, and the existing plans that are being offered did not express what I wanted,” the California senator told reporters.

Medicare for All has become a central focus in the Democratic primary, with the most progressive candidates calling for a revolutionary approach to providing government insurance coverage for all Americans at a lower price than the private market.

But Harris split from that approach on several fronts. She envisions a role for private insurers as long as they follow the government’s rules. She would slow the transition to a so-called single-payer system to 10 years from the four Sanders has proposed. And she has ruled out tax increases on middle-income Americans, an idea to which Sanders has expressed openness in exchange for lowering the price of health coverage.

Few rushed to align themselves with the Harris proposal.

A top adviser to Joe Biden, with whom Harris memorably clashed during the first debate, blasted the California senator’s plan as a failed attempt to please all sides in the debate and warned that her decision to push a 10-year transition obscures the full cost of her approach.

“This new, have-it-every-which-way approach pushes the extremely challenging implementation of the Medicare for All part of this plan ten years into the future, meaning it would not occur on the watch of even a two-term administration,” said Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield. “The result? A Bernie Sanders-lite Medicare for All and a refusal to be straight with the American middle class, who would have a large tax increase forced on them with this plan.”

Harris also got hit from the left over her health care tightrope walk. Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir accused her of “continuing her gradual backdown from Medicare for All” and suggested that she had been inconsistent on the issue of health care.

Adam Gaffney, the president of Physicians for a National Health Program, said Harris’ plan has “several major shortcomings,” including the continuation of private insurance and the longer transition period.

“This plan continues to give private insurance a very central role in the health care system,” he said. “We have seen for decades that that does not work.”

But Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress, lauded Harris for trying to assuage “concerns that people have about disruption and about an abrupt transition” away from a largely employer-based health insurance system.

Spiro likened Harris’ plan to the current design of Medicare and Medicaid, which he said “shows it’s possible to have a government program that provides benefits through private options that is very cost-efficient.” He declined to say whether he consulted with the campaign on its plan beyond providing information on Medicare Extra, his group’s proposed alternative to Sanders’ Medicare for All.

Harris has repeatedly been forced to clear up her stance on Medicare for All. She previously appeared to suggest that she supported abolishing private insurance but later clarified that she does not.

Sanders and Harris will debate on different nights during this week’s second primary debates, so they won’t clash directly on health care. But liberals who will share the stage with Harris, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, could press the issue.

Sanders said this month that the sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health system he envisions could cost up to $40 trillion over a decade, and he has said that one option for paying for part of that hefty price would be a 4% tax hike on families making more than $29,000 each year.

Harris is calling for exempting households making less than $100,000 each year from that 4% tax, with “a higher income threshold for middle-class families living in high-cost areas.” While Sanders estimated that his proposed tax increase would raise $3.5 trillion over 10 years, Harris did not specify how much revenue would be raised in the scenario she’s proposing.

To pay for the difference, Harris wants to tax stock trades at 0.2% of the value of the transaction, 0.1% for bonds and 0.002% for derivatives.

___

Associated Press writers Hunter Woodall in Detroit and Elana Schor in Washington contributed to this report.

Doubts Emerge About Trump Pick for U.S. Intelligence Chief

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick for national intelligence director has been mayor of a small Texas city, a federal prosecutor and a member of Congress. But questions were already emerging Monday about whether those qualifications are adequate for the position as the nation confronts threats that include foreign election interference, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the risk of war with Iran.

Rep. John Ratcliffe is also known as a Trump loyalist, which makes his lack of relevant experience even more striking at a time when current and former government officials expect Russia to interfere in the 2020 presidential election just as it did in unprecedented fashion when Trump first ran.

“Ratcliffe comes to the job with the least national security experience and the most partisan political experience of any previous director of national intelligence,” said Mike Morell, a former acting CIA director who now hosts the “Intelligence Matters” podcast.

Related Articles











Cronyism and Corruption Gave Us Today's CIA



by

The director of national intelligence has oversight of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies. If confirmed, Ratcliffe would be the principal intelligence adviser to Trump, who has appeared determined to surround himself with vocal protectors and defenders even in national security positions that haven’t historically been perceived as overtly partisan.

It is unclear, for instance, what experience he will bring in helping thwart foreign government efforts to interfere in American politics. Also unknown is whether skepticism he has voiced in Congress about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign will affect his response to any foreign influence or cyberattacks on campaigns.

Ratcliffe, who was among the most aggressive Republican questionersof Mueller at public hearings last week, would replace outgoing director Dan Coats at a time of broader reshuffling within the national security leadership structure.

The selection comes two months after Trump empowered another ally , Attorney General William Barr, to declassify intelligence collected by other agencies, including the CIA, as part of the Russia investigation. Ratcliffe has made clear his skepticism of that investigation and his belief that Trump was treated improperly by investigators, saying in a talk show appearance Sunday that it was time to move on from discussion of impeachment.

“It’s a moment when Donald Trump can deepen his personal stranglehold over the intelligence function and knock out any voices of dissent to his particular world view,” said Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “That’s a scary thing for the country.”

Coats, who will step down next month, was publicly steadfast about his conviction that Russia had interfered in the election even in the face of the president’s ambivalence. He appeared to scoff when told in an interview last year that Trump had invited Putin to Washington.

In his resignation letter, he cited as an accomplishment the appointment of an election security executive “to support the whole-of-government effort to address threats against our election.”

Tensions with Trump notwithstanding, Coats did bring to the job decades of Washington experience, including lengthy stints as an Indiana congressman and U.S. ambassador to Germany. His predecessor in the Obama administration, James Clapper, spent decades in the military and in intelligence, including as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Ratcliffe does not have equivalent credentials, though his supporters are likely to point to his experience as a terrorism prosecutor and federal prosecutor, as well as his recent membership on the House intelligence committee, which he joined in January.

First elected to Congress in 2014, Ratcliffe’s experience as top federal prosecutor in east Texas gave him instant clout when Republicans ran the Judiciary panel. He was one of the main questioners when Republicans hauled in Justice Department officials to question them about whether they were biased against Trump in the early days of the FBI’s Russia probe.

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House’s intelligence committee, tweeted that Ratcliffe “understands the intricacies of the intelligence community as well as civil liberties.”

It’s unclear whether concerns about his credentials will trip up the confirmation process. Confirmation takes a simple 51-vote majority, under new rules in the Senate, but that leaves slim room for error with Republicans holding a 53-seat majority.

Sen. Richard Burr, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said Monday that he would move swiftly to push the nomination through his Republican-led panel, even though the Senate’s top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, warned that it would be a big mistake “if Senate Republicans elevate such a partisan player to a position requiring intelligence expertise & non-partisanship.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement Sunday that praised Coats but pointedly noted: “The U.S. intelligence community works best when it is led by professionals who protect its work from political or analytical bias and who deliver unvarnished hard truths to political leaders in both the executive and legislative branches. Very often the news these briefings bring is unpleasant, but it is essential that we be confronted with the facts. Dan Coats was such a leader.”

Even before Mueller testified, Trump had his eye on Ratcliffe, who had already established himself as an outspoken defender of the president and raised Trump-backed questions about the conduct of the intelligence community in the Russia probe. But two officials said his aggressive questioning of the former special counsel cemented the president’s view that he was the right person for the job.

On Wednesday, he told Mueller that while he accepted that Russia’s interference was “sweeping and systematic,” he was also concerned about how much intelligence came from an ex-British spy who received Democratic funding to investigate Trump.

He pointedly accused Mueller of departing from the special counsel’s own rules by writing “180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that were charged or decided.”

“I think it’s fair to say that the political partisanship he brought to the hearing … which came across as undertaken on behalf of the president to denigrate the work of the special counsel raises considerable questions about whether he is fit to serve as the DNI,” said David Laufman, a former Justice Department national security official.

___

Associated Press writer Zeke Miller contributed to this report.

Biden’s Criminal Justice Plan Can’t Reform the System He Helped Create

Joe Biden’s Criminal Justice plan is a band aid on an open wound he helped inflict, particularly on poor Black and brown communities. Kamau Franklin and Jacqueline Luqman take a closer look at the contradiction

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN This very day, violent drug offenders will commit more than 100,000 crimes on this day alone. In a nutshell, the president’s plan doesn’t include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, not enough prosecutors to convict them, not enough judges to sentence them, and not enough prison cells to put them away for a long time.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN This is Jacqueline Luqman and this is The Real News Network.

That was Joe Biden back in 1989 talking about his focus or the focus that he felt needed to be placed on how to address crime, the growing crime problem in many cities across America. But now, Joe Biden is announcing his criminal justice plan that he intends to campaign on and that he claims he will implement if he is president to address some other issues.

JOE BIDEN CAMPAIGN AD It’s time we put justice back in criminal justice. Look, too many people in this country are incarcerated, and too many of them are black and brown. That’s why Joe Biden’s proposing a comprehensive plan to reduce our prison population, reform the juvenile justice system, eliminate racial disparities, and make our communities safe.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN Well, this is the Trending Topics panel and we’re going to discuss Joe Biden’s new criminal justice plan that he recently announced. Some are calling his plan “radical” [laughs] while others are criticizing it as a Band-Aid on an open wound that Joe Biden himself helped to inflict— particularly on poor black and brown communities. But what’s in Biden’s criminal justice plan, and will his proposals deliver what he promises they will?

Here to talk with me about this today is Kamau Franklin. Kamau is an attorney and the founder of Community Movement Builders, Inc., a grassroots organizing group, and a co-host of Renegade Culture, a podcast that covers news and current events affecting and involving the black community. Kamau, thank you so much for joining me.

KAMAU FRANKLIN Thanks for having me.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN So let’s just get right to it. I have to get your thoughts on the campaign ad, the campaign video we just showed with Symone Sanders announcing this plan. What are your very first off-the-top-of-your-head thoughts?

KAMAU FRANKLIN [laughs] Well, you know what? At first, I’m going to say something kind to the Democrats. It’s good to be in an era where instead of the Clinton and Obama days where the emphasis was telling black folks to pull up our pants, and that our social conditions were our fault, to see Democrats fighting over each other to move a little bit to the left on renouncing some of their past activities in some ways, and actually at least talking about criminal justice reform, is a better thing than not. Now with that compliment said, it’s hard to take Joe Biden seriously and/or his campaign surrogates.

Joe Biden is a man, again, who moves with the wind. His ideas will shift with whatever time period he thinks he’s in. And I think what you’re seeing now with his campaign ad and with his new, sort of, release of his criminal justice reform ad, is that he’s seeing that the wind is blowing more left than not, and he’d better get on this bandwagon. So I don’t think Joe Biden is standing by any real principles that he has on this issue, and I think he will continue to just continue to say that, you know what? I was the Vice President Barack Obama, the first black President of the United States. I was the Vice President Barack Obama, the first black President of the United States. Oh yeah, and guess what? I was the Vice President of Barack Obama, the first black President of the United States.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN You know, I’m going to try not to laugh during this segment [laughs] because reading through this criminal justice plan that Biden has, his proposals may seem comprehensive on the surface, but they’re actually quite laughable especially in the context and against the backdrop that you just mentioned that we cannot take Biden seriously because of his legislative record, because of his own branding of himself focusing only and almost exclusively on the fact that he was the Vice President of the first black President of the United States. But we do have to take a serious look at this criminal justice proposal that he’s put out because of the backdrop of his legislative history and going back to the things he said on the record in 1989, in ’92 and ’93, as we saw at the top of the segment.

But when we look at the language of Biden’s campaign, his criminal justice reform package, it says on his web page that “As president, Joe Biden will strengthen America’s commitment to justice and reform our criminal justice system.” But let’s be reminded again, back in ’94 Biden said— and this is from The New York Times and was recently published again in a New York Times article— “Every time Richard Nixon, when he was running in 1972, would say ‘law and order,’ the Democratic match or response was ‘law and order with justice’ — whatever that meant. And I would say, ‘lock the SOBs up.’” That’s what Joe Biden said about criminal justice or the approach to criminal justice, speaking about his own party back in ’92. So—

KAMAU FRANKLIN Yeah. I mean, let’s remember that Joe Biden comes from that history — I’m sorry to interrupt but — Joe Biden comes from that history. Where, as he’s talked about himself, where moderation for Democrats was key, for him moderation meant that they all agreed on what should happen to black people was that whether or not we had jobs, there was a criminal element that had to be prosecuted, that the way to solve individual issues in any community was to prosecute, to lock up. Part of his own reform is to undo things that he helped usher in in the first criminal bill back in the Clinton days, i.e. taking away the reduction between sentencing of crack cocaine and powder cocaine. So here’s a man, again, who comes from a history where moderation meant they all agreed that criminalizing, locking people up, and longer sentences was what was good in terms of justice.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN Yeah. I’m so glad you brought up that point of Biden coming from a place of just saying that there’s something wrong with black people, and that black people in particular are criminal. And as he said, he doesn’t care why they are this way— and we have that clip in a minute— that he just “wants to lock the SOBs up.” He says now on his criminal justice page on his campaign website that we have to address these underlying factors to provide opportunities for all. And he says now on his campaign website on his criminal justice webpage, “We have to address these underlying factors to provide opportunities for all and prevent crime and incarceration. Focusing on these underlying issues is not just the right thing to do, it is also good for our communities and our economy.” But that’s not what he said in 1993 [laughs] and we have the video from one of those comments that he made back then.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN It doesn’t matter whether or not the person that is accosting your son or daughter, or my son or daughter, my wife, your husband, my mother, your parents. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth. It doesn’t matter or not whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons. So I don’t want to ask, what made them do this? They must be taken off the street.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN So Kamau, it didn’t matter why people committed crime then. He just wanted to take them off the street because, you know, everybody was hitting his mother over the head, or accosting his sons, and, you know, that kind of thing. But now, he is focusing his criminal justice plan on these core principles that he has highlighted on his website. Now, I think the easiest way to really take a look at what Biden is saying and why it’s so problematic is to kind of take each section piece by piece, as painful as that might be. [laughs] But I want to start with his views on intervention, his plans to prevent crime. He says that he wants to create a $20 billion competitive grant program to shift the state’s focus from incarceration to prevention. When I hear the words “comprehensive grant,” that sounds like block grants to me. Are—

KAMAU FRANKLIN Yeah. I was going to say I think that’s exactly what this is. These are competitive block grants. Remember, these will be distributed if they’re—Or if they’re even enacted to be honest, right? They’ll be distributed and each state will then get a chance to implement them the way they see forth. And so, if states see other tendencies as to why someone is socialized towards A, B and C, they will enact whatever grants they get differently than another state. So to suggest somehow that this is some panacea effect across state lines based on what these block grants will supposedly do, I think again is just a shot in the dark for Biden using the up-to-date rhetoric that I think his campaign affiliates and staffers have helped him with and come up with. Some new ideas that fit into the time period that we are in today, as opposed to his rhetoric 30 or 40 years ago.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN And specifically, the issue with block grants is particularly problematic because basically the states get to do what they want, regardless of what actually has been proven to work. As you said, if states see fit to implement programs that they believe create a different outcome that they think is more beneficial one way or the other, it doesn’t matter what actual data says, they have the money, they are in control of it, so they get to do what they want. So how does that help?

KAMAU FRANKLIN Yeah. I think that’s completely accurate. I think usually with black grants, even when there are stringent requirements that say this money has to be spent A, B, C, some states will reject these grants outright and won’t use them at all because they feel like they won’t go towards whatever their intended purposes are for what the state desires that it wants. And even further, states usually will have a lot of room to say, you know for us, crime prevention will be— guess what? More police on the street. That’s where we think this should go, or should go into more PAL programs that are controlled by the police, so they won’t necessarily look deeply into what the issue is. And so, then you have this uneven effect, if any effect whatsoever.

So I think the block grants and the rhetoric associated with it seem to me to be, again, an updating of Joe Biden’s platform based on having better surrogates and better campaign staff than he did 30 or 40 years ago. But this is not a comprehensive plan to lower incarceration and/or a comprehensive plan that will do something in the community to bring more jobs, more businesses, business opportunities, more cooperatives, more stakeholders in, which will have a better effect on outcomes when we talk about things like crime or socialization.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN And another aspect of this intervention part of Biden’s criminal justice plan that is very interesting, is his focus on increasing funding to allow for more mental health access, more mental health treatment, more psychologists, school sociologists, counselors in schools, and particularly focusing on having mental health professionals train police officers to respond better to people with mental health challenges. Now, that sounds very interesting to me, but I’m not going to give my opinion because I want to hear what your opinion is on that aspect of Biden’s criminal justice plan and why that’s problematic.

KAMAU FRANKLIN Well, I think the pathology associated with mental health treatment for folks who are the victims of American oppression, systematic injustice, to me goes towards the wrong ends on which you should solve this problem can be solved. This, again, plays into a moderate base that suggests, oh these people if they were only trained to act a certain way, would not be doing some of these activities— as opposed to looking at the bigger picture of lack of resources, lack of economic opportunities, lack of control over institutions and communities. And so, I think the idea that somehow mental health officials, particularly within schools need to focus on these young people, is missing the boat about what the larger issue is.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN Now, there is so much more we could delve into in just the intervention section of Joe Biden’s criminal justice plan, but we are out of time in this segment. But please stay tuned for the next segment because we’re going to get into the meat of the matter, specifically the meat of what is the matter with Joe Biden’s criminal justice plan and that is the section where he addresses racial bias and injustice. But right now, I want to thank you, Kamau Franklin, for joining me for this segment.

KAMAU FRANKLIN Thank you.

JACQUELINE LUQMAN And thank you for watching. This is Jacqueline Luqman with The Real News Network in Baltimore.

There’s One Way to Stop Trump From Acting on Nuclear Threats

On July 22, during a meeting at the White House with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, President Trump alluded to military plans in which the U.S. could “win the war” in Afghanistan in a matter of days. “I could win that war in a week, I just don’t want to kill 10 million people,” Trump said. “Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth.”

Trump did not explicitly say what weapons would be used to achieve this outcome. However, his comments implicitly invoked the use of nuclear weapons, the only military resource in the U.S. arsenal capable of killing that many people in such a short time. While it is highly unlikely President Trump reviewed any such plans regarding Afghanistan (he has been known to lie on occasion), the fact that he chose to mention a scenario that invoked a massive U.S. nuclear strike sent a signal to Afghanistan’s neighbor, Iran, that when it comes to resolving the ongoing crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, all options were, indeed, on the table.

Related Articles











How Corporate Media Are Fueling a New Iran Nuclear Crisis



by Gareth Porter

















Trump's Withdrawal From the Iran Nuclear Deal Invites Disaster (Video)



by Chris Hedges

Americans have become accustomed to presidents capable of rationally managing the awesome power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, dating back to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. For two weeks in October 1962, the world was on the verge of global nuclear annihilation. President Kennedy was under pressure from the Pentagon to use military force to prevent the Soviet Union from installing nuclear-armed medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles on the island that would threaten much of the southern and eastern United States. Nuclear war was ultimately averted; Kennedy disregarded the advice of the military chiefs, opting instead to rely upon diplomacy.

One of the factors that weighed on Kennedy was the consequences of a nuclear conflict. In July 1961, Kennedy had been briefed for the first time on the U.S. nuclear war plan. After hearing an estimated 48 to 71 million people in the U.S. would be “killed outright,” with another 67 million in Russia and 76 million in China likewise perishing, Kennedy said to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “And we call ourselves the human race.” That moral rejection of nuclear mass murder became the standard that had guided successive presidents when it came to nuclear conflict.

Until Donald Trump.

Trump’s casual reference to murdering 10 million Afghans wasn’t the first time he had threatened to use nuclear weapons in a precipitous fashion. In August 2017, while responding to statements made by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump declared that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

On Nov. 14, 2017, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee did something it hadn’t done in 41 years—addressed the authority to use nuclear weapons. In convening that hearing, the Republican chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, observed, “Making the decision to go to war of any sort is a heavy responsibility for our nation’s elected leaders, and the decision to use nuclear weapons is the most consequential of all.” His Democratic counterpart, Sen. Ben Cardin, added in his opening remarks, “Given today’s challenges, we need to revisit this question on whether a single individual should have the sole and unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack under all circumstances, including the right to use it as a first strike.”

But the event that prompted the U.S. Senate to convene such a rare hearing wasn’t casual curiosity about U.S. nuclear launch authority, but rather the words of President Trump regarding North Korea. Cardin noted in his opening remarks that, in reference to Trump’s statement, “many interpret that to mean that the president is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons in order to deal with the threat of North Korea. That is frightening.”

Robert Kehler, the former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired Air Force general, told the committee, “The decision to employ nuclear weapons is a political decision requiring an explicit order from the president.” However, Kehler said, “the law of war governs the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Nuclear options and orders are no different in this regard than any other weapon,” adding that “the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to nuclear plans, operations and decisions.”

Under questioning from Cardin, Kehler was given a scenario in which the president, after consulting with his advisers, is told that “under the guidelines on proportionality and necessity, that this is not appropriate for use of a nuclear first-strike. Is there action that can be taken by those advisers if the president overrules that decision and says, no, we are going with a nuclear attack?”

Kehler responded that such a scenario presented a “very interesting constitutional situation” because, as a military officer, he would “be obligated to follow legal orders but not obligated to follow illegal orders.”

If there is an illegal order presented to the military, the military is obligated to refuse to follow it. Now the question is just the one that you described. It is the process leading to that determination and how you arrive at that. I would concede to you that that would be a very difficult process and a very difficult conversation. But in the scenario that you are painting here, I would also argue that there is time for that kind of a deliberate conversation on these matters.

Gen. John Hyten, the current commander of Strategic Command and Trump’s nominee for vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expanded on Kehler’s points a day after that 2017 Senate hearing.  In comments made at the Halifax International Security Forum, Hyten said: “I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do. And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Except that it is, in fact, very complicated.

The critical issue that would have to be addressed by U.S. military commanders regarding the use of nuclear weapons under international law is that of proportionality. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the issue of proportionality holds that even if an attack is directed at military targets, it would be considered unlawful if it causes harm to civilians and civilian objects that “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” It was the opinion of the ICJ that “It cannot be accepted that the use of nuclear weapons on a scale which would—or could—result in the deaths of many millions in indiscriminate inferno and by far-reaching fallout, have profoundly pernicious effects in space and time, and render uninhabitable much or all of the earth, could be lawful.” However, some within the ICJ held that the use of nuclear weapons would, in fact, be lawful if the military target was “so situated that substantial civilian casualties would not ensue.”

While there is no debating that any indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons against Iranian civilian and industrial targets would constitute a clear violation of customary international law, there are certain target sets in Iran which, because of their remoteness and composition, could fall into the category of an exception referred to in the dissenting ICJ opinion.

Iran has concentrated its uranium enrichment potential in two locations. The first is the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, which is about 19 miles from the city of Natanz (population 12,000) and 43 miles from the city of Kashan (population 400,000). The actual halls in which the cascades used to enrich uranium are installed are situated about 10 yards (nine meters) underground and are covered by thick reinforced concrete slabs further covered by 24 yards (22 meters)  of earth. The second is the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which is about 98 yards (90 meters) underground, buried into the side of a mountain. The nearest village is Fordow, with a population of about 800; the closest major population center is the city of Qom, about 20 miles away.

The U.S. currently has one nuclear weapon that is optimized for both targets—the B61-11 gravity bomb. Designed during the Gulf War to address the problem of buried Iraqi targets, the B61-11 entered the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the late 1990s. It uses a modified version of the casing employed by the GBU-28 conventional deep penetration bomb, and reportedly has a variable yield, which can be “dialed in” by the pilots depending on the target being struck, of from 0.3 to 340 kilotons. Based upon achieving a penetration depth of three meters and a yield of 0.3 kilotons, the B61-11 could destroy a target buried under more than 16 yards (15 meters) of hard rock or concrete. Similarly, a yield of 340 kilotons at the same penetration would allow a hardened target buried up to about 76 yards (70 meters) to be destroyed.

As such, if the president, acting in his capacity as the commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, ordered a nuclear attack using B61-11 gravity bombs against either Natanz, Fordow or both, the issue of proportionality would be satisfied given the fact that both targets are sufficiently removed from major population centers as to limit the collateral damage that would occur following a nuclear detonation. Moreover, the hardened status of both targets means their respective destruction could not be guaranteed by conventional attacks alone.

This is the scenario that could be followed by President Trump in ordering a nuclear strike against Iran that would be considered legal under the law of war, and as such executable by his military commanders. In any event, the president could always argue that, regardless of its substance, customary international law is not binding to the executive branch under the Constitution because it is not federal law.

There was one additional roadblock to the use of nuclear weapons—U.S. policy as set out  in the Department of Defense’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which, according to Kehler, “provided important context regarding the consideration of U.S. nuclear use (i.e., extreme circumstances when vital national interests are at stake).” Inherent in this context was  the stated policy found in the “negative security guarantee” that the U.S. would not consider using nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state that is a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and remains in compliance with its nonproliferation obligations. When this guarantee was first made, in the context of the 2010 NPR, then-Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates stated that it did not apply to Iran, because Iran was not in compliance with the NPT. For Iran, Gates noted, “all bets are off. All options are on the table.”

Iran’s status changed following the finalization of the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA (better known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement) in 2015. If Iran complied with the provisions set forth in this agreement, it would be in full compliance with its obligations under the NPT, and the “negative security guarantee” would be applicable. This is precisely what occurred—until, that is, President Trump precipitously withdrew from the JCPOA in May 2018.

In the following year, Iran fully complied with its obligations under that agreement despite the U.S. action, assiduously adhering to the restrictions imposed on it by terms that had been enshrined by a U.N. Security Council resolution, while the U.S. has engaged in what it terms a campaign of “maximum pressure” of economic sanctions that were in violation of international law and designed to compel Iran to abandon a nuclear program the international community had certified as being peaceful in nature.

Regardless of Iran’s continuing to abide by the restrictions placed on it by the terms of the JCPOA, the U.S. placed pressure on Europe and the rest of the world not to purchase Iranian oil, threatening to retaliate against any country that did by imposing crippling “secondary sanctions.” In turn, Iran has called the U.S. actions a form of “economic terrorism,” and this month began exceeding the caps on enrichment levels and uranium stockpiles that had been set by the JCPOA. Iran rightfully noted it was permitted to do so by the terms of the JCPOA, given the withdrawal of the U.S. from that agreement and the failure of Europe to adhere to commitments regarding unimpeded trade it had made as part of the JCPOA. Iran has likewise threatened to quit the NPT if the U.S. doesn’t end its sanctions.

Such an action would nullify the policy of “negative security guarantee” that shielded it from being targeted by U.S. nuclear weapons. But even if Iran remains in the NPT, the Trump administration has been making a public case—which it has not backed up with any evidence—that Iran is already in technical violation of the NPT.

In April, the State Department released its annual report to Congress assessing compliance with arms control agreements. The report contended that Iran’s retention of a nuclear archive, a claim made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2018, raised questions about whether Iran was attempting to resume its nuclear weapons program. The report also claimed—again, without any attribution—that Iran was retaining undeclared nuclear material. In both cases, the report noted, Iran would be in violation of the NPT.

That these unsupported allegations of Iranian noncompliance occurred while the international community found Iran to be in full compliance with the JCPOA is troubling. That the U.S. would build a case for nuclear weapons release based upon misleading claims that were prompted by a decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the JCPOA is doubly so. But the artificial crisis the U.S. manufactured runs the risk of becoming a real crisis. The 2018 NPR declares the first use of nuclear weapons will be considered only under “extreme circumstances.” However, these circumstances are broader than in the 2010 NPR, including what it terms “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” against “U.S., allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure” as a trigger for the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

This category is especially troubling given Iran’s threats to retaliate against U.S. military facilities in the region surrounding the Persian Gulf, shut down the strategic Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic, cutting off more than 30% of the global oil supply, and destroy the economic infrastructure, including oil production facilities, of the Gulf Arab states, which are important U.S. allies. In the face of these threats this  June, Trump tweeted that “Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.”

Obliteration is another way of saying nuclear weapons would be used.

Two things emerge from this narrative. First and foremost, the Senate was wrong in believing that international law provided a basis for internal checks and balances within the U.S. military that could justify opposition to a nuclear strike against Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. Second, the Senate based its assessment of the role played by the policy enshrined in the Nuclear Posture Review on a document from 2010 that has since been superseded. By broadening the “extreme circumstances” under which the use of nuclear weapons could be justified, the 2018 NPR opened the door for President Trump to follow through with his threat of “obliteration.” And the Senate let it happen.

President Trump’s offhand threat to murder 10 million Afghans should serve as a wake-up call for those in the U.S. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are concerned about the future not only of the United States, but all humanity. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should reconvene its hearing on the authority to use nuclear weapons and rectify its past mistakes by putting forward legislation that precludes any first use of nuclear weapons by the United States—period. While nuclear weapons continue to exist in the world, there is a role to be played by a viable nuclear enterprise that serves as a deterrent against any nation using its nuclear arsenal in support of aggression. There is also a role for these nations to recognize the suicidal futility inherent in any use of nuclear weapons.

It is intolerable for the United States to seek to leverage its nuclear arsenal for any purpose other than to deter the use of nuclear weapons. There is simply no non-nuclear threat that can inflict enough damage to provide reciprocal cover for the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation. By embracing a nuclear employment doctrine that permits the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear scenario, the United States legitimizes the possession of these weapons in a way that is unacceptable in a world that supposedly embraces the tenets of nuclear nonproliferation. It is the role of Congress to correct flawed policy, and this role can best be implemented by modifying the existing war powers authorities granted the resident as commander in chief to exclude in perpetuity the ability to use nuclear weapons in any situation other than responding to a nuclear attack.

Gilroy Mayor: Mass Shooting at Festival ‘Beyond Sad’

GILROY, Calif. — The Latest on a shooting at a food festival in Northern California (all times local):

3:37 p.m.

Vendors at California’s Gilroy Garlic Festival say a 10-year-old girl saved their bosses’ 3-year-old son from harm after a gunman shot at their tent, wounding the toddler’s parents.

Related Articles











Guns and Liberty



by Chris Hedges

















Lies Liberals Tell Themselves About the Second Amendment



by Robert Scheer

Candice Marquez told The Associated Press on Monday that she was working the Honey Ladies stand with Cheryl Low when they stepped away to go to nearby portable restrooms.

When they left the restrooms, they heard what they said sounded like fireworks. They looked to their left and saw a shooter putting another clip into a gun and heading toward the Honey Ladies tent.

Marquez says she and Low ran in the other direction while the gunman continued.

While this was happening, Marquez says, her 10-year-old niece was still in the tent and helped their bosses’ 3-year-old son to safety under a table.

Marquez says her niece told her she looked the gunman right in the eye, but that he didn’t shoot.

___

3:30 p.m.

Authorities in northern Nevada say they searched an apartment believed to have been used by the 19-year-old man responsible for the California garlic festival shooting that killed two children and a recent college graduate.

Mineral County District Attorney Sean Rowe confirmed the search by the FBI and local sheriff’s deputies of one of three homes in a modest stucco single-story building overlooking Walker Lake a few miles north of Hawthorne, Nevada.

Mineral County Sheriff Randy Adams called the investigation ongoing and declined in a statement to provide information about what was sought or found.

A spokeswoman for the FBI in Nevada declined to comment.

Another apartment in the triplex appeared to be vacant, and no one answered the door at the third.

___

1:20 p.m.

A northern Nevada gun shop says the gunman in the California festival shooting purchased his rifle through the store’s online shop and appeared happy and presented “no reasons for concern” when he appeared in person.

Big Mike’s Guns and Ammo in Fallon posted on the shop’s Facebook page that “we are heartbroken this could ever happen,” and the business “would never sell any firearm to anyone who acted wrong or looks associated with any bad group like white power.”

The post’s author, who signed off as “Mike,” said he did not know the gunman, but “when I did see him, he was acting happy and show no reasons for concern.”

A law enforcement official said investigators believe the gunman used a WASR-10, which was purchased from Big Mikes Gun and Ammo in Nevada earlier this month. The official was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity

— Associated Press reporter Michael Balsamo in Washington

___

1:10 p.m.

One of the three people killed in a shooting at California’s Gilroy Garlic Festival has been identified as a recent graduate of a college in upstate New York.

Keuka College President Amy Storey says in statement Monday that Trevor Irby, a biology major who graduated in 2017, was among the victims of the Sunday shooting.

Keuka College is about 70 miles (113 kilometers) southwest of Syracuse, New York.

The others killed were a 6-year-old boy, Stephen Romero, and a 13-year-old girl whose name has not been released.

Authorities say three police officers fatally shot the gunman.

___

12:30 p.m.

The gunman in the California festival shooting appears to have posted two photos on Instagram that day, including one minutes before he opened fire.

Police say Santino William Legan killed three victims and wounded 12 others Sunday at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

Legan’s since-deleted Instagram account says he is Italian and Iranian. It also shows a photo he posted earlier depicting Smokey the Bear in front of a “fire danger” sign. In the caption, Legan said to read “Might is Right,” a book published in the 1800s.

The misogynist and anti-Semitic work is used by neo-Nazis and white supremacists on extremist sites.

Minutes before the shooting, he posted a photo from the festival: “Ayyy garlic festival time” and “come get wasted on overpriced (stuff).”

___

10:44 a.m.

The mayor of the California city where a gunman killed three at an annual food festival says the community will mourn the tragedy but will get through it.

Gilroy Mayor Roland Velasco told a press conference Monday that gun violence is an epidemic in the United States and it’s “beyond sad” that a charitable event such as the Gilroy Garlic Festival was targeted.

The gunman opened fire Sunday as the festival was in its closing hours, sending the crowd scattering.

Three police officers immediately engaged and killed the gunman, who was armed with an assault-type rifle.

The mayor commended the officers’ “remarkable bravery” in running toward the shooter and says they undoubtedly saved many lives by putting their own lives in danger.

___

10:25 a.m.

Authorities say the shooter who attacked a California food festival used an assault-type rifle and opened fire on three local police officers who immediately responded.

Gilroy Police Chief Scot Smithee says even though the handgun-equipped officers were outgunned, the officers were able quickly fatally shoot the gunman.

The shooting occurred on the closing day of the annual Gilroy Garlic Festival.

The gunman killed a 6-year-old boy, a 13-year-old girl and a man in his 20s. There’s no immediate word on the other 15 people who were either wounded or suffered injuries such as scrapes and bruises.

Smithee says the motive remains unknown. Police are still investigating whether there is a second suspect.

___

8:50 a.m.

A woman who lives across the street from the family of a man who opened fire at California food festival says SWAT officers came to the home.

Jan Dickson says the officers ordered those inside to come out with their hands up Sunday night and one person did. She says the parents had four boys: one who’s a boxer and another who’s a runner.

Dickson said Monday that they were “a nice, normal family.” She says Santino William Legan hadn’t lived there for at least a year.

A law enforcement official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity said Legan opened fire at the Gilroy Garlic Festival on Sunday.

The shooting killed three people, including a 6-year-old boy, and injured about 15 before police killed the gunman.

— Associated Press reporters Kathleen Ronayne in Gilroy and Michael Balsamo in Washington

___

7:30 a.m.

President Donald Trump is condemning the “wicked murderer” who opened fire at a California garlic festival, killing three and wounding at least 15 others.

Trump spoke Monday before an event at the White House to sign a bill ensuring that a victims’ compensation fund related to the Sept. 11 attacks never runs out of money.

The president said that the nation would “grieve” for the victims’ families and “ask that God comfort them.”

Trump, who has steadfastly opposed ambitious gun control measures, said the nation would “answer violence with the courage of our national resolve.”

Police said the gunman appeared to randomly target people when he opened fire just after 5:30 p.m. Sunday at the large festival in Gilroy.

Among those killed was a 6-year-old boy.

___

7:25 a.m.

A law enforcement official says the gunman in the California festival shooting has been identified as Santino William Legan.

The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Monday morning.

The shooter was killed after opening fire on the Gilroy Garlic Festival on Sunday. Three victims were killed and at least 15 others injured.

Authorities say he used a rifle and gained entry to the packed festival by cutting through a fence to avoid security measures, including metal detectors.

— Associated Press reporter Michael Balsamo in Washington

___

5 a.m.

A 6-year-old boy was one of the three people killed when a gunman opened fire at a Northern California garlic festival.

Alberto Romero told NBC Bay Area that his son Stephen was killed.

“My son had his whole life to live and he was only 6,” his father Alberto Romero told NBC Bay Area. “That’s all I can say.”

Authorities say three people were killed and at least 15 others injured in the shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

The shooter also was killed. Authorities say he used a rifle and gained entry to the packed festival by cutting through a fence to avoid security measures, including metal detectors.

___

12:30 a.m.

Edward and Jane Jacobucci said they were standing at their booth selling garlic graters when the shooting started Sunday afternoon at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

Edward Jacobucci said the shooting was “absolute chaos.” ”It happened right in front of our booth,” he said.

Jane Jacobucci described the shooter as a tall, thin young man in camouflage with a big gun.

She said her husband threw her to the ground when the shooting started.

Three people were killed and at least 15 others injured in the shooting. Also dead is the shooter, who used a rifle and gained entry to the packed festival by cutting through a fence to avoid the tight security, including metal detectors, police said.

___

11:45 p.m.

The wounded from a shooting at a food festival in Northern California were taken to multiple hospitals and their conditions ranged from fair to critical.

Several of the victims from the shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival were in surgery Sunday night. At least five had been treated and released, said officials from the hospitals.

Earlier Sunday, Stanford Medical Center reported having two patients from the shooting. Spokeswoman Julie Greicius said she had no details on their injuries or conditions. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center received five victims, spokeswoman Joy Alexiou said. She also had no information on their conditions.

___

10:40 p.m.

Police say a suspect cut through a fence to gain access to a California festival before opening fire with a rifle and killing three people.

Police Chief Scot Smithee says attendees at Sunday’s garlic festival in Gilroy, California, had to go through security checkpoints with metal detectors.

Smithee says police are looking for a possible second suspect, who may have accompanied the gunman. He says a search is underway to find that person.

Smithee says investigators believe the gunman used “some sort of tool” to cut through a fence and gain access to the secure festival area.

The shooting occurred during the annual three-day celebration featuring food, cooking competitions and music that attracts more than 100,000 people.

___

10:25 p.m.

Police say a suspect has been killed after opening fire, killing three others, at a food festival in California.

Police Chief Scot Smithee says Sunday that witnesses reported a second suspect, but it was unclear whether that person opened fire.

Smithee says the suspects had used a tool to cut through a fence and access the annual garlic festival in Gilroy, California.

He says one of the suspects opened fire and police and officers in the area confronted the suspect in less than a minute. He says that suspect was shot and killed.

“He had some sort of a rifle”

Mayor Roland Velasco asked for the public’s support of the investigation. “I would ask for the thoughts and prayers of the community as our Gilroy police officers continue to investigate this tragic and senseless crime,” he said.

___

9:25 p.m.

The band Tin Man was just starting an encore when shots rang out at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Northern California.

Singer Jack van Breen said he saw a man wearing a green shirt and grayish handkerchief around his neck fire into the food area with what looked like an assault rifle.

Van Breen and other members of the band dove under the stage. Van Breen says he heard someone shout: “Why are you doing this?” and the reply: “Because I’m really angry. “

His bandmate Vlad Malinovsky from Walnut Creek, California, said he heard a lot of shots and then it stopped. Later, law enforcement came by and told the band members and others hiding with them to come out with their hands up.

A city official says the gunman killed three and wounded 12 in the late Sunday afternoon shooting.

___

8:50 p.m.

A city councilman says three people have been killed and 12 others are injured after a shooting at a festival in Gilroy, California.

Councilman Dion Bracco tells The Associated Press those are preliminary figures following Sunday’s shooting.

Witnesses reported confusion and panic as shots rang out at the festival in the city of 50,000 located about 80 miles (176 kilometers) southeast of San Francisco.

The shooting occurred during the annual garlic festival, a three-day celebration featuring food, cooking competitions and music that attracts more than 100,000 people.

Sunday was the final day of this year’s event.

___

8:30 p.m.

A spokeswoman for Stanford Medical Center says they have two patients there being treated from a shooting Sunday at an annual food festival in Northern California. Julie Greicius says she has no details on their injuries or conditions.

Earlier Sunday, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center spokeswoman Joy Alexiou said the hospital has received two victims from the shooting and expects three more. She also had no information on their conditions.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump sent a tweet saying: “Law Enforcement is at the scene of shootings in Gilroy, California. Reports are that shooter has not yet been apprehended. Be careful and safe!”

___

7:45 p.m.

Witnesses to the shooting Sunday at an annual food festival in Northern California described the confusion and panic at the scene, the Mercury News reported.

Evenny Reyes of Gilroy, 13, told the newspaper that spent the day at the Gilroy Garlic Festival with her friends and relatives.

“We were just leaving and we saw a guy with a bandanna wrapped around his leg because he got shot. And there were people on the ground, crying,” Reyes said. “There was a little kid hurt on the ground. People were throwing tables and cutting fences to get out.”

Reyes told the Mercury News that she didn’t run at first because the gunshots sounded like fireworks. “It started going for five minutes, maybe three. It was like the movies — everyone was crying, people were screaming.”

Todd Jones, a sound engineer, told the newspaper that he was at the front of the festival’s Vineyard stage when he heard what sounded like a firework. “But then it started to increase, more rapidly, which sounded more like gunfire, and at that point people realized what was happening,” Jones said.

At least five people were hospitalized Sunday at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, a hospital spokeswoman says.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center spokeswoman Joy Alexiou says the hospital has received two victims from the shooting and expects three more. She had no information on their conditions.

Video first posted on social media sites about an hour ago showed people running for safety at the festival,

___

7:35 p.m.

Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are responding to the scene of a shooting at an annual food festival in northern California.

At least five people were hospitalized Sunday after the shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, a hospital spokeswoman says.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center spokeswoman Joy Alexiou says the hospital has received two victims from the shooting and expects three more. She had no information on their conditions.

Video first posted on social media sites about an hour ago showed people running for safety at the festival,

The Gilroy Police Department on its Twitter account issued a statement saying: “The hearts of Gilroy PD and entire community go out to the victims of today’s shooting at the Garlic Festival. The scene is still active. If you are looking for a loved one, please go to the reunification center at Gavilan College at parking lot B.”

The festival is a nationally known three-day event that attracts thousands of garlic lovers. Sunday was the final day of the festival.

___

7:25 p.m.

At least five people were injured Sunday after a shooting an annual food festival in Northern California, a hospital spokeswoman says.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center spokeswoman Joy Alexiou says the hospital has received two victims from the shooting and expects three more. She had no information on their conditions.

Video first posted on social media sites about an hour ago showed people running for safety at the festival,

The Gilroy Garlic Festival is a nationally known three-day event that attracts thousands of garlic lovers. Sunday was the final day of the festival.

___

7:05 p.m.

There are reports of a shooting at the annual Gilroy Garlic Festival in California.

The San Francisco Chronicle did not know how many people were involved in the shooting Sunday.

Video on social media sites showed people running for safety at the festival,

The festival is a nationally known three-day event that attracts thousands of garlic lovers. Sunday was the final day of the festival.

Could Donald Trump End the Afghan War?

This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch. 

Could Donald Trump end the Afghan war someday? I don’t know if such a possibility has been on your mind, but it’s certainly been on the mind of this retired U.S. Army major who fought in that land so long ago. And here’s the context in which I’ve been thinking about that very possibility.

Back in the previous century, it used to be said that “only Nixon could go to China.” In other words, only a longtime cold warrior and red-baiter like President Richard Nixon had the necessary tough-guy credentials to break with a tradition more than two decades old in February 1972. It was then that he and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger traveled to Beijing and met with Communist leader Mao Zedong. In that way, they began a process of reestablishing relations with China (now again being impaired by Donald Trump) broken when the Communists won a civil war against the American-backed nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek and came to power in 1949.

By the same token, perhaps no one but Nixon could have eventually — after hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Americans died — extracted the United States from what was then (but is no longer) America’s longest war, the one in Vietnam. After all, in 1973, it was hard to imagine just about any Democrat agreeing to the sort of unseemly concessions at the negotiating table in Paris that resulted in an actual peace accord with a crew of Communists. But Nixon did so.

After those “peace” talks and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that land, the corrupt, battered U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government barely held on for another two gruesome years before a massive Communist offensive finally took Saigon, the capital of the American-backed half of that country in April 1975. Images of U.S. military helicopters hastily evacuating American diplomats and others from Saigon would prove embarrassing indeed. Yet, in the end, little could have altered the ultimate outcome of that war.

Nixon, a cynic’s cynic, evidently sensed just that. Yes, he would prolong the war to the tune of more than 20,000 additional U.S. troop deaths and seek to create a politically palatable pause between the withdrawal of American troops and the unavoidable Communist victory to come (at the cost of god knows how many more dead Vietnamese). It was what he called “breathing space.” In the end, in other words, in the bloodiest way imaginable, he finally accepted both his presidential, and Washington’s, limitations in what was, after all, a Vietnamese civil war.

Fellow TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich has referred to such realities as “the limits of power.” As a longtime military man who once carried water for the American empire in both Afghanistan and Iraq, let me assure you that, almost two decades into the twenty-first century, those limits still couldn’t be more real.

Recently, I got to thinking about Vietnam and Bacevich — himself a veteran of that war — while following the strange pace of the Trump administration’s peace talks with the Taliban. It struck me that the president, his negotiators, and his loyally “deplorable” backers might (gulp!) just be America’s best hope for striking a deal, 18 years late, to conclude the U.S. military’s role in Afghanistan. If so, he would end the war that replaced Vietnam as this country’s longest — and that’s without even counting the first Afghan War Washington fought there against the Red Army of the now-defunct Soviet Union from 1979 to 1989.

An Unwinnable War

For someone like me who long ago turned his back on America’s never-ending wars on terror, it’s discomfiting to imagine the process that might finally lead to a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially one negotiated by The Donald and his strange team of hawks. Of one thing, rest assured: bad things will happen afterward. Afghans whom Americans are sympathetic to, especially women, will suffer under the heel of the kind of extreme Islamism that will be in command in significant parts of the country. And getting there could be no less grim. After all, President Trump, that self-proclaimed “deal-maker,” has so far shown himself to be anything but impressive in striking deals. Nevertheless, he has, at least, regularly criticized the ill-advised Afghan War for years and his instincts, when it comes to that conflict, though unsophisticated and ill-informed, seem sound.

In a sense, the situation isn’t complicated: the U.S. war in Afghanistan cannot be won. The Kabul-based government’s gross domestic product can’t even support its own military budget, leaving it endlessly reliant on aid from Washington and its allies. Its security forces have been taking what, last December, the American general about to become the head of U.S. Central Command termed “unsustainable” casualties — 45,000 battle deaths since 2014. Those security forces simply can’t recruit enough new members to replace such massive losses.

Today, the U.S.-backed regime controls less of Afghanistan than at any point in the nearly two-decade-long war, despite all the American bombs dropped and troops deployed these past 18 years. Rather than grapple with that inconvenient fact, the U.S. military simply stopped counting how much of the country the Taliban now contests or controls. For these and a plethora of other reasons, that military and its Afghan proxies won’t be able to change the ultimate outcome of the Taliban’s war in Afghanistan. Forgive me, then, for placing some hope in President Trump and his negotiators.

The disconcerting truth is that the brutal, venal, medieval Taliban movement is popular in the ethnic-Pashtun-dominated south and the mountainous east of Afghanistan. In 2011-2012, as a lowly company commander in a sub-district of Kandahar, the province that birthed the Taliban, I saw firsthand just how much sympathy villagers seemed to have for that Islamist cause. Sure, many — so, at least, they said — were opposed to that movement’s violent campaign to control the province and the country, but culturally and religiously in some fashion many of them seemed to agree with the group’s basic agenda and worldview.

Most of the Taliban foot soldiers I faced were little more than impoverished farm boys with guns drawn to the movement as much by patriotic opposition to the American military occupation of their country as by any desire for the application of sharia law. In addition, many in the region were making at least modest sums off Afghanistan’s record-breaking opium trade, something the U.S. was never truly capable of controlling or suppressing. The bottom line: the American war in Afghanistan was essentially over then. It’s over now, a defeat that neither politicians in Washington nor Pentagon officials have been able to accept to date.

A Brief Litany of Messy Wars and Their Endings Since 1945

The certainty of imperial failure in anticolonial and counterinsurgency conflicts has defined the era of war making since at least 1945. So it shall be in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering some of those oft-forgotten conflicts.

In the favored American version of war, endings involve unconditional surrender by a defeated enemy, whether Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865 or imperial Japanese officials on the deck of the USS Missouri in 1945. But such moments, historically speaking, couldn’t be more rare in “the American century.” After World War II, as the last colonial wars of the European powers ended in defeat or the withdrawal of imperial forces, the U.S. military went to war globally with Third World “Communism” — and victory became a thoroughly outmoded word. In the Korean War (1950-1953), which never officially ended, the U.S. finally settled for a status quo truce with its North Korean and Chinese opponents. Tens of thousands of American troops and millions of Koreans died in what essentially amounted to a negotiated draw. Vietnam, as noted, ended in the negotiated version of an outright defeat.

Meanwhile, the French, already booted out of Vietnam in the First Indochina War (1954-1962), tried to torture and kill their way to victory in colonial Algeria before accepting defeat there, too. (A coup attempt by disgruntled right-wing military officers during that counterinsurgency almost cost France its democracy.) Nor could a declining Great Britain kill its way out of the last of its colonial wars, the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland (1969-1998). That 30-year war with the quasi-socialist, nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) only ended when London demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with that group and draw it into electoral politics. Not only was there no military victory to be had, but Britons had to swallow the embarrassing spectacle of former IRA bombers being released from prison and onetime IRA commanders entering parliament at Westminster.

In smaller conflicts and interventions, the American military withdrew from Lebanon in 1983 after some 220 Marines (and 20 other service personnel) were killed in a suicide bombing and the until-then hawkish President Ronald Reagan realized he’d stepped into an unwinnable morass. In 1994, President Bill Clinton did the same in Somalia after 18 U.S. troops were killed in a chaotic shootout the previous year with a warlord militia in a local civil war. (Twenty-five years later, however, U.S. drones and special operators are still battling it out in that chronically war-ravaged society.)

One lesson to draw from such an abbreviated version of American and allied morasses and military defeats at the hands of nationalist militants, left and right, is that suppressing people’s movements has historically proven difficult indeed. Most of the insurgencies of the long Cold War era were led by vaguely Marxist or, at least, leftist groups. In this century, however, similar insurgencies are led by right-wing Islamist groups. Either way the results have generally been the same. The insurgents, not the governments the U.S. imposed and/or backed, are almost invariably seen by local populations as the more popular, legitimate fighting forces.

Marxism (and its Soviet communist variant) ran its course in local societies as the Cold War wound to its conclusion, but such movements were never truly defeated by the U.S. military and its brutal right-wing proxies, even in the Americas (as in Nicaragua in the 1980s). Islamist theocracy is undoubtedly abhorrent, but it, too, must run its course and (hopefully) sooner or later be defeated by forces within the societies where it’s now conducting its terror wars. Just as in Vietnam, the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan in this century has only served as an accelerant for what might be thought of as political and military arson.

A Messy End

Predictions are tricky when it comes to war, but here’s a safe enough bet: in the wake of any Trump administration “peace” deal with the Taliban, like the South Vietnamese government of the Nixon era, a corrupt, scarcely legitimate U.S.-backed Afghan government and its badly battered security forces will, sooner or later, find themselves back at war. And they will be fighting an ever more confident Taliban. The Kabul-based regime could perhaps hold onto the biggest cities (except possibly Kandahar) and significant parts of the country’s north and west where there are Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minority enclaves long opposed to the Islamist insurgents. The Taliban would then dominate much of the south and east, leaving Afghanistan divided and still violent indeed until, perhaps, like the South Vietnamese government, the one in Kabul collapsed.

Still, it’s unlikely the Taliban will ever again risk harboring large numbers of transnational terrorists or stand by as a bin Laden-style attack is planned in Afghanistan’s mountains or valleys. After all, its goals have always been Afghan-centric, not global. What’s more, it appears that its negotiators have tacitly promised not to protect or ally with al-Qaeda or its newer offshoot, the Islamic State branch in Afghanistan (which, in any case, is anything but a prospective ally of theirs).

Of course, transnational terrorists have never needed Afghanistan to hatch attacks on the West. Much of the planning and logistics for the actual 9/11 attacks occurred in Germany and even in the United States itself. In addition, partially thanks to America’s never-ending war on terror, there are increasing numbers of ungoverned spaces and tumultuous regions in dozens of countries in a band stretching from West Africa to Central Asia. Should the U.S. military really station tens of thousands of troops in all those locales? Of course not. Among other things, leaving aside the expense of it to the American taxpayer, U.S. soldiers would only inflame local passions and empower local terror outfits.

So here we are knowing there is little the U.S. can do to change the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan. The only question of consequence is: Could Donald Trump be the twenty-first century’s Richard Nixon? Could he do what no one in his position over the last 18 years has had the political courage to do and end — his phrase — a “stupid” war that has come to seem eternal? If “only Nixon could go to China,” is it possible that only Trump can extract the U.S. military from Afghanistan? God help us, but that seems conceivable.

Now, some in the foreign policy establishment will balk at any eventual Trumpian peace agreement. Army General Mark Milley, the president’s nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for instance, recently bucked his boss during confirmation hearings. He told senators that withdrawing from Afghanistan “too soon,” according to the New York Times, would be a “strategic mistake.” Likewise, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a typical Washington foreign policy pundit, has already complained that the current U.S. peace talks with the Taliban in Doha will only lead to a Vietnam-style denouement where U.S. negotiators use a negotiated agreement as a fig leaf to save face, declaring “victory,” while essentially accepting future defeat. And, in this case, O’Hanlon is probably right on the mark, even if wrong to reject such an approach.

Count on this: the end of the American military mission in Afghanistan will be unfulfilling and likely tragic. Still — and here’s where O’Hanlon and his ilk couldn’t be more off the mark — like Vietnam before it, the Afghan war should never have been fought for these last almost 18 years, never could have been won, never will be won, and should be ended in some fashion, even a Trumpian one, as soon as possible.

Some Inconvenient Truths for 2020 Democrats

WASHINGTON — The Democratic presidential contenders have some inconvenient truths to grapple with.

It’s not easy, for example, to summon foreboding words on the economy — accurately — when the U.S. has been having its longest expansion in history.

Health care for all raises questions of costs to average taxpayers that the candidates are loath to confront head on.

Related Articles











All the Urgent Issues the Democratic Debates Will Leave Out



by

















Fiery Second Democratic Debate: Race, Age, Health Care and Trump



by

And in slamming President Donald Trump relentlessly for his treatment of migrants, the Democrats gloss over the record of President Barack Obama (and his vice president, Joe Biden), whose administration deported them by the millions and housed many children in the border “cages” they assail Trump for using now.

The candidates will be pressed on the economy, health care, immigration and much more in their second round of debates, this week in Detroit.

A sampling of the campaign rhetoric on a variety of subjects and how it compares with the facts:

THE CAGES

KAMALA HARRIS: “You look at the fact that this is a president who has pushed policies that’s been about putting babies in cages at the border in the name of security when in fact what it is, is a human rights abuse being committed by the United States government.” — remarks at NAACP forum Wednesday in Detroit.

PETE BUTTIGIEG: “We should call out hypocrisy when we see it. For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say it is OK to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages,” that party “has lost all claim to ever use religious language.” — June debate.

THE FACTS: There is hypocrisy to be called out here.

By Buttigieg’s standard, the Democratic Party has also lost its claim to invoke religion — because the “cages” were built and used by the Obama administration. Harris, a California senator, calls them a human rights abuse, but, like other Democrats, solely blames Trump.

The facilities are sectioned-off, chain-link indoor pens where children who come to the border without adults or who are separated from adults in detention are temporarily housed. The children are divided by age and sex.

A year ago, Associated Press photographs showing young people in such enclosures were misrepresented online as depicting child detentions by Trump and denounced by some Democrats and activists as illustrating Trump’s cruelty. In fact, the photos were taken in 2014 during the Obama administration.

Many Democrats continue to exploit the imagery of “babies in cages” — as Harris put it — without acknowledging Obama used the facilities, too. His administration built the McAllen, Texas, center with chain-link holding areas in 2014.

Under Trump, journalists have witnessed migrants crowded into fetid chain-link quarters. The maltreatment of migrants is the responsibility of the Trump administration — and arguably Congress, for not approving more money for better care.

But the facilities are standard fare through administrations and the caged-babies accusations stand as one of the most persistent distortions by the 2020 Democrats.

___

JOE BIDEN: “Under Trump, there have been horrifying scenes at the border of kids being kept in cages, tear-gassing asylum seekers, ripping children from their mothers’ arms.” — June 24 opinion piece in the Miami Herald about his Latin America policy.

THE FACTS: Again, the scenes of kids in cages go back to the administration Biden served.

He is correct that U.S. authorities have fired tear gas to repel migrants trying to get across the border. Biden and other Democrats are also correct in identifying widespread family separations as a consequence of Trump’s policy. His now-suspended zero-tolerance policy resulted in thousands of children being removed from their parents in holding centers, something the Obama administration did not do routinely.

Another form of family separation was seen, however, in the Obama years. The record deportation of 3 million migrants during Obama’s presidency drove many families apart as some members were forced out of the U.S. while loved ones weren’t.

___

IMMIGRATION

BIDEN: “There’s 11 million undocumented (people), they’ve increased the solvency of the Social Security system by 12 years, because they’re all paying in.” — candidate forum in Iowa, July 16.

THE FACTS: He’s wrong that “all” people in the country illegally are paying into Social Security and that they’ve extended the program’s solvency by a dozen years.

He’s right, though, that they help the nation’s retirement program because millions do contribute to it and they are not permitted to draw benefits.

According to a 2013 Social Security Administration report , the most recent of its kind, roughly 3 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally were contributing to Social Security through their work. Others were not working or were employed in the underground economy.

Biden is correct in suggesting that illegal immigration has significantly boosted the program. His campaign clarified to The Associated Press that he misspoke when he said people in the country illegally increased Social Security’s solvency by 12 years. He meant to say they’ve added $12 billion to Social Security’s finances.

They’ve actually supported the Social Security system by even more than that. The agency’s 2013 report estimated the system gained $12 billion from immigrants and their employers over just one year, 2010. Employers and workers evenly split the 12.4 percent contribution to the system.

Another government estimate says “half of undocumented immigrants are working on the books” but that may be outdated; it’s from 2005.

___

HEALTH CARE

BERNIE SANDERS: ”‘Medicare for All’ would reduce overall health care spending in our country.” — July 17 speech on his health plan.

THE FACTS: That remains to be seen. Savings from Medicare for All are not a slam dunk.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report this year that total spending under a single-payer system, such as the one proposed by the Vermont senator, “might be higher or lower than under the current system depending on the key features of the new system.”

Those features involve payment rates for hospitals and doctors, which are not fully spelled out by Sanders, as well as the estimated cost of generous benefits that include long-term care services and no copays and deductibles.

Sanders’ figure of $5 trillion over 10 years in health cost savings comes from a study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The lead author has been a Sanders political supporter.

Sanders also cites a savings estimate of $2 trillion over 10 years taken from a study from the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. But the author of that study says that Medicare for All advocates are mischaracterizing his conclusions.

A report this year by the nonprofit Rand think tank estimated that Medicare for All would do the opposite of what Sanders is promising, modestly raising national health spending.

Part of the reason is the generous benefits. Virtually free comprehensive medical care would lead to big increases in demand.

The Rand study modeled a hypothetical scenario in which a plan similar to Sanders’ legislation had taken effect this year.

___

SANDERS, on the effects of his health plan and other expensive proposals on the public: “Yes, they will pay more in taxes but less in health care.” — June debate.

THE FACTS: This is almost surely true.

Although he had to be pressed on the question, Sanders is almost alone among the candidates who support Medicare for All in acknowledging that broadly higher taxes would be needed to pay for it. He would consider — and probably not be able to avoid — a tax increase on the middle class in exchange for health care without copayments, deductibles and the like. It’s a given that consumers will pay less for health care if the government is picking up the bills.

Several of Sanders’ rivals have dodged the tough financing questions, speaking only of taxing rich people and “Wall Street.” Analysts say that’s not going to cover the costs of government-financed universal care.

___

ECONOMY

ELIZABETH WARREN: “When I look at the economy today, I see a lot to worry about. … I see a manufacturing sector in recession. … A generation of stagnant wages and rising costs for basics like housing, child care, and education (has) forced American families to take on more debt than ever before…. Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high — and growing.” — Medium blog Monday.

THE FACTS: The Massachusetts senator is exaggerating some of these threats. It’s true that U.S. manufacturers are struggling as a result of slower overseas growth and the Trump administration’s trade wars, which have meant that many U.S. goods face retaliatory tariffs overseas. But U.S. factories have faced rough spots before during the current expansion, particularly in late 2015 and 2016, when their output actually declined. Yet economic growth continued. Manufacturing is no longer large enough to necessarily pull the rest of the economy into recession.

And Americans are in better financial shape than Warren suggests. While household debt has risen 6.8% in the past decade, that figure isn’t adjusted for population growth or inflation. On a per capita basis, household debt levels have actually fallen.

Economists typically compare debt with income as a way of gauging Americans’ ability to pay off their loans. Currently such household debt is equivalent to 101% of disposable income. While that number may seem high, it actually peaked at 136% in the fourth quarter of 2007, just as the recession began, and has fallen steadily since.

Also, interest rates are at historically low levels, making it easier for borrowers to manage their debts. Currently, households are devoting less than 10% of their incomes to debt service, down from roughly 13% a decade ago.

As for what she calls a manufacturing recession, that’s a judgment call, not a clearly defined standard. Factory output actually has risen slightly over the past year. She defines a manufacturing recession as two straight declines in quarterly production as measured by the Federal Reserve, and that’s what happened in the first half of this year.

___

HARRIS: “People are working, they’re working two and three jobs. In our America people should only have to work one job to have a roof over their head and be able to put food on their table.” — July 12 radio interview.

THE FACTS: Most Americans, by far, only work one job, and the numbers who juggle more than one have declined over a quarter century.

In the mid-1990s, the percentage of workers holding multiple jobs peaked at 6.5%. The rate dropped significantly , even through the Great Recession, and has been hovering for a nearly a decade at about 5% or a little lower. In the latest monthly figures , from June, 5.2% of workers were holding more than one job.

Hispanic and Asian workers are consistently less likely than white and black workers to be holding multiple jobs. Women are more likely to be doing so than men, though the gap narrowed slightly during Trump’s first year.

Multiple jobholding rates in June 2019 : women, 5.6%; men, 4.6%; black, 5.1%; white, 5.2%; Hispanic, 3.7%; Asian, 3.0%.

Kirsten Allen, speaking for the Harris campaign, said the senator often hears from people who have to work more than one job to make ends meet, “teachers specifically,” and has a plan for teachers to be paid more. But in her rhetoric about Americans “working two and three jobs,” Harris does not make that distinction.

___

LAW ENFORCEMENT

BUTTIGIEG: “When I took office, we had no recognizable promotion or accountability system for promotions in the department. We couldn’t even find and publish numbers on cases involving use of force. So we started doing that.”— at the NAACP forum Wednesday in Detroit.

THE FACTS: Those changes at the South Bend, Indiana, Police Department, which Buttigieg oversees as the mayor, didn’t happen swiftly or without prompting.

Buttigieg fired his police chief shortly after he became mayor in 2012 and installed a new one.

But it wasn’t until September 2018 that the city established a promotion policy, following a 2015 complaint from a female officer who said she was passed over for a promotion and complaints in 2016 from two black officers who said they were held back from promotions at the police agency, according to local news reports.

The city didn’t begin publishing use of force data — which shows how many times an officer used force on a civilian — until 2017, five years after Buttigieg got into office and after complaints about police brutality, including a federal lawsuit that was settled in 2018. The use of force data include the time, date, and type of force.

___

AUTO INDUSTRY

HARRIS: “Some estimate that as many as 700,000 autoworkers are going to lose their job before the end of the year.” — remarks in July 12 radio interview.

THE FACTS: This isn’t happening. Harris mischaracterized the findings of a study that is also outdated.

In July 2018 the Center for Automotive Research laid out a variety of scenarios for potential job losses across all U.S. industries touched by the auto business — not just autoworkers — if a number of new tariffs and policies that Trump threatened were enacted. The worst case was 750,000. But those hypothetical losses went well beyond autoworkers, to include workers at restaurants, retail stores and any business that benefits from the auto industry.

In any event, the center revised its study in February 2019, with a worst-case scenario down to 367,000 job losses across all industries. And since then, the administration lifted tariffs on steel and aluminum products coming from Canada and Mexico, further minimizing the impact on the auto industry.

The auto industry has grown under Obama and Trump both. Although it’s facing a leveling off in demand, it still posts strong numbers. It is not at risk of the catastrophe Harris raises as a possibility — the loss of 3 in 4 autoworkers in the remainder of this year.

___

Associated Press writers Christopher Rugaber, Josh Boak and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington and Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.