Saturday, February 2, 2013

Cuban Official: Obama 'Poorly Advised And Ill-Informed'

HAVANA -- A senior Cuban official sharply criticized U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday for suggesting Cuba was stuck in the past, saying the only anachronistic element of the relationship is Washington's half-century-old economic embargo.

Josefina Vidal, the head of the Foreign Ministry's North American affairs division, said Obama was poorly informed if he thought Cuba had not changed in recent years. She said her country has always been willing to negotiate improved relations with the U.S.

"It's unfortunate that President Obama continues to be poorly advised and ill-informed about the Cuban reality, as well as the sentiments of his own people who desire normalization of our relationship," Vidal said in a statement sent to foreign media on the island.

She said Cuba was "changing and advancing," a reference to economic and social reforms enacted in recent years under President Raul Castro.

In an interview with the Spanish news channel Telemundo broadcast Wednesday, Obama said his administration is open to better ties but that "it's got to be a two-way street."

He said Cuban jails are still filled with political prisoners and that the island's leaders are clinging to a failed model.

"It's time to join the 21st century," he said. "It's one thing to have cars from the 1950s. It's another thing when your whole political ideology .. is 50 years or 60 years old and it's been proven not to work."

In recent years, Cuba has allowed for limited capitalism and legalized the real estate market, among other reforms, while insisting the changes did not constitute a break from its socialist model.

Among the measures getting the most attention was last month's lifting of a longstanding requirement that islanders ask the government's permission to travel abroad.

Dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez's request for a new passport was granted on Thursday. Last year she was denied a "white card," or exit permit, when she tried to travel to Brazil for a film festival, something she says has happened to her about 20 times in recent years.

"Visas for (hashtag)Brazil and for the (hashtag)Schengen agreement nations arranged, they will be delivered to me next week," Sanchez said on Twitter on Friday. The "Schengen area" is a region in Europe within which there are little or no border or visa controls between Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany and France.

But Sanchez and others bemoaned the denial of passports to two other government opponents. Dissidents Angel Moya and Jose Daniel Ferrer were turned down under a clause that lets the government withhold travel papers to people facing legal cases, or for reasons of national security or public interest.

The men were among the 75 activists jailed in the 2003 "black spring" crackdown on dissent. While they were later freed, their release was conditional and technically are still serving long sentences.

Mixed in with the mutual recriminations between Obama and Vidal were the usual conditional affirmations of openness to dialogue.

In her rebuttal of Obama, Vidal says America "can always count on the willingness of the people and government of Cuba to work to advance bilateral relations."

Obama, in his Telemundo interview, said that he could foresee improved ties during his second term if Cuba meets him half way.

___

Paul Haven on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/paulhaven

Also on HuffPost:

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro holding a copy Friday's Oct. 19, 2012 edition of the newspaper Granma in Habana, Cuba. Persistent rumors circulated last week that the former Cuban leader was on his deathbed or had suffered a massive stroke.(AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro holding a copy of Friday's Oct. 19, 2012 edition of the newspaper Granma in Habana, Cuba. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website early Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Habana, Cuba, Sunday Oct. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website early Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Habana, Cuba Sunday Oct. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website early Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Habana, Cuba Sunday Oct. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)

  • This picture released by Cubadebate on its website early Monday Oct. 22, 2012 shows Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Habana, Cuba Sunday Oct. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, Cubadebate)




'Perilous' Situation Threatens To Split GOP

BY CHARLES BABINGTON, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON ' The immigration debate is threatening to split the Republican Party, pitting those who focus mainly on presidential elections against those who care mostly about congressional races.

Strategists say that if Republicans are to win presidential elections, which they've been losing lately, partly because of dismal support from Hispanic voters, they must soften their rhetoric about undocumented immigrants and embrace some version of "immigration reform."

But granting undocumented residents a path to citizenship, which critics call "amnesty," is deeply unpopular in many House Republicans' districts.

President Barack Obama wants such a pathway. So do some prominent GOP lawmakers who are seeking a way out of their party's jam.

The plans differ on when and how citizenship might occur, with border security a central issue. Resolving these differences may determine whether a major law is enacted in the coming months.

Some GOP strategists fear they will lose either way.

If by the next election Latino voters think Republicans opposed and possibly blocked a comprehensive immigration overhaul, they might turn against the party in even bigger numbers.


On the other hand, converting millions of undocumented Hispanic residents into citizens might produce large numbers of new voters who will lean Democratic for years.

"This is a perilous debate that Republicans have entered into," said John Ullyot, a Republican consultant and a former Senate aide.

Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote last November and 67 percent in 2008. GOP campaign professionals say Republicans are dooming themselves if they don't show a more welcoming face to this fast-growing segment of voters.

"Republicans need to solve this issue, politically, if they wish to win national elections, and they know it," said Texas-based GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak.

Winning House elections, however, is a different matter.

A number of Republican lawmakers and aides say "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants triggers strong resentment among their constituents. The upcoming debates could stir passions further, even in swing districts.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, lost his Cincinnati-area seat to a Democrat in 2008, then regained it two years later. He opposes giving undocumented immigrants an eventual route to citizenship.

"It is unfair to allow those who have willfully and intentionally broken our nation's immigration laws to, in essence, cut in front of those who have been patiently and legally waiting their turn to become U.S. citizens," Chabot wrote on his House blog. Republicans should appeal to Hispanic voters "on principle," he said, not by agreeing to liberal immigration policies. "Republicans are better for Hispanics because our policies are better for them," Chabot said.

Republican leaders hope to minimize internal conflicts by finding a compromise that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate will accept.

A bipartisan group of senators has proposed a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to pursue citizenship only after steps, yet to be detailed, are taken to further secure the border with Mexico. The plan is backed by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., whose parents were born in Cuba. He is seen as leading player on immigration.

Some other high-profile conservatives, including Fox News' Sean Hannity and the 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, have spoken favorably about Rubio's approach.

Democrats insist that the border security prerequisites not be onerous. They worry that Republicans will never agree that border enforcement is strong enough to start the citizenship process for undocumented immigrants. Similarly, some Republicans say they fear Democrats won't deliver tougher security once undocumented immigrants are allowed the first step toward legal status.

Republican strategists say respectful rhetoric in the coming debates is crucial to wooing Hispanic voters who feel previous GOP comments revealed anti-immigrant feelings.

"If the tone of the debate is thoughtful," then Republicans can survive politically even if they reject "blanket amnesty," campaign adviser Terry Nelson said.

Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, who heads the GOP's 2014 House campaign efforts, said the party must communicate better with minorities.

"Obviously we've got to address this," he said of immigration changes. "We've got 50,000 young Hispanics reaching voter age every month."

Some conservative pundits, however, say turning undocumented immigrants into voting citizens will hurt the GOP, not help it.

Latinos "are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support," the magazine National Review said in an editorial. "Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, says he's ready to tackle big changes in immigration laws. But the effort may conflict with another of his goals: passing major legislation only if most House Republicans support it.

House insiders say many, and perhaps most, Republican lawmakers will want to vote against a citizenship-granting immigration bill, even if they quietly hope it passes and helps their party at the presidential level.

Such "vote no, hope yes" groups are well-suited for passing difficult measures with a modest number of Republican votes and many Democratic votes. It happened twice in January: on a hurricane aid bill and a vote on the "fiscal cliff."

At a recent House Republican retreat in Virginia, Boehner brought in independent political analyst Charlie Cook to explain to lawmakers why they face serious trouble with Hispanic voters.

Cook said House Republicans make a mistake if they view national issues such as immigration "through the prism of your district," said a participant at the private session. Republicans eventually can improve their standing with Latinos if they stop talking and acting as though they don't like immigrants, Cook told the House members.

"Holes tend to fill in over time if people stop digging," Cook was quoted as telling the lawmakers.

___

Online:

White House's immigration plan: http://tinyurl.com/6xboukg

Also on HuffPost:

  • "Gang Of Eight"

    A <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/immigration-reform-framework_n_2566494.html?1359387491">bipartisan group of senators</a> have come together to address the issue of immigration reform. The group consists of four members of each party -- Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, plus Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona and Jeff Flake of Arizona. Their framework was announced Monday.

  • Pathway To Citizenship

    A <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142894316/Bipartisan-immigration-plan">"tough but fair" </a> road to citizenship is the main tenet of the bipartisan immigrant plan. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the most significant supporter of this idea, giving hope to those who doubt Republicans will support the plan.

  • The New Process

    The new process of obtaining citizenship would be just that -- a process. Probationary citizens would be required to pass an additional background check, learn English, pay taxes and show that they have a history of employment to apply for permanent residence and a green card. Undocumented immigrants will receive green cards after all probationary citizens have been processed, ensuring that documented immigrants are addressed first. Separate processes would be designed for young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children and agricultural workers.

  • Enforcement, Then Green Cards

    The first goal, before any green cards are handed out, is to "demonstrate our commitment to securing our borders and combating visa overstays," the senators say in their framework.

  • Enhance Border Security And Drones

    Emphasizing enforcement measures, the framework calls for increased boarder control, including more border agents and aerial surveillance and drones. A new system would be added to ensure visa stays are being adhered to, along with a commission of border lawmakers to aid legislation.

  • Increase Employment Verification

    The senators have proposed to create an "effective employment verification system" that would help prevent identity theft while allowing employers to feel secure in hiring documented immigrants.

  • No Benefits For Probationary Immigrants

    Immigrants who are in the probationary category would not be eligible for federal benefits in the senators' framework. This addresses the concern that public benefits, particularly health-related ones, are being spent on undocumented immigrants.

  • An Easier Path For 'The Best And Brightest'

    The framework recognizes that a different sort of process would be needed for "the best and brightest," including highly-skilled workers and those with higher education. This has been previously addressed in the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/stem-act-white-house-immigration_n_2207279.html">STEM Act </a> which was ultimately vetoed by the White House.




Obama: Growth Can Happen In 2013

  • African Americans

    The House will have 40 African-Americans, all Democrats. The number of Democrats is unchanged, although two Republicans will be gone: Allen West, R-Fla., lost his re-election bid, and Tim Scott, R-S.C., was appointed to fill the Senate seat of Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who is retiring. Scott will be the first black lawmaker in the Senate since Roland Burris, who retired in 2010 after filling the Illinois Senate seat of Barack Obama for almost two years. (Text <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130103/us-new-congress-glance/">via the Associated Press</a>) <em>(Pictured at left: Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who was appointed by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to replace outgoing Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., walks out of the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012. AP Photo/Susan Walsh)</em>



  • Friday, February 1, 2013

    David Brock: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: Out of Gas?

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is departing from the State Department on her own terms and with a formidable legacy intact. Given that Clinton, no matter what she decides about 2016, will undoubtedly remain an influential figure in American public life for years to come, one might have expected her long-time detractors, who have been trying for more than 20 years to trip her up, to land some solid blows to her widely admired reputation for leadership on the global stage. Instead, we've been treated to salvos that were silly, at best; and on the one potentially serious issue raised, the Fox News-initiated and Mitt Romney-fortified Benghazi craze, all the attacks fell flat.

    The Fake Concussion

    The first attempt to tarnish Clinton as she prepared to leave office got started when news broke of her concussion in mid-December and a potentially life-threatening blood clot later that month. The usual suspects quickly tied the news to the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya to suggest Clinton was fabricating all of it to avoid testifying on the tragedy. Bill O'Reilly said of her concussion, "If she was in the NFL I wouldn't let her play, but I think she can make a phone call." Fox's Laura Ingraham told the host that conservatives were now calling Clinton's condition as "the immaculate concussion." Their colleagues Charles Krauthammer and Kimberly Guilfoyle accused her of having a "severe Benghazi allergy" and pulling a "duck and cover." John Bolton jumped on the bandwagon, suggesting this was a fake "diplomatic illness."

    Their unhinged use of Clinton's health as a political weapon quickly drew fire from their own ranks and beyond (imagine, their speculation was too much even for some of their own counterparts at Fox). Things got more embarrassing when the State Department not only challenged these false claims with the facts but also scolded a Fox producer for falsely suggesting ulterior motives were involved in Clinton's sick leave. Of course, the Big Lie was laid bare in due time, as all the world saw Clinton's doctors quoted on the record on her condition; Clinton, flanked by her family, leaving New York-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City; and Clinton wearing special glasses for medical reasons in her Congressional testimony last week. In short, no sane person could believe the illness was fabricated.

    Crocodile Tears

    The instant Clinton choked up during the Senate hearing as she reflected on the four lives lost in the Benghazi attack -- "For me, this is not just a matter of policy, it's personal. I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews," she said -- the right-wing was again on the case. Rush Limbaugh without hesitation called the moment "part of the script." Fox jumped in with Ingraham suggesting she was "lip-synching crying" and Sean Hannity arguing the whole thing was "staged, probably at the direction of" James Carville.

    The baseless speculation of the Right-Wing Noise Machine clearly emboldened Senate Republicans' post-hearing line that Clinton was using all the diversion tactics she could muster to dodge key questions. Most notably, moments after the hearing, Sen. Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, himself the master of feigned outrage in the hearing, went on the air to claim that Clinton's show of emotion in response to the deaths of four Americans was "her trump card to get out of the questions." A day later he turned tail, recanting what he said on CNN, and admitting that he "probably speculated and I shouldn't have." At the end of the day, in a desperate effort to deny Clinton her humanity, her enemies looked like fools.

    Benghazi-Gate

    These two smears were tied to the Right's months-long and now widely discredited politicization of Benghazi. With a candidate for the White House who couldn't hold his own in foreign-policy debates, they sought to turn the Sept. 11th tragedy into a mega-scandal to win the upper hand. Romney and his allies outsourced much of the work to Fox News and right-wing media - and a seemingly impenetrable wall of noise and falsehoods was formed to attack the administration. With Obama re-elected and no longer standing for office, the Right came gunning for Secretary Clinton - whose political career may not be over.

    Not surprisingly, Fox's top-line arguments made it into several of the questions and statements Republican lawmakers shamelessly asked Clinton, but she demolished each one. Shetorpedoed the lie that State Department officials negligently watched video of the assault in "real time" here in DC -- as she said, "there was no monitor, there was no real time." She put to rest Fox's bogus narrative that she and the President justified the attack the day after - "I want to be clear that of course it was a terrorist attack. The very next day I called it an attack by heavily armed militants on our compound," she said. And she drowned out the false accusation that the administration intentionally misidentified the source of the violence saying, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans...What difference at this point does it make?"

    The reviews came rolling in. Typical was Eugene Robinson's in the Washington Post. He wrote, "Clinton's smooth and confident performance at Wednesday's Senate and House committee hearings was fun to watch. When her would-be inquisitors asked serious questions, she gave serious answers." Joan Walsh also noted her strong performance, writing "Three weeks after her release from a New York hospital with a blood clot on the brain ... Clinton stood up to the raging bulls with grace and fire of her own."

    When all was said and done, Clinton had the last word, telling ABC News, "When someone tries to put it into a partisan lens, when they focus, not on the fact that we have such a terrible event happening with four dead Americans but instead what did somebody say on a Sunday morning talk show, that to me is not in keeping with the seriousness of the issue and the obligation we all have as public servants."



    Kerry Reveals New Timeline On Job Offer

    Incoming Secretary of State John Kerry said that President Barack Obama offered him the job one week before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrew from contention.

    "He called me, actually a week before Susan got out of the thing," he told The Boston Globe in an interview published Thursday. 'He called me and said, 'You're my choice. I want you to do this.' He asked me to keep it quiet. I did. I sat on it.'

    Kerry's words counter conventional thinking that Rice was the top pick all along and that Kerry was offered the job only after Rice took her name off the list. His version of events, of course, puts him and Obama in a better light than if he was merely Obama's second choice.

    Obama defended Rice against Republican critics who hammered her over Sunday show appearances after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She described the assault as retaliation for an anti-Muslim video, which reflected current intelligence thinking at the time.

    Nevertheless, Rice withdrew from contention on Dec. 14 saying that her confirmation would be too "lengthy, disruptive and costly." The vast majority of Republicans embraced Kerry's confirmation.

    Also on HuffPost:

    • Hillary Clinton (2009-present)

      U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference on November 14, 2012. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Condoleezza Rice (2005-09)

      Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talks about the State Department's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices during a March 11, 2008 briefing in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Colin Powell (2001-05)

      U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks on June 22, 2004, about a corrected version of an inaccurate terrorism report issued by the government. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Madeleine Albright (1997-2001)

      U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivers a Russia policy briefing on September 16, 1999 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Warren Christopher (1993-97)

      U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher briefs reporters on the peace process in Bosnia during a Dec. 8, 1995 press conference. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Lawrence Eagleburger (1992-93)

      Then-acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger listens to a reporter's question during a Nov. 18, 1992 news conference at the State Department. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • James Baker (1989-92)

      James Baker III waves to his associates at the US State Department on August 13, 1992. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • George P. Shultz (1982-89)

      U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz listens to a question during his first day of testimony before Iran-Contra investigators on July 23, 1987 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Alexander Haig (1981-82)

      Alexander Haig, Secretary of State-designate, a Reagan nominee on Monday, Dec. 23, 1980 in Washington for the announcement of selections. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Edmund Muskie (1980-81)

      (Pictured left) Freed hostage Richard Queen, right, greets well wishers at the State Department on Monday, July 21, 1980 in Washington. At left is Secretary of State Edmund Muskie. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Cyrus Vance (1977-80)

      Cyrus Vance, U.S. Secretary of State, pictured in 1979. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Henry Kissinger (1973-77)

      Secretary of State Henry Kissinger announces during an April 29, 1975 press conference in Washington that the evacuation of Americans from Vietnam and Saigon is complete, thus ending US involvement. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • William P. Rogers (1969-73)

      Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, left, and Secretary of State William P. Rogers begin talks at the Department of State on Feb. 7, 1972 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Dean Rusk (1961-69)

      Secretary of State Dean Rusk is shown during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on March 1, 1962. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Christian Herter (1959-61)

      President Dwight Eisenhower, left, says goodbye to Secretary of State Christian Herter in Gettsburg, Pennsylvania, on May 2, 1959 as Herter is about to board a helicopter on the President's farm to return to Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • John Foster Dulles (1953-59)

      U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (left) gets together with South Korean President Syngman Rhee in Seoul on August 4, 1953. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Dean Acheson (1949-53)

      U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson speaks from the State Department on Nov. 29, 1950 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • George C. Marshall (1947-49)

      Gen. George C. Marshall poses in his Red Cross office on Sept. 13, 1950 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • James F. Byrnes (1945-47)

      James F. Byrnes, United States Secretary of State, links arms with Associated Press correspondent, John Hightower, at Central Hall, Westminster in London, Jan. 15, 1946. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Edward Reilly Stettinus (1944-45)

      France's Foreign Minister Georges Bidault makes a VE Day radio statement from the Opera House in San Francisco, CA, May 8, 1945. Seated at the far right U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Cordell Hull (1933-44)

      U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt is greeted by Secretary of State Cordell Hull on Sept. 15, 1938 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Henry Lewis Stimson (1929-33)

      Henry Lewis Stimson, American Secretary of State for War shown around July 1931. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Frank B. Kellogg (1925-29)

      Former United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg on Aug. 17, 1936 at Waterloo Station in London. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Charles Evans Hughes (1921-25)

      (Center) Former Secretary of State and Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, pictured on on March 27, 1931. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)




    Scott Walker Transferred Thousands To Legal Fund

    Gov. Scott Walker transferred $40,000 in campaign funds late last year to his legal fund set up to pay two high-priced criminal defense lawyers to represent him in the lengthy John Doe investigation.

    Read the whole story at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel



    Thursday, January 31, 2013

    Nick Turse: The Hagel Hearings

    The Last Best Chance for the Truth About a Lost War and America's War-Making Future

    Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com

    He's been battered by big-money conservative groups looking to derail his bid for secretary of defense.  Critics say he wants to end America's nuclear program.  They claim he's anti-Israel and soft on Iran.  So you can expect intense questioning -- if only for theatrical effect -- about all of the above (and undoubtedly then some) as Chuck Hagel faces his Senate confirmation hearings today.    

    You can be sure of one other thing: Hagel's military service in Vietnam will be mentioned -- and praised. It's likely, however, to be in a separate and distinct category, unrelated to the pointed questions about current issues like defense priorities, his beliefs on the use of force abroad, or the Defense Department's role in counterterrorism operations.  You can also be sure of this: no senator will ask Chuck Hagel about his presence during the machine-gunning of an orphanage in Vietnam's Mekong Delta or the lessons he might have drawn from that incident.

    Nor is any senator apt to ask what Hagel might do if allegations about similar acts by American troops emerge in Afghanistan or elsewhere.  Nor will some senator question him on the possible parallels between the CIA-run Phoenix Program, a joint U.S.-Vietnamese venture focused on identifying and killing civilians associated with South Vietnam's revolutionary shadow government, and the CIA's current targeted-killing-by-drone campaign in Pakistan's tribal borderlands.  Nor, for that matter, is he likely to be asked about the lessons he learned fighting a war in a foreign land among a civilian population where innocents and enemies were often hard to tell apart.  If, however, Hagel's military experience is to be touted as a key qualification for his becoming secretary of defense, shouldn't the American people have some idea of just what that experience was really like and how it shaped his thinking in regard to today's wars?

    Chuck Hagel on Murder in Vietnam

    "In Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength -- they see him as one of their own," President Obama said as he nominated the former Republican senator from Nebraska to become the first former enlisted service member and first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense.  He went on to call him 'the leader that our troops deserve.' 

    Chuck Hagel and his younger brother, Tom, fought together in Vietnam in 1968. The two are believed to be the only brothers to have served in the same infantry squad in that war and even more remarkably, each ended up saving the other's life.  'With Chuck, our troops will always know, just as Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you,' the president said. 

    Largely unnoted was the falling out the brothers had over the conflict.  After returning home, Tom began protesting the war, while Chuck defended it.  Eventually, the Hagel brothers reconciled and even returned to Vietnam together in 1999.  Years before, however, the two sat down with journalist and historian Myra MacPherson and talked about the war.  Although their interpretations of what they had been through differed, it's hard not to come away with the sense that both witnessed U.S. atrocities, and that Chuck Hagel's vision of the war is far more brutal than most Americans imagine.  That his experience of Vietnam would include such incidents should hardly be surprising, especially given the fact that Hagel served in the 9th Infantry Division under one of the most notorious U.S. commanders, Julian Ewell, known more colorfully as 'the Butcher of the Delta.'

    The Hagel brothers, MacPherson recounts in her moving and important history Long Time Passing: Vietnam and the Haunted Generation, argued over whether American troops were 'murdering' people.  Chuck disagreed at first, pointing instead to the depredations of Vietnamese revolutionary forces.  Tom reminded his brother of the CIA's Phoenix Program which, with an estimated body count of more than 20,000 Vietnamese, too often turned murderous and was no less regularly used by corrupt Vietnamese government officials to settle personal grudges.  'There was some of that,' Chuck finally granted.

    Tom then raised an example that hit closer to home -- the time, after an enemy attack, when a sergeant from their unit took out his frustrations on a nearby orphanage.  'Remember the orphanage, Chuck' That sergeant was so drunk and so pissed off that he crawled up on that track [armored personnel carrier] and opened up on that orphanage with a fifty-caliber machine gun,' Tom said.

    When Chuck started to object, MacPherson writes, his brother was insistent.  'Chuck, you were there!  Down at the bottom of the sandhill.'  Skeptically, Chuck asked his brother if he was saying the sergeant had 'slaughtered children in the orphanage.'  Tom granted that he didn't know for sure, 'because none of us went in to check.'  Chuck responded, 'In any war you can take any isolated incident''

    But the war Tom Hagel detailed to MacPherson wasn't one punctuated by a few isolated 'incidents.'  He would talk about officers ordering the mutilation of enemy dead and soldiers shooting up and burning down a village, about how helicopter gunships and napalm decimated large areas of the countryside, about the lethality of indiscriminate weapons fire and about coming upon the bodies of women and children when firefights were over.  He also recounted, in detail, a July 1968 assault on a 'hardcore' enemy village in which their unit took part.  After the battle had ended, he said, a lieutenant shot and killed a civilian in cold blood.  'We're collecting all the NVA [North Vietnamese Army] bodies and this woman walks out of a hootch.  He just shot her dead,' Tom recalled.

    The Hagel Hearings: America's Last Best Chance for the Truth

    Recently, MacPherson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in support of Chuck Hagel's bid to serve as Secretary of Defense: 'His experience has taught him the physical and mental toll of combat.  He would surely think twice before sending young men and women into unnecessary, stupid, or unwinnable conflicts... One thing I know: Chuck Hagel will stand up to whatever is thrown at him.' 

    Tom Hagel has recently talked about his brother in similarly glowing terms.  'He's going to do a great job, he'll be totally committed to it,' he told Politico. 'I think he will bring special sensitivity for enlisted personnel to the job, because, of course, of his experiences as an enlisted person in Nam.'    

    While he ultimately voted to authorize the war in Iraq -- despite grave misgivings -- there is a perception that, in the future, Hagel would be reticent to plunge the United States into yet more reckless wars and a strong belief exists among his supporters that he will stand up for America's sons and daughters in uniform.  On one subject, however, Hagel's Vietnam experience shows him in a lesser light: sensitivity to the plight of the men and women who live in America's war zones.  In this area, his seeming unwillingness to face up to, no less tell the whole truth about, the Vietnam War he saw should raise serious questions.  Unfortunately, it's a blind spot not just for him, but for official Washington generally, and probably much of the country as well. 

    It's worth noting that the Hagel brothers left Vietnam just as their commanding general, Julian Ewell, launched a six-month operation in the Mekong Delta code-named Speedy Express.  One whistleblowing veteran who served in that operation told the Army's top generals that Ewell's use of heavy firepower on the countryside resulted in a 'My Lai each month' (a reference, of course, to the one massacre most Americans know about, in which U.S. troops slaughtered more than 500 civilians, most of them women, children, and elderly men).  That veteran's shocking allegations were kept secret and a nascent inquiry into them was suppressed by the Pentagon.

    A later Newsweek investigation would conclude that as many as 5,000 civilians were killed during Speedy Express.  A secret internal military report, commissioned after Newsweek published its account, suggested that the magazine had offered a low-end estimate.  The document, kept secret and then buried for decades, concluded:

    'While there appears to be no means of determining the precise number of civilian casualties incurred by US forces during Operation Speedy Express, it would appear that the extent of these casualties was in fact substantial, and that a fairly solid case can be constructed to show that civilian casualties may have amounted to several thousand (between 5,000 and 7,000).'

    During the war, efforts by U.S. senators to look into Speedy Express were thwarted by Pentagon officials.  More than four decades later, no senator is ever going to launch an investigation into what actually happened or the Pentagon cover-up that kept the American people in the dark for decades.  Theoretically, the Hagel hearings do offer the Senate a belated chance to ask a few pertinent questions about the Vietnam War and the real lessons it holds for today's era of continuous conflict and for the civilians in distant lands who suffer from it.  But any such hope is, we know, sure to die a quick death in that Senate hearing room.

    Chuck Hagel's views on the Vietnam War underwent a fundamental shift following the release of audio tapes of President Lyndon Johnson admitting, in 1964, that the war was unwinnable.  That "cold political calculation" caused Hagel to vow that he would "never, ever remain silent when that kind of thinking put more American lives at risk in any conflict." 

    But what about lives other than those of Americans?  What about children in shot-up orphanages or women who survive a murderous crossfire only to be gunned down in cold blood?  Chuck Hagel may well be, as Mr. Obama contends, 'the leader that our troops deserve.'  But don't the American people deserve a little honesty from that leader about the war that shaped him?  In these few days, the senators considering his nomination have an opportunity, perhaps the last one available, to get some answers about a war whose realities, never quite faced here, continue to dog us so many decades later.  It's a shame that they are sure to pass it up in favor of the usual political theater. 

    Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute.  An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author most recently of Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).  Published on January 15th, it offers a new look at the American war machine in Vietnam and the suffering it caused. His website is NickTurse.com.  You can follow him on Tumblr and on Facebook. 

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.  Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse's The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.