Mediaboss Marketing

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that U.S.-led interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia were not about spreading democracy, but about addressing regional security issues.

Rice, who served in former President George W. Bush's administration asnational security advisor from 2001 through 2005 and as secretary of state from 2005 to 2009, made the revelation during an interview at the Brooking Institute. Rice played a key role in the Bush cabinet during the post-9/11 years that saw the U.S. launch two large-scale invasions against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. In addition to the regional threat of the Al-Qaeda-allied Taliban government in Afghanistan and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, later disproved, the White House defended its military action by touting a U.S.-led campaign to spread democracy to the region. In remarks referencing her latest book, however, Rice said otherwise.

Related: War in Iraq: Islamic State Collapses As Military Kills ISIS Commander in West Mosul

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

"We didn't go toIraq tobring democracy toIraq, we went toIraq tooverthrow Saddam Hussein, who we thought was reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction and who we knew had been a threat in the region. It was a security problem," Rice said. "We didn't overthrow the Talibanto bring democracy to Afghanistan, we overthrewthem because they were harboring Al-Qaeda in a safehaven after 9/11."

Then President George W. Bush delivers a speech celebrating what he deemed a victory in the Iraq War to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. Bush's former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has since said U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about tackling security problems, not defending or spreading democracy. Larry Downing/Reuters

She compared the U.S.'s motives to that of World War Two when the nation intervened to defend European and Asian allies from the spread of Axis powers Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. She also said she regretted the notion that the U.S.'s first major military engagements of the 21st century were mixed up with the "freedom agenda" and emphasized that U.S.'s missions in Afghanistan, codenamed Operation Enduring Freedom, and in Iraq, codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom, were strictly concerned with taking out U.S. foes. She claimed she would never have asked Bush tobring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan by military force, which she said was a "dramatic" example of democracy promotion.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered from ongoing conflicts since the U.S.'s intervention. In Iraq, the toppling of Hussein, a member of the country's Sunni Muslim minority, exacerbated long-standing sectarian tensions between Sunni Muslims and the Shiite Muslim majority. Ultraconservative Sunni Muslim groups, some of which were former members of Hussein's government and military, formed Al-Qaeda's franchise in Iraq, which took advantage of the post-war chaos to target U.S. soldiers and Shiite Muslims, further threatening the stability of the U.S.-installed government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq united with other jihadist groups to form the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006, which ultimately rebranded itself into the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). After mostly withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, the U.S. was forced to return in 2014, albeit in smaller numbers, to assist an Iraqi-led campaign against ISIS.

A member of the Army writes a note at a military base southwest of Mosul, Iraq, April 28, 2017. This year marked 14th consecutive year of U.S. military presence in Iraq. Suhaib Salem/Reuters

Since toppling the Taliban's government in Afghanistan, the U.S. continues to battle the insurgents, which have recently begun a new offensive after taking new swathes of territory across the nation. Most U.S. troops had left by 2016, but advisers of President Donald Trump have suggested another increase in U.S. forces on the ground after the Taliban's resurgence and the rise of an ISIS syndicate attempting to rival the Taliban's hold on the nation. Last month, the Taliban conducted its deadliest attack of the conflict yet when the group killed as many as 140 Afghan soldiers after infiltrating a military base.

Rice's comments on democracy and war echoed claims she made her in most recent book,Democracy: The Long Road to Freedom. In the book, which was released last week, Rice reflects on democracy movements and the transition to democracy in nations around the world, from the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. to post-war Iraq and Afghanistan. Since leaving the State Department at the end of Bush's last term, Rice returned to academia and joined the Council of Foreign Relations.

Visit link:
U.S. Wars in the Middle East Were Not Supposed to Bring ... - Newsweek

New York Times

Comey's Firing Tests Strength of the 'Guardrails of Democracy' New York Times Political scientists who study democracy and authoritarianism know the answers will be long debated. The true significance of Mr. Comey's firing, they say, is that it presents a kind of stress test for American democratic institutions. In unhealthy ... Trump's war on American democracyHerald Scotland Perez: Firing of Comey Affront to DemocracyWJCL News Opinion: After Comey's firing, how can we save our constitutional democracy?MarketWatch The New Yorker -San Francisco Chronicle -ThinkProgress all 17,276 news articles »

See the article here:
Comey's Firing Tests Strength of the 'Guardrails of Democracy' - New York Times

Republican politicians often strugglenot to come across as heartless plutocrats when defending their right-wingagenda to the world. Yeteven when they convincinglyprojectcompassion for those less fortunate, theystill frequently end up looking like pompous, out-of-touch elites.

This has been especially true over the past couple ofweeks, as congressional Republicans haveattemptedto defend the American Health Care Act (AHCA) which passed the House on a narrow party-line vote last week against its many critics. Considering howappallingand cruel the legislation is, it has not been surprising to seeRepublicans squirming a bit more than usual.

Last Friday, for example, Rep. Ral Labrador, R-Idaho, prompted a backlash when herespondedto an angryconstituent at a town hall meeting who suggestedthat he is mandating people on Medicaid to accept dying by supporting Trumpcare. Labradorsneeringlydismissed this claim, telling the voter that line is so indefensible, and thatnobody dies because they dont have access to health care a line that provokedan incredulousgaspfrom the audience.

The following day, Labrador attempted to qualify his statement in a Facebook post, writing that hospitals are required by law to treat patients in need of emergency care. However, as PolitiFact notes in its analysis(which rated the congressmans comment pants on fire), even if you accept hisclaim that emergency rooms protect the uninsured, that leaves out a whole range of chronic and potentially deadly diseases from heart disease to diabetes that can be prevented only through long-term access to physicians. So Labrador gave the impression of beingnot only callous and uncaring, but completely unaware of the fact that Americans die every day because of a lack of medical care.

On lastSundays broadcast of ABCs This Week, House Speaker Paul Ryan the real architect of Trumpcarealmost topped Labradors idiocy with his own let them eat cake moment, whichcame when Ryanrespondedto the Congressional Budget Office forecastthataround 24 million people will lose their health insurance under the AHCA.What the CBO is basically saying, and I agree with this, remarked Ryan, was that if the governments not going to force somebody to buy something they dont want to buy, then theyre not going to buy it. So theyre basically saying people, through their own free choice,if theyre not mandated to buy something thats unaffordable, theyre not going to do it. (Emphasis mine.)

One has to wonderwhether things would have turned out differentlyhad Marie Antoinette simply proclaimedthat the French peasants were starving to death by their own free choice.

Needless to say,Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues in Washington probablydontstay up at night worrying about losing their health insurance, and therefore have difficultycomprehending the fact that millions of hard-working Americans who need medical care simply cannot afford it. Republican lawmakerstend to assume that a person who lacks health insurance either doesnt want it (and is merely exercising his or her free choice), is poor and thus lazy and undeserving, or is frivolous and spends her money on nonessential goods (e.g., the latest iPhone) instead of health insurance. In other words, its entirely a matter of personal responsibility, and no one cant get health insurance (just as no one dies because they dont have health insurance). In the conservativemind, it is inconceivable that an honest, hard-working and responsible American who has done everything he or she is supposed to may be unable to afford health insurance.

Last weeks trifecta of stupidity from congressional Republicans was rounded off by Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, whotried to rationalizethe return of pre-existing conditions during an interview with CNNs Jake Tapper. Eliminating Obamacare protections for people with pre-existing conditions, Brooks argued, would help reduce costs for people who lead good lives and have done the things to keep their bodies healthy. One hardly needs to point out the folly ofthis argument when considering that cancer, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, mental illness and Alzheimers disease are all defined aspre-existing conditions.

These stomach-churningattemptsto defendthe AHCA and its cruel implications showcase just how disconnected Washington politicians especially but not exclusively Republicans are from the people, and what a farce American democracyhas become. According to various polls,about six in 10 Americansnowsupport a single-payer style program in which the government ensures health care for all citizens, while only 22 percent of Americans, per a Gallup survey,support repealing Obamacarewithout a government replacement (in other words, support Trumpcare).

This serves as a useful reminder that the U.S. government is scarcely democratic, and that Washington will never represent the will of the people as long as it is dominated by specialinterests andinhabited by economic elites. Just consider one revealing statistic:In 2013, the median net worth of a member of Congress was $1.03 million, compared to a net worth of $56,355 for the average American household. A Congress full of millionaires is theresult of a political system that is controlled by organized money and business interests and according to a 2014 study from Princeton,economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

When most elected officialsare richmen and women (though mostly men)who spend much of their time in officecourtingbig campaign donors,andhave never known what its like to go without medicine because it isunaffordable or toworry about making ends meet unlike thesix in 10 Americans who do not have enough savings for an emergency and live paycheck to paycheck then a disconnect is inevitable. Privilegedpoliticians who see themselves as natural elites are bound to espouse concepts like freedom and personal responsibility to justify their social Darwinist agenda.

People with advantages are loath to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages, observed the American sociologist C. Wright Mills. They come readily to define themselves as inherently worthy of what they possess; they come to believe themselves naturally elite, and, in fact, to imagine their possessions and their privileges as natural extensions of their own elite selves.

People with advantages also control Washingtontoday, and tend to believe thatthe undemocratic system that favors natural eliteslike themselvesis a system worth preserving. Of course, it is the people who do not have such advantages like the millions who will lose their health insurance under Trumpcare who will suffer the consequences.

The rest is here:
An appalling chorus of Trumpcare apologetics exposes the farce of American democracy - Salon

Republican Sen. James Lankford called for clarity.

Republican Sen. John McCain pronounced himself disappointed.

And Republican Sen. Marco Rubio essentially shrugged. He said he was surprised by the sacking of FBI Director James Comey, but added that, Its a decision the presidents made, and well go from here.

It is not exactly a portrait of righteous indignation.

Not to paint with too broad a brush. Some GOP officials did speak more forcefully against what Donald Trump did Tuesday night (and some supported it). But there was no mistaking a certain tepid tone to many responses, and it was almost as troubling as the firing itself.

For those who just flew in from the Amazon rainforest:

In an ominous echo of Richard Nixons infamous Saturday Night Massacre, Trump fired the man who has been investigating his campaigns ties to Russia, which meddled in last years election with the goal of helping elect Trump president. Comey sought to find out whether Trump or his surrogates colluded with that effort.

Instead, he was given the ax, a fact he learned on television. The explanation for this was spectacularly risible. In a terse letter, Trump claimed he was responding to concerns from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, that Comey mishandled the investigation of the nothing burger that was Hillary Clintons emails.

Comey did, in fact, botch the investigation, violating Justice Department protocol by publicizing unsubstantiated claims against a candidate in the midst of a campaign.

But this happened last summer, and if it were really the reason for his dismissal, hed have been gone right after Trump took power.

More to the point, it would require the credulity of a particularly stupid toddler to believe Trump, who loathes Clinton, just booted the FBI director because he treated her unfairly. No, it is painfully obvious that this is about Russia. Like Nixon in 1973, Trump is apparently faced with an investigation that is going places he doesnt want it to go.

Like Nixon, he has responded by firing the investigator.

The stench that rises from this is unmistakable, the reek of power abused and justice obstructed.

It strongly suggests that we are governed by an ongoing criminal conspiracy. The situation needs, demands and requires an independent investigation.

We cant rely on the Justice Department for that, given that its leadership is complicit in Comeys firing.

That leaves Congress, which is why the anodyne Republican reactions are so worrisome. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has flatly ruled out a special prosecutor.

Shame on all of us if that is the last word here. We are supposed to be Americans first, before we are Rs or Ds. Thats a principle from which many Republicans have turned in recent years, repeatedly choosing themselves and their wealthy patrons over the greater American good.

The health care debacle is but the latest glaring example.

But GOP leaders must stand up for the country this time or risk losing it. If they dont get that, the rest of us liberal, conservative, American must make unceasing noise and apply unstinting pressure until the party that launched eight investigations of Benghazi decides to treat this at least as seriously.

If you are not appalled, you are not paying attention. The Trump administration constitutes a clear and present danger to American democracy.

We need a special prosecutor and we need one now.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Continue reading here:
A danger to American democracy - Sunbury Daily Item

Vermont has a lot to say for itself when it comes to building a sustainable future. The facts speak for themselves: We rank second in the nation for clean energy momentum and are near the top of the heap when it comes to the growth of clean energy jobs. It is clear that were on our way to creating an energy independent Vermont and even meeting our ambitious goal of generating 90 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2050.

However, the time has arrived when we need to bring more Vermonters to the table we need to come up with solutions that meet our renewable energy goals, the needs of our communities and our planet. We must work to truly empower citizens to make decisions about energy sources and how the benefits are distributed. This isnt a call to allow towns veto power over specific projects; this is a call to fundamentally change our energy system and forge ahead with an approach that breaks us out of our polarized camps that focus solely on siting or technology when it comes to any project or policy.

So how can we do this?

Currently, Rights & Democracy is launching a campaign calling for a new energy system, one that will disrupt the status quo of how we produce, own, and use energy by putting the power in the hands of the people. We believe its time for Vermont to move towards energy democracy an open, democratic approach to determining our future and creating sustainable, livable communities that empower people to have a stake in their energy.

So what is energy democracy? What does it look like? What are its goals?

Put simply: Its an energy system that is low carbon and local as well as ecological and equitable, and abides by some straightforward principles:

Allow for diverse voices to make key decisions for Vermonts renewable energy future, not just utilities, lobbyists, and regulators.

Improve access not only to renewable power, but also to the ability to own it, with a goal of 75 percent of energy used in the state being owned locally and/or by communities or cooperatives.

No renewable energy source should be off the table for a community to evaluate.

Lower the financial barriers to participating in renewable energy investments and ownership so that all Vermonters, regardless of income or property ownership status, have a stake in the transition. Keep the benefits of renewable energy generation local, including renewable energy credits.

Guarantee that no family has to spend more than 5 percent of its income paying for energy.

Based on my experience, I feel that not only is it possible for Vermont to adopt these principles, it may very well be necessary. In 2015, I was working as an organizer for the Energy Independent Vermont campaign to put a price on carbon pollution. I spent my days meeting with activists from the Northeast Kingdom to Windham County to discuss our transition away from fossil fuels and towards energy independence.

In these face-to-face conversations with these folks, I quickly learned that although most Vermonters support transitioning away from fossil fuels, there is a large spectrum of opinions on how we get there. And these opinions when fanned are dividing communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and at times slowing down or halting renewable energy projects.

More than that, during the 2016 campaign, disagreements over how our transition to renewable energy is happening led some longtime environmental activists and progressives to support Republican Gov. Phil Scott. This may come as a shock, since Governor Scott is clearly no champion for environmental, economic or social justice issues and could seriously undermine years of momentum to transition to a clean future in Vermont.

Instead, we have seen organizations and activists who should be united under the common goal effectively turn on each other, when there are much larger and systemic issues of climate change to be working on.

I know beyond a doubt that we need to take bold action to ditch fossil fuels and generate our power from clean, renewable and sustainable sources, and we need to act in unity to ensure those benefits are felt by all Vermonters.

Vermont deserves energy policies that put the future of Vermonts power in the hands of the people, not politicians and corporations, whose interests arent rooted in freeing our communities from the grip of out-of-state, multinational power companies..

Its time to bring the power to the people, and keep it there.

Laura Mistretta of Burlington is a member of Rights & Democracy.

Read more:
Creating an energy democracy | | Rutland Herald - Rutland Herald