Obama's contempt for voters

Barack Obama emailed me again this week. His campaign did, that is.

In the arms race that is the presidential campaign, Obama for America sends out requests for support, by way of pleas for money, which is no surprise. But these emails treat his supporters, or Democrats (I am not one but I got the emails in '08 and they've kept up since then) or just its recipients as partisan fanboys/girls that root for the blue team, therefore they must believe the red team is pure evil, must be stopped and our president is the true defender of their values. The emails are reductive of its recipients and insulting to their intelligence given Barack Obama's actions in the White House are rarely consistent with his promises, nor of what progressives believe in and want to see from their standbearer. But maybe I'm projecting onto the Projection President.

For example, his latest:

(Recipient) --

We now know who our opponent is.

But what we're really fighting against is what our opponent has pledged to do if elected.

He would shower billionaires with more huge tax breaks, oppose setting a timeline to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, starve investments in clean energy research, and make it harder for students to afford to go to college. He'd outlaw a woman's right to choose and completely cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

We can't afford an endless war in Afghanistan, a return to policies that hurt the middle class, and a social agenda from the 1950s.

The stakes and the differences are profound. The outcome of this election will determine the course of this country for decades to come.

I need you by my side.

Make a donation of $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Ready

Thank you,

Barack

So the president points to Republicans', or, likely, Mitt Romney's, positions on serving the economic interests of the most wealthy Americans, a timeline in Afghanistan, clean energy, affordable higher education and reproductive rights.

Let's look at what has came out of Obama's administration in the last couple weeks on these issues.

Matt Taibbi on the JOBS Act, which Obama enthusiastically signed on April 5:

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.

Ostensibly, the law makes it easier for startup companies (particularly tech companies, whose lobbyists were a driving force behind its passage) to attract capital by, among other things, exempting them from independent accounting requirements for up to five years after they first begin selling shares in the stock market.

The law also rolls back rules designed to prevent bank analysts from talking up a stock just to win business, a practice that was so pervasive in the tech-boom years as to be almost industry standard.

Even worse, the JOBS Act, incredibly, will allow executives to give "pre-prospectus" presentations to investors using PowerPoint and other tools in which they will not be held liable for misrepresentations. These firms will still be obligated to submit prospectuses before their IPOs, and they'll still be held liable for what's in those. But it'll be up to the investor to check and make sure that the prospectus matches the "pre-presentation."

The JOBS Act also loosens a whole range of other reporting requirements, and expands stock investment beyond "accredited investors," giving official sanction to the internet-based fundraising activity known as "crowdfunding."

This Trojan horse is billed as a helping hand to the little guy, the ever-hailed small business. But as Taibbi pointed out, this is a giveaway to Silicon Valley that could cause major havoc later on and "invite a replay of the disastrous tech-stock bubble of the late nineties. That mess was made possible by a historic collapse in accounting standards, with the great investment banks the pioneers of the collapse."

What about Afghanistan? The Pentagon isn't taking the impending drawdown very well, as the AP reported Thursday.

WASHINGTON — Adm. Bill McRaven, the head of U.S. special operations, is mapping out a potential Afghanistan war plan that would replace thousands of U.S. troops with small special operations teams paired with Afghans to help an inexperienced Afghan force withstand a Taliban onslaught as U.S. troops withdraw.

While the overall campaign would still be led by conventional military, the handfuls of special operators would become the leading force to help Afghans secure the large tracts of territory won in more than a decade of U.S. combat. They would give the Afghans practical advice on how to repel attacks, intelligence to help spot the enemy and communications to help call for U.S. air support if overwhelmed by a superior force.

[...]

McRaven’s proposal amounts to a slimmed-down counterinsurgency strategy aimed at protecting the Afghan population as well as hunting the Taliban and al-Qaida. It’s not the counterterrorist plan advanced by Vice President Joe Biden, which would leave Afghan forces to fend for themselves while keeping U.S. special operators in protected bases from which they could hunt terrorists with minimum risk, according to a senior special operations official reached this week.

Thousands of U.S. troops could remain in harm’s way well after the end of combat operations in 2014, tasked with helping Afghans protect territory won by U.S. forces.

Let's not forget the administration did not want to stick to the BUSH TIMETABLE to leave Iraq, but the Iraqi government refused. So now Obama takes credit for ending the Iraq war, even though he didn't want to, it was Bush's plan and the sectarian violence continues there. Why should we think Afghanistan will be any different? Insulting.

Next, clean energy. I don't doubt the administration is committed to clean energy research. But I do doubt it is doing much to actively block oil and gas exploration. On April 9, TPM detailed Obama's "oil boom" in light of the GOP blaming him for higher gas prices because, they say, Obama refuses to allow for adequate oil drilling in the U.S. The argument is false, as TPM notes, not only because no president has that kind of power over oil prices but also because, well, the industry is doing just fine in this struggling economy. Oil and gas extraction has skyrocketed in the last year-plus.

Oil and gas extraction is a relatively small industry, but it has prospered in the weak economy, even as other industries climb slowly out of the great recession. Energy experts say that the oil boom itself is also due to factors outside of Obama’s control, but this gives the lie to the notion that Obama’s been actively squelching it.

So while the email's claim that the administration holds clean energy in high regard is clearly true, that doesn't tell the whole story. Obama cannot be legitimately considered the oil and gas sector's number one enemy.

How about affordable higher ed? Bloomberg broke this story in late March:

With $67 billion of student loans in default, the Education Department is turning to an army of private debt-collection companies to put the squeeze on borrowers. Working on commissions that totaled about $1 billion last year, these government contractors face growing complaints that they are violating federal laws by insisting on stiff payments, even when borrowers’ incomes make them eligible for leniency.

The Obama administration had no problem throwing drowning citizens to loan predators. It took the release of the story (which is a good read) for the administration to give a shit, claiming it will re-examine this practice and overhaul the system. But promises are often just words.

I guess he gets one and a half (clean energy) of five right, that one being reproductive rights.

But, hey, he's doing loads for the LGBT community, right? No. WaPo (April 12): "... White House officials revealed Wednesday that President Obama would not sign an executive order sought by activists to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Pretty words. Contempt for voters. Do what it takes to simply get re-elected. The liberal standardbearer.

Critical thinking on Memorial Day

I think we can all agree that thanking military personnel is warranted, Memorial Day or not. But what we don't do enough is analyze what they (and their families) are asked to do. Civilians are asked to do next to nothing to support our wars in Iraq (4,404 American soldiers dead, approx.) and Afghanistan (1,076 dead) -- well, we feel the economic toll, and future generations will have to actually pay for them. But our all-volunteer military is asked to do more than their fair share. As of yesterday, we've spent $1 trillion in Iraq/Afghanistan. Are we putting them in harm's way for good reason?

If you're persuaded more by economic factors, Derrick Crowe flags some poignant statistics.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s (CEPR) Dean Baker:

"In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs. …[S]tandard economic models…project that the increase in defense spending since 2000 will cost the economy close to two million jobs in the long run."

Baker’s point in his article was that groups that scream about potential "job loss" from government "interference" never put that "loss" in any context. Government spending does stimulate economic activity during a downturn. The question is, how stimulative is one type of spending versus another? So let’s make sure we’re playing fair and put this in some perspective in terms of job creation.

It turns out that, excluding tax cuts for consumption, war spending is the least stimulative type of government spending.

An October 2007 study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) found that per $1 billion invested in the following fields, you create wildly different numbers of jobs:

Defense: 8,555 jobs
Construction for home weatherization/infrastructure: 12,804 jobs
Health care: 12,883 jobs
Education: 17,687 jobs
Mass transit: 19,795 jobs

So if you take $1 billion in taxpayer dollars and spend it on war versus on building energy efficient homes and other infrastructure, the opportunity cost for that spending is 4,249 potential jobs. Spending it on war versus mass transit costs you 11,240 potential jobs.

This is getting unreasonable, to say the least.

If that isn't enough, this Washington Post headline says a lot about the tenuous alliances we've made that aren't built to last, but to serve as a foreign policy Band-Aid: In Afghan region, U.S. spreads the cash to fight the Taliban. I'm not so naive as to believe this is the first time civilians in a war-torn country have been bought out, but then let's never kid ourselves that Democracy is on the march. Like it is for many of us, in Afghanistan, it's about who's got their economic interests in mind.

There are many factors pushing the war machine forward. Those forces can seem overwhelming. But the onus to end war is ultimately ours. We have to decide how we engage our country's often militaristic view of the world. Where is the drone leading us? What does indefinite detention of prisoners mean for our future? How are we actively inflaming the Muslim world in the name of security? What does national security mean in the 21st century?

The only way we can survive, and thrive, as a people is to think. What are our priorities? What would you do with $1 trillion?

Big week at Gitmo

The first military commissions trial under Barack Obama is set to begin tomorrow at Guantanamo Bay. The case of Canadian Omar Khadr, the alleged murderer of an American solider by grenade in Afghanistan eight years ago, will showcase how truly different Obama's changes to these tribunals are compared to those during George W. Bush's presidency.

Spencer Ackerman with what's at issue:

Khadr, a teenager when initially detained, has been held for nearly half his life at a facility that the Obama administration has pledged to close. He will be tried in a legal venue that Obama rejected as a Senator and embraced, in reformed fashion, as president. What happens this week at Guantanamo will determine whether Obama’s pledge that the new, revised military commissions can deliver internationally-recognized justice is meaningful: the pre-trial hearing in Khadr’s case will provide the first in-depth examination of whether Khadr’s treatment in U.S. custody amounts to torture; will determine whether prosecutors can use evidence against him acquired under abusive, coercive circumstances that civilian courts would never allow; and whether additional statements made by Khadr in subsequent and less-coercive circumstances are fair game or inextricable from his overall abuse.

The 15-year-old was in Afghanistan with his father, a supposed al Qaeda financier, when he we detained for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed an American. In the process, Khadr was shot twice. Evidence suggests that he was buried under rubble at the time of the American soldier's death.

Many have questioned why the Obama administration would pick this case, one of a child soldier who has been tortured, to be the first commissions exercise under Obama.

Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald (a Gitmo reporter extraordinaire) quotes former war court defense lawyer David Frakt today:

"They're starting off their very first prosecution of the Obama administration with a child soldier, a Westerner no less, and going into excruciating detail for two weeks of torture and mistreatment that he suffered,'' Frakt said. ``It's kind of the dream scenario for opponents of military commissions.''

Khadr claims he was at times beaten, left shackled so long in interrogation he urinated on himself and was subjected to solitary confinement and sleep deprivation -- claims that other detainees have also made through the years.

For a legal rundown of what's wrong in this case, read Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First:

Equally fundamental is that the military commissions were created to try war crimes. But even if Khadr were guilty of the acts charged - murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and aiding the enemy - those aren't really war crimes. At least, they weren't war crimes until Congress declared them to be in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- four years after Khadr allegedly committed them. So to try Khadr for war crimes now is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, Khadr's lawyers point out. (Khadr could, of course, be tried in a civilian court for the crimes of murder and conspiracy.)

Khadr's case, then, underscores many of the fundamental problems with the military commission system - that it has no rules, little experience, almost no precedent and barely any law to guide it.

So why did the Obama administration decide to make the case of Omar Khadr its first trial in a military commission?

If the administration is hoping to showcase the strength of its military and the president's tough stance on terrorism, this probably wasn't the best way to do it.

How this case is handled will have deep ramifications going forward with the many detainee trials in queue now. And it will interesting to see how America and the media react to another remembrance of the scores of evidence of torture inflicted upon this teenager, guilty or not, and other detainees.

My Lai on PBS

I watched the PBS series American Experience: My Lai. Wow. I've had quite the pair of films today.

The New York Times wrote of the Barak Goodman documentary:

The film employs the usual archival images and talking heads, as well as audio recordings from the court martial of Lt. William L. Calley Jr., who was convicted of ordering the killings. But Mr. Goodman has gone well beyond that, persuading soldiers from Charlie Company, some of whom had never spoken publicly about the events of March 16, 1968, to sit for interviews.

They appear to be more interested in seeking understanding than in expressing remorse. “The people of that village were Viet Cong or Viet Cong sympathizers,” says Kenneth Hodges, a squad leader. “Maybe some see it differently. That’s the way I see it.” Often, though, their words and their eyes seem to be telling different stories.

The first half of My Lai is deeply haunting.

The battle for Kandahar

Get ready for a tough, bloody summer in Kandahar.

NYT:

The Taliban gunned down the deputy mayor of Kandahar, perhaps the city’s most effective and admired public official, late on Monday, demonstrating their ability to kill almost anyone in a region where security continues to worsen ahead of a planned summer offensive.

And in eastern Afghanistan on Monday, a NATO convoy shot to death four unarmed civilians in a vehicle, including a police officer and 12-year-old student, according to local Afghan officials. But without offering proof, NATO described the dead as two insurgents and their “associates” — a disagreement that could prompt another dispute with the Afghan government over civilian casualties.


Kandahar was the power center of the Taliban before the United States-led invasion in 2001, and attempts to secure the surrounding province from Taliban guerrillas and institute new governance programs this summer could be crucial to the fate of the eight-and-a-half-year occupation. With only weeks to go before the offensive, the Taliban have been stepping up violence in the city with a series of assassinations and attacks on American and Western contractors, political officials and religious leaders.

Military commissions are back by unpopular demand

You wanted indecision, you got it! The Obama administration is going forward with military commissions (and its stellar record of convictions ... that was sarcasm) today, reports the Miami Herald.

Still operating under Bush-era policies that President Barack Obama last year called "a mess," the Pentagon will resume military commission hearings for accused terrorists Wednesday in a top-secret compound originally designed for the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

War court critics denounced the decision to go ahead with hearings this week, saying that without new rules the Obama administration has yet to complete the commissions are operating with uncertain procedures.

"It's really like a lame-duck commission," bristled Mike Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel.

First up on the war court's agenda is a pretrial hearing in the case of Noor Uthman Mohammed, a Sudanese man who was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and brought here soon after for interrogation as a suspected al-Qaida operative.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder approved Noor's military trial in November on charges of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism for allegedly helping to run the Khalden terror training camp in Afghanistan.

At that same time, Holder approved civilian trials for the alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and this week's hearings also are a reminder that the Justice Department remains undecided on how to proceed with the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four accused co-conspirators.

After New York officials objected to holding the 9/11 trial in lower Manhattan, the White House announced that it would reconsider the decision. It remains unclear where and in what forum Mohammed and the other alleged plotters will face charges.

That indecision will be on display as the court convenes Noor's case in the maximum security, $12 million Expeditionary Legal Compound that the Bush administration built for the accused 9/11 conspirators.

USA! USA! USA!

Update: Though the defendant has spent 8 years in U.S. custody, the judge said today it will take up to another YEAR to sift through his evidence. Sorry kid.

Update II: Daphne Eviatar highlights the case of the detainee (Noor Muhammad) as a prime example of a colossal government fuckup.

All hail the death of journalism!

CNN vs. Al Jazeera coverage on Monday

Tiger Woods and iPads vs. Wikileak's video of American forces indiscriminate firing in Iraq. It speaks for itself.

Never mind killing pregnant Afghans, Tiger's back!

The International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), led by U.S. General Stanley A. McChrystal, has admitted its own guilt in the deaths of five Afghan civilian (two were pregnant) during a night raid in Gardez in February.

That's a tragedy on its face. But NATO led a cover-up operation of this incident following a Times of London report on the inconsistencies that existed between NATO's explanation of the raid and the claims of survivors and witnesses.

A night raid carried out by US and Afghan gunmen led to the deaths of two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two local officials in an atrocity which Nato then tried to cover up, survivors have told The Times.

The operation on Friday, February 12, was a botched pre-dawn assault on a policeman’s home a few miles outside Gardez, the capital of Paktia province, eastern Afghanistan. In a statement after the raid titled “Joint force operating in Gardez makes gruesome discovery”, Nato claimed that the force had found the women’s bodies “tied up, gagged and killed” in a room.

A Times investigation suggests that Nato’s claims are either wilfully false or, at best, misleading. More than a dozen survivors, officials, police chiefs and a religious leader interviewed at and around the scene of the attack maintain that the perpetrators were US and Afghan gunmen. The identity and status of the soldiers is unknown.

This story appeared in the Times on March 13. ISAF proceeded to obfuscate further, going as far as to call out the reporter, Jerome Starkey, by name in response.

KABUL, Afghanistan (March 13) - The allegation made by Times UK reporter Jerome Starkey that NATO "covered up" an incident that was conducted outside Gardez in Paktia province is categorically false.

Additionally, Mr. Starkey incorrectly quoted Rear Adm. Greg Smith of ISAF when he did not include the word "armed" in the following sentence: "If you have got an [armed] individual stepping out of a compound, and if your assault force is there, that is often the trigger to neutralise the individual. You don't have to be fired upon to fire back."

All the while, keep in mind that McChyrstal has implemented policy (announced BEFORE Gardez) limiting night raids in Afghanistan -- ignoring Hamid Karzai's call for an outright band -- to curb civilian casualties.

Then, ISAF released this late Easter Sunday:

KABUL, Afghanistan (Apr. 4) – A thorough joint investigation into the events that occurred in the Gardez district of Paktiya Province Feb. 12, has determined that international forces were responsible for the deaths of three women who were in the same compound where two men were killed by the joint Afghan-international patrol searching for a Taliban insurgent.

The two men, who were later determined not to be insurgents, were shot and killed by the joint patrol after they showed what appeared to be hostile intent by being armed. While investigators could not conclusively determine how or when the women died, due to lack of forensic evidence, they concluded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.

So what is the physical proof of the coverup? There have to be bullet holes, right? The New York Times:

A NATO official also said Sunday that an Afghan-led team of investigators had found signs of evidence tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets from walls near where the women were killed. On Monday, however, a senior NATO official denied that any tampering had occurred.

[...]

The admission was an abrupt about-face. In a statement soon after the raid, NATO had claimed that its raiding party had stumbled upon the “bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed” and hidden in a room in the house. Military officials had also said later that the bodies showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife, and that the women appeared to have been killed several hours before the raid.

And in what could be a scandalous turn to the investigation, The Times of London reported Sunday night that Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also “dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”

A spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry, Zemary Bashary, said that he did not have any information about the Afghan investigation, which he said remained unfinished.

In an interview, a NATO official said the Afghan-led investigation team alerted American and NATO commanders that the inquiry had found signs of evidence tampering. A briefing was given by investigators to General McChrystal and other military officials in late March.

“There was evidence of tampering at the scene, walls being washed, bullets dug out of holes in the wall,” the NATO official said, adding that investigators “couldn’t find bullets from the wounds in the body.”

The investigators, the official said, “alluded to the fact that bullets were missing but did not discuss anything specific to that. Nothing pointed conclusively to the fact that our guys were the ones who tampered with the scene.”

Digging bullets out of the victims? Denying medical treatment to buy time for cover? Of course, the investigation is (supposedly) ongoing, but the implications are quite dire here.

But, true to form for the likes of cable news, it's too bad this isn't a major story this morning. CNN and Fox are all over a Tiger Woods press conference (SEX!), scheduled today for 2 p.m. One would think this atrocity and cover-up would be front and center for any news outlet. Not so. That's a commentary on the sad state of mainstream news outlets. I credit sites like Rethink Afghanistan (not to mention Jerome Starkey, who broke this story, and the NY Times for ... at least having it) for keeping focus on this unfolding exposition. But Rethink Afghanistan is no cable news conglomerate. I sincerely hope this gets attention down the road. Without coverage, such egregious behavior in our name goes without accountability. It's time the media stand up to the Pentagon's PR machine.

Update: Glenn Greenwald expands on the American media's failure in this case, specifically that of CNN and the New York Times, as opposed to international reporting that relied on actually legwork and not official Pentagon sources.

Year review on DADT just coverage for a repeal?

Nancy Youssef ponders how the yearlong review of 'Don't ask don't tell' squares with a service that feels the policy change is a lock. MIght the review supposed to serve the purpose of buying time for Congress to craft a repeal?

On Thursday, the New York Times ran a piece quoting John McHugh, the secretary of the Army, as saying that he no longer implements Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He said he had decided to ignore the law in light of the Obama administration’s call to repeal the law. Then the firestorm began. How does the military apply the law? And what about the other services? In response, the secretary issued a lengthy clarification that I have included below. But really, the whole issue raises bigger questions. The military is essentially trying to bypass a reluctant Congress and make changes to the law Congress itself repeals the law. Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced more stringent requirements to kick someone out of the military under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, all while there is a year-long study of the issue under way. All of this has led to a flurry of confusion. And for me, it raises questions about how effective a year-long review can really be. If service members feel the change in inevitable, will the review lead to an honest assessment of how the military can repeal the law or is the change in the law already under way? If so, the review may become a means to buy time while Congress considers a repeal.

That seems unlikely, but the review is still a curious exercise. Who's being placated by this year study? I'm interested to see how this "study" is conducted.

Long live the military-industrial complex

Writing for Salon, Michael Lind examines the connections between America's continued Cold War militarism and its crippling trade deficits.

During and after the Korean War, the U.S. rebuilt its military and stationed troops along "tripwires" from Central Europe to East Asia. The U.S. encouraged the formation of the European Common Market (now the European Union) in part to provide the West Germans with markets. In Asia, Mao Zedong's victory in China cut off Japan's China market, so the U.S. offered the American market to Japanese exporters, which initially were not considered a threat to American businesses.

Thus began the Grand Bargain at the heart of U.S. Cold War strategy toward West Germany and Japan, the "markets-for-bases" swap. In return for giving up an independent foreign policy to their protector, the United States, the West Germans and Japanese would be granted access to American markets (and, in the case of the Germans, access to Western European markets).

[...]

For half a century America's economic establishment, turning a blind eye to Asia's crude and Germany's subtle mercantilism, pretended that American protectionism was the greatest threat to the world economy. It is gradually dawning even on former free-trade fundamentalists that you cannot have a liberal global trading system in which three of the four largest industrial capitalist countries -- China, Japan and Germany -- pursue policies that permit them to enjoy perpetual trade surpluses, which require perpetual trade deficits by the U.S. and other countries.

Meanwhile, the security half of America's global strategy is headed for a crash as well. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has mindlessly sought to fill every power vacuum from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf to Central Asia, while spending far less on the military than it did in the Cold War. The U.S. has gone into debt to finance the Iraq and Afghan wars. You don't have to be a grand strategist to figure out that extending territorial commitments without commensurately expanding funding and troop levels is a formula for strategic and perhaps national bankruptcy.

By declaring that the new deficit commission would not consider any cuts in military spending, only in entitlement spending, President Obama reflected the preferences of America's policy elite. Its members would gladly cut Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for bases and "nation-building" abroad. In the same way, for half a century, America's foreign-policy elite tolerated the targeted deindustrialization of America by Asian mercantilist states, as long as those countries did not challenge America's global military hegemony.

At some point, one would think the U.S. would realize that perpetual war was counterproductive. Since mass death, preserving human rights and the Geneva Conventions, maintaining international relations and upholding basic level of compassion don't seem to be deterrents, maybe basic economics could be the tool to curb the Pentagon's spending.

Unfortunately, the Cold War mentality persists, and Barack Obama, who was supposed to usher in a new generation of leadership, refuses to change course. Maybe it isn't "politically convenient" to stop the war machine right now, so we'll just have to wait for leaders with the spine to stand up to the Booz Allens and Boeings and Northrop Grummans (as well as their enablers) of the world. In the meantime, I can't wait for the 'Invade Iran in 2012' posters to spring up. Now that sounds politically convenient.