On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin talks to former US assistant secretary of state for public affairs, P.J. Crowley, about his resignation following remarks about whistle blower Bradley Manning’s treatment in military detention and his thoughts about drones and US foreign policy.
Via Bear Left!, six months before the start of the Iraq War, the New York Times op-ed page featured an advertisement containing a statement signed by 33 leading scholars of international relations from universities across the United States. Dismissed at the time by mainstream pundits, today their points read as prediction of everything that was to come in Iraq:
WAR WITH IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST
• Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
• The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
• The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
Who lives and who dies? The drone court will decide. Via Reuters:
During a fresh round of debate this week over President Barack Obama’s claim that he can unilaterally order lethal strikes by unmanned aircraft against U.S. citizens, some lawmakers proposed a middle ground: a special federal “drone court” that would approve suspected militants for targeting. The idea is being actively considered, however, according to a White House official.
At Thursday’s confirmation hearing for CIA director nominee John Brennan, senators discussed establishing a secret court or tribunal to rule on the validity of cases that U.S. intelligence agencies draw up for killing suspected militants using drones.
Senator Angus King, a Maine independent, said during the hearing that he envisioned a scenario in which executive branch officials would go before a drone court “in a confidential and top-secret way, make the case that this American citizen is an enemy combatant.”
Have Bush and Obama ushered in the age of vague, unpublicized, poorly-defined war that never ends? Via Foreign Policy, Micah Zenko writes:
Since September 11, 2001, the president has been able to threaten or use military force to achieve a range of foreign policy objectives with few checks and balances or sustained media coverage — to an extent unprecedented in U.S. history. It is unlikely that the United States will ever have a peacetime president again.
The primary reason for this stems from how policymakers in Washington perceive the world — a perception that bridges partisan divisions. According to most officials, the international security environment is best characterized by limitless, complex, and imminent threats facing the United States. Those threats require the military to be perpetually on a wartime footing and the president to frequently authorize the use of lethal force. As a Pentagon strategy document first noted in 2010, the United States has entered “a period of persistent conflict.”
In response to this world of grave uncertainty and looming threats, the United States has invested heavily in offensive military capabilities [including drones, special operations forces, and cyberattacks] that the president leverages with speed, secrecy, and minimal oversight.
Abby Martin sits down with Academy Award Winning Director, Oliver Stone, and Historian Peter Kuznick, to talk about US foreign policy and the Obama administration’s disregard for the rule of law on Breaking The Set.
via chycho
We are already familiar with Obama’s policies from the last four years, so we should not expect much to change now that he has retained his title as the President of the United States of America. No matter the opinion on his domestic policy both in praise and in criticism, most would agree that his foreign policy has been a dismal failure. Hence, in the grand scheme of things his administration gets a failing grade, especially considering that foreign and domestic policy have become indivisible.
Tariq Ali: Obama’s Expansion of Af-Pak War “Has Blown Up in His Face”
Below you will find four interviews conducted by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! The first is a 2008 interview with Gore Vidal about where we’ve come from – up to and including the Bush years. The second, third, and forth are 2012 interviews with Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, and Ralph Nader, respectively, summarizing Obama’s first term and giving us a glimpse of what to expect for the next four years.… Read the rest
On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin highlights a few of the most influential Think Tanks and policy groups that have created a revolving door between the government, multinational corporations, and media groups. Abby then talks to Mark Dice, media analyst, and author of ‘Big Brother: Orwellian Nightmare Come True’ about the individuals running and funding the “Think Tanks” drafting US policies. BTS wraps up the show with an interview with Jill Stein, Green Party Candidate for President about the Green New Deal and breaking out of the ‘lesser of two evils’ mentality.
No, this isn’t the Onion. Patrick Clawson, formerly of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is a director at the Washington Institute, an influential neoconservative think tank. He recently voiced his movement’s frustration with the lack of U.S. military action against Iran and explains that a false flag incident, or what he terms “crisis initiation”, may be needed to instigate the desired new war in the Middle East:
Scahill challenges the MSNBC panel regarding the “revisionism and jingoism” on display at the DNC, with John Kerry and Joe Biden criticizing the war in Iraq almost ten years after they voted for it:
Dr Brian Moench sounds the alarm at Truthout:
This may be one of the most important stories ever ignored by the so-called “lame-stream, liberal” media. It’s unlikely you’re losing sleep over US trade negotiations, but the unfolding business agreement among the US and eight Pacific nations – the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – should cause every US citizen, from the Sierra Club to the Tea Party to get their pitch forks and torches out of the closet and prepare to “storm the Bastille.”
The TPP negotiations have been going on for two years under extreme secrecy, no information has been made available to either the press or Congress about the US position. But on June 12, a document was leaked to the watchdog group, Public Citizen, revealing the current US position and the reason for the secrecy. The contents are surreal, shocking and prima facia evidence for how corporations have become the master puppeteers of our government.
