COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Hamas is resistance to Israeli occupation and bears no resemblance to ISIS






Hamas is just as bad as ISIS and worse than Boko Haram — Israeli government propaganda


Israel/Palestine
 on 





In late July while Israel’s 50-day offensive Operation Protective Edge was in its final weeks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-hand man met with a group of journalists in Jerusalem. Tensions were at a peak; the ground invasion had just ended and the air campaign was at an unstable pause. The Israeli Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz was about to give the first political strategy briefing on what the Jewish state would want for the future of Gaza, what it would go on to lobby for in truce talks once reconvened in Cairo.
Meanwhile in another part of the Middle East, ISIS carried out its first public decapitations that grabbed Western headlines– they killed over 50 Syrian soldiers and mounted their heads in a town square. Gaza and Israel were overshadowed by the Islamic group that had declared a new caliphate.
Back in Jerusalem on that July afternoon the Steinitz made the case for the de-militarization of Gaza and to strategically turn the besieged coastal strip “into Ramallah.” It would have been a blockbuster announcement, if not for ISIS. For years the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had centered around the status of the West Bank, but over the summer it became clear that Gaza was going to dictate the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and either shore up or break Palestinian national unity.
Steinitz continued that weapons were still in the hands of Hamas, the root of the current strife, and removing those weapons was a “precondition for any serious relief” to the Gaza Strip. “You cancel the terror threat, the rocket threat from Gaza on Israeli citizens and you can cancel the restrictions so the so-called siege on Gaza,” he said.
Steinitz debuted the Israeli government’s most powerful argument for de-legitimization of Hamas: the ISIS comparison.

“The final goals are similar, to make an Islamic hegemony, not just in Israel, Iraq or Syria. But all over the world,” said Steinitz as the lights lowered and the slides were cued up. Yet as Jonathan Cook reviewed earlier this month, Hamas does not, never has, and likely never will call for Islamic hegemony. Christian Palestinians who live in Gaza endure the same life quality as their Muslim counterparts under the authoritarian and elected government of Hamas. There was no great purge of Christians—as ISIS is carrying out—when Hamas came to power in 2006, and no Christians have ever been asked to pay jiziya, a special tax dating to the Ottoman era where non-Muslims would be taxed in order to be exempt from military duty– a tax ISIS briefly implemented. If Christian Palestinians chose to do so, they can even fight in Hamas’s armed wing. In short, they have the same status as Muslim Palestinians. And it has to be stated that whatever torment Hamas has inflicted by policing the Palestinians in Gaza with an iron fist, it pales in comparison to the broad scale poverty inflicted by eight years of siege and erasure of entire towns during Protective Edge.Breaking News“It’s the same organization and it’s the same aim,” said Steinitz. He then turned the platform over to another Israeli government official to present a PowerPoint presentation of “a short comparison between Hamas and other Sunni Islamic terrorist organization,” noting, “It is one family of different organizations.” Then, fumbles over technical difficulties and swallowed laughter from the foreign press corps as the purpose for this meeting became clear: the West v. ISIS.
An opening image in the PowerPoint displayed Hamas’s political bureau leader Khaled Meshal with a child of no more than five years wearing a green Hamas headband, with green flags. The adjacent image was of a child decorated in the black flag used by all Salafi Islamic groups, including ISIS. But in the Palestinian context, there is no love for ISIS. Though   local Salafi group called Hizb-ut-Tahrir has sported the black flag for the past decade when calling for the return of the caliphate, Hizb-ut Tharir’s dissidence is aimed at the Palestinian Authority. One protest was held outside of an equal opportunity job office, another called for unity between Hamas and Fatah. And last spring they raised their flags against America, chanting “No, no Obama!”—and as I photographed the event the Palestinian protesters kindly greeted me explaining they like the American people, just not the government. It was clear then, as now, that Palestinian groups, even Salafis, are more concerned with the policies that dictate their lives under Israeli occupation than the esoteric call for a global caliphate. Moreover, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have both cracked down on Salafi groups as they represent a row over domestic power.
And herein lies a major failing of the Hamas-ISIS comparison. If Salafis have been around in the West Bank calling to re-make the caliphate for nearly a decade, why is it that Hamas is suddenly being compared to ISIS? During the PowerPoint, the Israeli official said, “We chose them [ISIS] because they are also in the news these days.”
“Hamas, ISIS, al-Qadea,” were all listed in a spreadsheet projected onto a white screen, as groups having a “global outlook” calling for the “establishment of a global caliphate.”
Boko Haram, though also cited, had no “global outlook.”
Next the Hamas Charter appeared on screen quoted as, “The enemies have been scheming for a long time…they also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world…such organizations are the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’naith B’rith and the Like…they stood behind WWI so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate…”
But Hamas was not advocating for a return of the caliphate. When Hamas referenced the caliphate, that had more to due with seeing Israel as the next in a series of foreign rulers than wanting to turn the clock back in time. Western intervention into the Middle East during World War I ended in formal European colonization of the region. As the treaty of Versailles was inked, the borders of every country in the region were drawn by Europe, except for Iran and Turkey (Iran’s independence was compromised by deep economic imperialism from the U.S. and the USSR and Turkey went fascist, hardly leaving the region free and independent.)
Even in its contradictory statements on establishing a state, Hamas has never advocated for boundaries beyond the June 1967 lines, or in all of historic Palestine (occupied Palestinian territory and Israel minus the Golan). They do retain leverage in negotiations with Israel by not recognizing Israel, but that’s a far cry from wanting to take over the world. Hamas also has an “open door” policy of meeting with Western diplomats, as noted by Cata Charrett in her researched backgrounder on the group.
Within days of Minister Steinitz’s resounding pound against Hamas as comparable to the most violent Sunni Islamist group to date, Netanyahu parroted his remarks, calling Hamas and ISIS both “branches of the same poison tree.” From then on, ISIS and Hamas were echoed as evil equals. When US congressmen Elliot Engel and Ed Royce visited Netanyahu at the beginning of September, Netanyahu told them, “We’re fighting not just Israel’s war, but I think a common battle against enemies of mankind – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS.” In turn the Engel said, “we in the United States in a bipartisan way certainly agree with that assessment,” promising to lobby the U.S. foreign affairs committee on behalf of Israel.
In August days after journalist James Foley was gruesomely beheaded on camera by ISIS, the Israeli government again reached out to journalists emailing a “background document,” because, “over the past few days, the issue of the similarities between the Hamas and ISIS terrorist organizations has been in the headlines.”
I’m including the full factsheet entitled “Operation Protective Edge – Similarities between Hamas and ISIS – Background Doc.” There’s the usual brainwashed children, women’s rights material, but the poetry is in the framing of international law:

25 August 2014
MFA: Similarities between Hamas and ISIS:
Background Document
Over the past few days, the issue of the similarities between the Hamas and ISIS terrorist organizations has been in the headlines.
The following points demonstrate the similarities between the two organizations:
Worldview and Aspirations
1.    Both terrorist organizations share a global expansionist worldview which aspires to establish a caliphate: a Muslim regime ruled by Sharia (religious Muslim laws).
2.    Both organizations are extensions of global movements of radical Islam: Hamas is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood while ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda.
The Centrality of the Use of Violence
1.    Both terrorist organizations view jihad (holy war) and suicide attacks as primary tools for obtaining their goals. The meaning of the name Hamas is “the Islamic Resistance Movement” (the term “resistance” is a codeword for terrorism and armed struggle).
2.    Both organizations have seized territory by force: Hamas took Gaza in a coup against the Palestinian Authority in 2007 and ISIS has taken control of large parts of Iraq and Syria.
3.    Both organizations imposed radical Islamic rule on the territories they captured, through the use of armed force and violence devoid of any red lines.
4.    Both organizations have executed defeated opponents: Hamas murdered members of the Fatah Movement’s Force 17 following its takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, while ISIS indiscriminately murdered Iraqi and Syrian soldiers after they surrendered.
5.    Both organizations terrorize the territories they control through intimidation, threats, executions and efforts to apply the most extreme Sharia laws, including the stoning of women suspected of adultery and the execution of homosexuals. ISIS is already applying these edicts, while Hamas parliament members have prepared legislation in this spirit.
6.    Both organizations educate (read: brainwash) children to sanctify death and to die as a martyr (shahid) in jihad.
Intentions to Commit Genocide and Mass War Crimes
1.    Both terrorist organizations strive to commit genocide against their opponents: Hamas has stated its intention to wipe Israel off the map and inscribed the killing of Jews in its charter, while ISIS commits systematic mass murder of populations in Iraq, including Christians, Yazidis and even fellow Muslims, especially Shiites.
2.    Both organizations execute people who are suspected of being close to or supporting their opponents. ISIS executes all those who are suspected of sympathizing with Assad’s regime in Syria or the Iraqi government, while Hamas executes Palestinian opponents as well as anyone suspected of having ties with Israel.
Even the executions themselves are similar – a “drum-head court martial” in which masked people violently murder the victim in a public area with the intention of terrorizing the public.
From the time of Israel’s first declaration that “Hamas is ISIS” it has concurrently conducted indirect negotiations with Hamas to come to an agreement on Gaza—hardly the treatment due to a radical jihadist group. Meanwhile, on the northern border the United Nations have decamped hundreds of peacekeepers this week as the Syrian strife neared the Golan Heights. Israel may have a scrimmage ahead with ISIS, but ISIS is not Hamas.

Thousands march for peace in Moscow to protest Russian aggression in Ukraine



Thousands protest in Moscow over Russia's involvement in Ukraine

Estimates of crowds angry over Russia's 'irresponsible, aggressive' policy towards neighbour range from 5,000 to 26,000

Mscow protesters carry a banner reading 'Hands off Ukraine' . Photograph: Yuri Kochetkov/EPA
Thousands of people gathered in central Moscow on Sundayto protestagainst their country's involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine at an All-Russian March for Peace, the first large anti-Kremlin rally since the conflict started in April.
The march for an "end to the Russian regime's irresponsible, aggressive policy" in Ukraine drew 5,000 protesters, according to the interior ministry. But official estimates of opposition march numbers have been notably low in the past, and the volunteer group White Counter, which was tallying participants as they passed through police metal detectors at the beginning of the march, said put the number at 26,000 people.
Although some far-left groups, such as Autonomous Action – whose members carried a banner reading "No to war between peoples! No to peace between classes!" – participated in the march, the main contingent of the protest was similar to the movement that shook Moscow in 2011-2013. Other banners read "Hands off of Ukraine!" and "Freedom to the 6 May prisoners", a reference to those jailed on charges of inciting riots after an anti-Putin rally in Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 that degenerated into clashes between police and protesters.
Others carried pictures of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. In recent weeks, Russian independent media have reported on the growing number of soldiers who have gone missing after being deployed to eastern Ukraine, and secretive funerals have been held for some servicemen in places like the provincial city of Pskov.
Sunday's march was organised by longstanding opposition parties including Yabloko, Solidarity and Parnas, as well as newcomers like the Party of Progress organised by popular anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, who is currently under house arrest as part of what many see as a politically motivated criminal case.
The protesters represented a variety of political views, but most were united in their opposition to what they see as a Kremlin policy to escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine by sending arms and soldiers across the border.
"My last name may be the same as Putin's, but I'm against him," said Oksana Putina. "We can wake up the Russian people, so that we won't see any more Russian troops in Ukraine … Let Putin take out his troops, and Ukraine will deal with its own problems."
Vadim Kryuchkov and Varvara Daryevskaya, who were holding Russian and Ukrainian flags, said they didn't believe the protest would change the Kremlin's course but felt it was their duty to express their opposition. Kryuchkov said he was originally from a town near Luhansk and supported the greater local autonomy for the region, but was againstRussia sending troops and arms to eastern Ukraine. "We want Ukraine to see that there are people in Russia who don't support the war," Kryuchkov said. "Russia is directly participating in this war."
"In fact, Russia started it," Daryevskaya said.
A few thousand protesters also assembled in St Petersburg, while peace marches in other cities drew far fewer people. According to the human rights organisation OVD Info, a peace march organiser in Yekaterinburg was briefly detained by police but later returned to the protest.
The Moscow march was tailed by a few hundred pro-Kremlin protesters holding the flags of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics declared by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. At least one minor scuffle broke out but lines of riot police for the most part kept the two camps apart.
"The whole reason for this crisis is that Russia has refused to recognise Ukraine's European choice," said Higher School of Economics professor Nina Belyayeva, who was holding a sign reading, "Ukraine's European choice = an example for Russia". She was soon confronted by several pro-Kremlin protesters, who argued that the protests in Kiev this winter that toppled former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich's regime had been organised by the United States.
Police did confiscate signs from some protesters, including one reading, "Putler kaput!" When asked about the seizure, a police officer would only say that the signs "didn't correspond to the topic of the protest".
"It strongly affects the police officers' nerves when it's something related to Putin," said organiser Ilya Mishenko.

Kurds volunteering to fight ISIS turned away at Turkish border - video

But hold on, here is how the Turks want the world to see them:


Kurds call on 'all Middle East' to help defend stronghold from Isis

Tens of thousands of Kurdish refugees have fled to Syria-Turkey border region of Kobani to escape onslaught of Islamist militants

Kurdish fighters from Turkey and Iraq are scrambling to help defend a vital Kurdish safe haven in northern Syria, where tens of thousands of Kurdshave fled after an offensive by Islamic State (Isis) militants.
The border region of Kobani, home to half a million people, has held out for months against an onslaught by Islamists seeking to consolidate their hold over swaths of northern Syria. But in recent days, Isis extremists have seized a series of settlements close to the town of Kobani itself, sending as many as 100,000 mostly Kurdish refugees streaming across the border into Turkey.
"I don't think in the last three and a half years we have seen 100,000 cross in two days," the representative for the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) in Turkey, Carol Batchelor, told Reuters. "So this is a bit of a measure of how this situation is unfolding, and the very deep fear people have about the circumstances inside Syria and, for that matter, Iraq."
A Kurdish commander on the ground said Isis had advanced to within 9 miles (15km) of Kobani.
A Kurdish politician from Turkey who visited Kobani on Saturday said locals told him Isis fighters were beheading people as they went from village to village.
"Rather than a war this is a genocide operation … They are going into the villages and cutting the heads of one or two people and showing them to the villagers," Ibrahim Binici, a deputy for Turkey's pro-Kurdish People's Democratic party (HDP), told Reuters.
"It is truly a shameful situation for humanity," he said, calling for international intervention. Five of his fellow MPs planned a hunger strike outside UN offices in Geneva to press for action, he said.
The Kurdistan Workers party (PKK), a rebel group that has spent three decades fighting for autonomy for Turkey's Kurds, renewed a call for the youth of Turkey's mostly Kurdish south-east to rise up and rush to save Kobani.
"Supporting this heroic resistance is not just a debt of honour of the Kurds but all Middle East people. Just giving support is not enough, the criterion must be taking part in the resistance," it said in a statement on its website. "[Isis] fascism must drown in the blood it spills … The youth of North Kurdistan [south-east Turkey] must flow in waves to Kobani," it said.
Hundreds of people gathered in solidarity for a third day on the Turkish side of the barbed wire border fence near the town of Suruc, where many of the refugees have crossed. Security forces trying to maintain order fired teargas and water cannon and some protesters started throwing stones at them in frustration.
Even by the standards of Syria's bitter war, the refugee numbers are alarming. Their numbers add to the 2.8 million Syrians who have become refugees in the past three years, and another 6.4 million who have been displaced within their own country – approaching half of Syria's pre-war population of 23 million.
UNHCR and the Turkish authorities said they were preparing for the possibility of hundreds of thousands more refugees arriving in the coming days.
Kobani's relative stability through much of Syria's conflict meant 200,000 internally displaced people were sheltering there before Isis's advance, UNHCR said.
"This massive influx shows how important it is to offer and preserve asylum space for Syrians as well as the need to mobilise international support to the neighbouring countries," said Antonio Guterres, the UN high commissioner for refugees.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

The United States can negotiate with Iran on items of mutual interest, accepting that Iran has different interests and will continue competing with the U.S. on many fronts



Failure to Cooperate with Iran Against ISIS Will Open the Door To Greater Risk


by Guest Blogger for Janine Davidson
September 17, 2014

Council for Foreign Affairs
This commentary comes courtesy of Major Ben Fernandes, U.S. Army, a CFR term member and PhD candidate at George Mason University. He argues that the issues of Iranian nuclear weapon development and the anti-ISIS effort cannot be viewed in isolation. A push to arm “moderate” Syrian rebels without Iranian consultation could quickly antagonize Iran, whose leaders do not draw the same distinctions between the Sunni militant groups. This could result in a renewed Iranian push for nuclear deterrent—and increase the risk of regional destabilization.
By Ben Fernandes
Recent media coverage and U.S. policy pronouncements focus heavily on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) without effectively addressing how it relates to other regional security concerns.  Many foreign policy experts and senior U.S. officials acknowledge that ISIS, Iranian nuclear weapon development, and regional instability threaten U.S. interests.  However, several foreign policy experts seem to misunderstand Iran and the underlying causes for security problems in the Levant.  Furthermore, senior U.S. officials including Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, understand that preventing Iranian nuclear weapon development represents a “number one goal.”.  Regardless of which challenge is greatest, failure to prioritize and link the various issues makes defeating or containing ISIS less likely, Iranian nuclear weapon development more likely, and declining regional instability almost assured.
The current U.S. strategy to defeat ISIS unintentionally incentivizes Iran to build a nuclear weapon by increasing Iran’s perception of external threats and a need for the protection afforded by the possession of nuclear weaponry.  The U.S. intent to arm “moderate” Sunni groups in Syria to fight ISIS will simultaneously (if inadvertently) increase the “Sunni threat” to Iran and Iranian allies like the Assad regime.  Iran perceives all Sunni groups in the Levant as threatening regardless of a Sunni group’s views of the United States as the enemy.  Just as Saddam Hussein prioritized potential threats from Iran and internal dissidents far above the threat of external attack from the United States, Iran acts similarly towards internal dissidents, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni groups vis-à-vis the United States.
ISIS credibly threatens regional stability, Iranian interests, U.S. interests, Iraq, and many others.  As such, there may be a way to find common ground with Iran in the fight against ISIS.  Iran will not become a reliable U.S. partner, but can be a transactional partner for specific issues of mutual interest just as the U.S. partnered with the Soviets in World War II.  A grand U.S.-Iran bargain over Syrian governance, ISIS, Iranian nuclear weapons, and sanctions may be more practical than dealing with each of these issues in sequence, per the current “ISIS first” approach discussed in GEN Dempsey’s testimony.  While Iran wants Assad to remain in power, Iranian leaders might be willing to discuss Assad’s departure with the right incentives and assurances protecting Iran’s high priority interests in Syria.  After all, the Assad regime’s brutality helped create ISIS, which is not in Iran’s interests.  In a grand deal that puts the various issue on the table holistically, both sides can give more on issues of less importance while holding firm on their highest priorities.  This assumes different prioritization by each side, which has potential in this case.
Both sides seem to recognize the need to cooperate, but are having a hard time finding the right means.  Iran openly rejected U.S. invitations to cooperate, but then were insulted when they were left off the Paris summit guest list. U.S. overtures to Iran have been somewhat contradictory as the U.S. indicates a willingness to talk with Iran (which Iran rejected) but unwillingness for Iran to attend the Paris talks.
Successful cooperation with Iran will be difficult and a grand deal may fail.  However, achieving U.S. goals in the region and defeating ISIS is even less likely than successfully negotiating with Iran due to the constraints of questionable partners, “no U.S. ground combat troops,” and little ability to address the root causes for ISIS’ rise.  The Obama administration has rightly noted that long-term success against ISIS requires an inclusive Iraq government.  There is no guarantee the new Iraqi government will be more inclusive than Maliki’s administration.  Additionally, Iran will play a significant role in all future Iraqi governments and likely have influence with Shiite militias.
Although working with Iran may fail, dealing with the various regional issues separately offers even less chance of success and hinders the U.S. ability to pursue an integrated regional strategy.  The United States has worked well with Iran in the past.  After 9/11,thousands of Iranians held a candlelight vigil and Iran was working to overthrow the Taliban long before 9/11.  Furthermore, during the 2001 Bonn Conference, Iran supported U.S. policy in Afghanistan, suggested the idea of democratic elections, and helped secure the U.S.-desired Karzai government.  Relations with Iran declined precipitously after the U.S. labeled Iran as part of the “axis of evil” and proceeded to surround Iran with military forces by invading Iraq (another “axis of evil” member) on what Iran likely perceived as fabricated evidence.
The U.S. should view Iran as a state with its own interests, domestic politics, and perceptions.  As a state, the United States can negotiate with Iran on items of mutual interest, accepting  that Iran has different interests and will continue competing with the U.S. on many fronts.  There are risks, but also rewards.  Nonetheless, there will be issues where a negotiated settlement will benefit both parties.
U.S. policy should prioritize and link the Levant issues (nuclear weapons, ISIS, Syrian governance, and Iraqi governance) and make Iran part of the way forward where interests align to advance the highest U.S. priorities, which may come at the expense of less important interests.  The United States will achieve far more at a lower cost by working with others whenever interests align and properly focusing our efforts on the most important issues.  Ultimately, in the Gulf Region, the United States has no permanent allies or enemies—only permanent interests of varying import.
Major Benjamin Fernandes, U.S. Army, is a CFR Term Member and PhD student at George Mason University.  His studies focus on security assistance, principal-agent theory, and grand strategy.  He is currently assigned to the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC).  The conclusions and opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. government, U.S. Army, or ARCIC.

Wolves vs The Grizzly Bear in Yellowstone

Friday, September 19, 2014

The US goes to war again - How will this time be different from the last 35 times since 1980?



Hat Tip: Juan Cole

How does this End? 35 Military Interventions since 1980 and Terrorism Grows

Printer Frien
Brave New Films:
“Since 1980, we have militarily intervened at least 35 times in more than 27 countries. We keep bombing, we continue spending trillions of dollars, but we’re no safer as a result.”

The US Ally, Saudi Arabia, The Real Axis Of Evil, Beheaded 22 People Between August 4 and 22, Eight Of Them For Nonviolent Offenses, Including Sorcery

The Beheading Coalition

Posted on Sep 18, 2014

TRUTH DIG

The U.S. plan to fight Islamic State with a coalition of countries, including gems like Saudi Arabia, should make us reflect carefully about the motives behind the operation. In Mark Fiore's new animation, the cartoonist points out the inherent hypocrisy and contradictions involved in attacking brutal IS forces with brutal forces of our own (and while he focuses on Saudi Arabia, it's also worth turning the mirror on some U.S. military tactics which, lest we forget, were recently deemed torture). Read about Fiore's inspiration in his customary introduction and watch his latest animation below.

Now that the United States is forming another military coalition to combat evil in the Middle East, maybe we should pause to take a closer look at the members of this coalition. Sure, ISIS is terrible and does awful things like behead people, but they’ve got nothing on Saudi Arabia, which beheads people as a matter of policy. Between August 4th and 22nd, Saudi Arabia executed 22 people, bringing the yearly total to 34. (They executed 79 people in 2013 and killed 2000 people between 1985 and 2013.) They recently killed four members of the same family for drug trafficking.


I’m not saying every one of our allies in the fight against ISIS has to be perfect, but it does seem a bit hypocritical when one of our most important allies in the Middle East has such a thing for beheading— just something to keep in mind when the next terrible ISIS beheading video is released. Nobody seems to get worked up when prisoners who have been tortured and condemned by a religious court are beheaded in a public square, as long as it happens in Saudi Arabia. Dogboy is a little confused by this whole thing, and Mr. Dan is trying desperately to make the world black and white. You can of course find more links about the news behind this cartoon here.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat, California, American



Hat Tip: Q

Angry Letters to the One Member of Congress Who Voted Against the War on Terror


Barbara Lee was the lone dissenter in the post-9/11 vote authorizing military force. Many called her a traitor. But her constituents shared her concerns—and history has vindicated them.