The bad news first: Doc Prather has had a fairly serious medical problem come up recently, and it has hindered his ability to work.

The good news is that he’s going to be just fine if he, and we, can just have a little patience.

So, the bottom line is, don’t worry too much because Gordon is as tough as nails and is certain to be around smashing the War Party’s lies for years and years to come.

Two lawyers who read some of the same documents [on which the allegations are founded] said they did not provide enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Parsi was acting as a foreign agent.

One might be forgiven for thinking that this fact is relevant enough to be included in the first few paragraphs. Similarly, despite the thousands of pages of documents that were leaked to him, Lake is unable to show any evidence of a financial relationship between NIAC and the Iranian government. (It’s also worth noting that the question of whether NIAC engages in lobbying is separate from the question of whether it engages in lobbying on behalf of the Iranian government. Lake, who conflates the two questions, provides little evidence for the former and even less for the latter.) In any case, the question of whether any of the allegations might actually be true is then dropped, not to be pursued again for the remainder of the piece. Instead, we get bizarre fixations on facts like Parsi’s Swedish citizenship (which is about as relevant for his standing to work for an Iranian-American organization as Martin Indyk’s Australian citizenship was for his standing to work for an American Jewish organization.)

NIAC has issued a response giving background to Lake’s piece. The documents in question were provided by NIAC during the discovery phase of a lawsuit the group filed against journalist Hassan Daioleslam (or alternately, Hassan Dai) over allegations he made that NIAC was lobbying for Iran. So far the case has been going poorly for Daioleslam, with the judge denying his motion to dismiss the bulk of the charges; it seems plausible that the knowledge that he was likely to lose the case led Daioleslam to leak the documents in question to Lake as a Hail Mary. NIAC accuses him of trying “to litigate the case in the media rather than in a court of law.”

While it may be entertaining to indulge in this innuendo and speculation, we might shed more light on the question of whether NIAC lobbies for the Iranian regime by examining the organization’s actual actions. As I noted a few weeks ago, NIAC has taken a leading role in denouncing the regime’s crackdown on protesters, calling for new elections, and demanding that human rights issues be put on the engagement agenda. Furthermore, the group’s blog played a key role in disseminating information about this summer’s protests and their repression, much of it deeply damaging to the regime. To state the obvious, it is hard to see how these actions are consistent with a desire to further the regime’s interests. But perhaps Lake will explain to us how disseminating videos of the regime shooting and clubbing protesters is simply a cunning plot by the devious Parsi to win support for Ahmadinejad in Washington.

The campaign against NIAC should be seen for what it is — an attempt to delegitimate any Iranian-American voices that are insufficiently hawkish for the neocons’ liking. Hawks in Washington and Jerusalem are faced with the inconvenient fact that few Iranians, even those harshly critical of the regime, desire to see their country get bombed or invaded, or for Iran’s most vulnerable citizens to die under the weight of sanctions that do nothing to help the cause of the Green Movement. Hence the attempt to portray any Iranian who opposes sanctions or war as a stooge of the regime — and the hawks’ recent turn against the Iranian opposition itself, for refusing to play Chalabi and tell them what they want to hear. As the battle over Iran continues in Washington, it is likely that the attacks on NIAC and other dovish voices in the Iranian-American community are only going to get worse rather than better.

1. Why haven’t they been brought to trial years before now? We didn’t just discover that they were behind the attacks.
2. Why are we fighting in Iraq? If the ones behind 9/11 are in custody, why are we killing people in Iraq at the cost of more American lives than were killed on 9/11?
3. Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? If the ones behind 9/11 are in custody, why are we killing people in Iraq at the cost of more American lives than were killed on 9/11?
4. What about Osama bin Laden? I thought he was behind it all. Isn’t that why we went into Afghanistan?
5. Why are these men being tried and possibly facing the death penalty? The actual murderers perished in the planes they hijacked.

Am I excusing anything these men may have had to do with 9/11? Certainly not. But neither do I make excuses for the U.S. foreign policy that created terrorists.

When the Fox network staged a special Veterans’ Day version of its NFL pregame show at Bagram AF Base last Sunday, two hours was apparently not long enough to mention one interesting fact about Bagram: It’s the site of America’s other Gitmo, a prison where detainees have been kept for years outside the purview of U.S. law, outside even the scope of the Supreme Court’s habeas corpus decision on Gitmo detainees.

Interestingly, it was at Bagram that the only detainees (that we know of) to have died while in US custody were kept.

Well settle in Harry, because it seems that Bagram is about to get a little bit hotter.

According to Washington Independent writer Spencer Ackerman this week, Obama has been turning increasingly toward his special operations chiefs for his still-unknown but supposedly hardening Afghan strategy:

Two senior military officers from the shadowy world of Special Operations are playing a large and previously unreported role in shaping the Obama administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, a move that underscores that the internal debate has moved past a rigid choice between expansive missions to provide security for Afghan civilians and narrowly tailored missions to find and kill terrorists.

Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command  (JSOC) at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward, the deputy leader of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., are attending and informing the strategy meetings that the White House began in September to refine its approach in Afghanistan. Both men have deep ties to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the war.

Apparently, Adm. Harward is headed to Bagram, and I think it is safe to say he won’t be there to win over any hearts and minds:

In a move signaling his own importance to McChrystal, Harward will arrive in Afghanistan later this month to command a new task force, known as Task Force 435, that will take charge of detention facilities in Afghanistan, “primarily the new one at Bagram that will open this month,” Sholtis said. (snip)

McChrystal’s strategy recommended creating a new command, which Harward will now lead, of “approximately 120 personnel” focused on “defeat[ing] the insurgency through intelligence collection and analysis,” prisoner de-radicalization, and working with the Afghan corrections apparatus to “employ best correctional practices [and] comply with Afghan laws.”

One cannot read this without being reminded of McChrystal’s own secret special operations task force in Iraq — Task Force 121 — which engaged in reportedly brutal interrogation techniques of prisoners at key undisclosed locations, one of them bearing the endearing nickname of Camp Nama (Nasty-Ass Military Area):

In 2006, Human Rights Watch released a major report based on dozens of interviews with soldiers who had witnessed the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. “No Blood, No Foul” revealed that the elite forces conducting the interrogations at Camp Nama and two other locations, known (among other names) as Task Force 121, committed systematic abuse of prisoners at other facilities across Iraq, leading to at least three deaths. Whether or not he was present during the actual abuse — and it seems unlikely that he would need or want to put himself in that exposed position — as commander of JSOC, Stanley McChrystal oversaw them.

It appears the Obama administration may be trying to have it both ways  — engaging in a COIN operation in which the protection of the population supposedly “comes first,” and then unleashing commandos all over Pashstunistan and across the border into Pakistan to try and lay waste to the insurgency, which just so happens to be threaded through the rural civilian population there. Of course, conventional wisdom now says  this cocktail of mixed and opposing messages and missions “worked” in Iraq, so why not try it again?

Here is his talk in Fairfax, Virginia, sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Comfortable advocating mass murder with that creepy smile under both Bush and Obama, in light of the Fort Hood massacre, Lieberman seems to be primarily concerned not with PTSD and mental health issues in the armed forces in general, not with internecine abuse in Army ranks, not with whether or not the military should let go of conscientious objectors before they literally go ballistic, but whether or not Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s crazed actions could be technically classified as (Islamic) terrorism. Muslims in the military are rightly on edge.

As Maj. Hasan’s beliefs likely influenced, in part, his actions, so do Sen. Lieberman’s. Watch out Nidal, the senator from Connecticut has his own jihad, and his Gitmo finger is itchy.

The more troops we put in Vietnam, the more Vietcong were recruited. And, the more troops we put in Afghanistan, the curve shows very clearly from 2005 on, the Taliban has come back having been, as you say, despised and reviled by most of the country. How can it be that they get the degree of support that they do now? One reason only: the number of troops, of US troops that they are fighting.

But DM Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is still within acceptable boundaries of discourse, as he technically said the fighting in Afghanistan was “war-like.” This keeps him in line with his predecessor Franz Josef Jung, fond of saying “this is not a war,” and that his soldiers are on a “mission for stability and the peaceful development of the nation.”

Aside from the general “revulsion for war” among Germans, there are practical concerns. Insurance carriers will not pay out for men killed in “war,” so in (I guess) an effort to save a few marks, the government classifies “war” as something that can only be carried out between sovereign states, and Afghan wedding parties apparently aren’t technically a country.

Guttenberg further clarified that the “war” label is used by his soldiers, those ignorants of the finer points of international law; to them “the Taliban is waging a war against the soldiers of the international community.”

Shame on the “Taliban” — code for anyone who dares to take up arms against foreign invaders in Afghanistan — for somehow teleporting their country under the feet of so many American and European troops and then having the gall to fight back when drone-bombed, and further, refusing to adopt a societal model that would give rise to a centralized European-style social democratic state! A backward civilization, indeed.

It is astounding to see the western media treat Karzai like a legitimate winner and someone who has any credibility to fight corruption.

This is akin to how the Soviet media treated the election “victories” of Stalin’s puppets in East Europe.

At least we now have a better understanding of how Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the establishment media define political legitimacy.

While the sixth season of the fashion reality show “Project Runway” is fast-approaching its climax, it’s become a running joke in my house that the show’s host, German supermodel Heidi Klum, would have made a good Nazi.

…

It’s an unfair comparison, to be sure, but the choice of a blonde-haired, blue-eyed German as host of this particular show was, for my sensibilities, an unfortunate one. It might not be so bad if Klum didn’t deliver these life-changing decisions with so much glee. Granted, no Nazi ever kissed a Jew on both cheeks after sending him or her to certain death, but most of the time Klum administers those kisses with as much feeling as a robot, and enunciates the words “you’re out” in tones that could send a frisson down the spine of even the most detached observer.

Aryan supermodel Heidi Klum with her husband

That’s from the Forward, one of the less berserk purveyors of reliably pro-Israel commentary in America. The author, Rebecca Honig Friedman, concludes the piece with a dash of ha ha, this mannequin’s probably not going to commit genocide, but I was stunned to find such weird prejudice and paranoia in a relatively vanilla venue. If the Forward’s contributors and readers are this terrified of the “entertainment” industry, then what are we to make of their views on Iran, the Palestinians, and – brace yourselves for the frisson – Mearsheimer and Walt?

My stance has always been one of ambivalence. Obviously I’m against the government discriminating against people for any reason, but I always thought the gay ban was great for those young people, gay or straight, who needed the out (hah) from a possible future draft. On the other hand, there is the admittedly shocking dismissal of many gay Arabic interpreters in a time when the military would admit to desperately needing their skillset. But now that the subject has been brought up again, I realize I finally have a solid viewpoint: I am completely against the ban being lifted.

Gay people do not have the equal right to join an organization, government-run or not, that seizes vast amounts of American wealth, weaponizes it, and then detonates it in foreign countries full of innocent people who have caused the United States no harm — and in the process destroying them and their wealth, turning their kinsmen against us in rage. There’s nothing progressive about claiming they do. I support the military’s ban on gays in the military, and I do not at all sympathize with those heartbroken homosexuals who have been ousted. Their pain is nothing compared to that wrought the world over by the organization they hope to join or re-up with.

On the issue of gay marriage, I don’t feel the same way — equal legal rights should be extended to all parties no matter what I think about the institution of marriage. But not so when it comes to literal life-and-death issues of war and occupation.

Want to serve your country? We’re in a recession — start a business, soldier.