Tuesday night the full committee met. The resolution failed to get the required 2/3 for approval, but it was a big step forward.

Here is a full report from committee vice-chair Walter Stanley:

There’s Nothing Conservative About War

This past Tuesday, during the November monthly meeting of the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, Elected Members’ of the Party did some soul searching on what it actually means to be a conservative.

The County Party leadership consisting of outgoing Chairman Jerry Salcido [AD-20 Fremont], Vice Chairman Walter Stanley [AD-15 Livermore] and Assistant Treasurer David LaTour [AD-18 Hayward] proposed a resolution that would have made a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the County GOP.

The proposed resolution was introduced from the podium by Salcido to his fellow Republicans’ on the committee. The wording of the resolution was largely inspired by a speech given on the House floor by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has always been critical of past administrations’ aggressive foreign policy regardless of if it is Bush, Clinton or even President Obama as the Commander and Chief.

The foreign policy resolution was longer than all other resolutions considered by the committee during the first year of their two-year term. The proposed resolution declared that our [the United States] foreign policy of the past century is “deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests” and that “diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America.” It also declared that, “the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests.”

During the discussion, the wording of the resolution was attacked by several neo-conservatives on the committee. Local Republican, Rosann Slonsky-Breault [AD-16 Oakland] told Members’ of the Party that terrorists wanted to kill Americans because of the freedoms we have and called the proposed resolution “despicable.” Republican Anne Woodell [AD-16 Oakland] said it was “anti-George Bush” and “isolationist.” Both women support the undeclared war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and both voted against the resolution. In all, twenty Members’ on the committee opposed a non-interventionist foreign policy as set forth in the proposed resolution.

David LaTour argued in favor of the resolution, "In 2000, Bush ran on a humble foreign policy. Go back and look at the debates. He opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and then ended up being a nation-builder himself. The Republican registration in the county has sharply declined over the last 8-years. If you think that has nothing to do with this unconstitutional aggressive foreign policy, you’re kidding yourself."LaTour also rejected Woodell’s notion that a non-interventionist foreign policy means isolationism by responding, “We’re not saying that the United States shouldn’t communicate, trade, or have diplomatic relationships with other countries, we support all of that, those are all good things that promote prosperity. We’re saying that we need to embrace a constitutional foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances and focus on securing our own borders’.”

John den Dulk [AD-16 Oakland] seemed to be confused during the discussion about what exactly a constitutional foreign policy is. He spoke about the enumerated powers’ listed in the U.S. Constitution and then contradicted himself by confessing his support for undeclared war and his opposition to the resolution.

Fellow GOP committee Member from neighboring Contra Costa County, Ted Hudacko, joined forces with Salcido, Stanley and LaTour backing the resolution and telling those in attendance, “There is no effective Declaration of War with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.” Hudacko asked those who opposed the resolution, “Can any of you tell me by what criteria you would consider that victory has been achieved and when we could determine that our troops can come home?”

None of those who were opposed to the resolution addressed Hudacko’s question. For some reason, the argument coming from the neo-conservatives was that Republicans needed to ’support the troops’ by being in favor of the conflicts in the Middle East.

LaTour said, "The neo-cons in Alameda County are living in fantasy land. They think our foreign policy is about freedom rather than empire and special interests. To them, 9/11 justifies anything and the moral, strategic, and financial repercussions of our actions mean nothing."

There were a total of 13 Republicans in favor of the non-interventionist foreign policy resolution. Not enough to pass with a two-thirds majority; however, it might be a good sign of things to come in the Republican Party.

Casey Fargo [AD-15 Livermore] said, “People are waking up in the Republican Party. It’s time for Republicans that believe in small-government to realize that there’s nothing conservative about war. Our troops are spread thin throughout the world and a common-sense individual can see that this makes us less safe here at home.”

Erika Lopez [AD-18 San Lorenzo] who voted in favor of the resolution said, “I believe in a strong national defense, but having troops stationed in countries all over the world is not a strong national defense. I support our troops, I want them here protecting our country, keeping us safe.”

Alameda County Republican Party Proposed Resolution

Status: Resolution in Support of a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

Submitted by: Walter Stanley, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido of the Alameda County Republican Party

Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and

Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and

Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and

Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and

Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and

Whereas, torture, even if referred to as "enhanced interrogation techniques"is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and

Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and

Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and

Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and

Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and

Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and

Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and

Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and

Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and

Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and

Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and

Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and

Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and

Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called "neo-conservatives"is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and

Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.

Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies.

Heckua achievement, if the only nation on earth that is more shady is one that is full of pirates… Karzai is making Marion Barry look like Mother Teresa.

The Washington Post reported today that one of Afghanistan’s top ministers took a $30 million bribe to give a special deal to a Chinese mining company.

The New York Times reported: “Everything seems to be for sale: public offices, access to government services, even a person’s freedom.”

So what do Army recruiters say these days? Why in Hades would any American agree to risk his neck to prop up this band of thieves?

The show opened to jubilant applause in Hollywood thanks to the End the Fed activists who hosted the listening party. You can play the show here or download here.

Citing two acts of terrorism perpetrated by Iran on Argentinean soil: the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in 1994, Peres wondered who could agree to have a regime that murders innocent people be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

“Who would believe them? Who could rely on them?” he asked.

Indeed.

Also, check out Justin’s response from last week’s question: Will PATRIOT Act reauthorization divide Dems, hamper healthcare?

Rogin relays emails between Daioleslam and Kenneth Timmerman, in which the two plot strategy and discuss plans to leak documents to Times reporter Eli Lake. Timmerman, for those not familiar with him, is a notorious neoconservative hardliner and longtime advocate of regime change in Tehran. He founded the ultra-hawkish Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI) in 1995 with Joshua Muravchik and the late Peter Rodman, but became marginalized in mainstream circles after making a series of outlandish accusations. Notably, he accused Iran of having a role both in the September 11 attacks and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings; he also alleged the existence of an “insurgency within the U.S. government” — a conspiracy centered on the CIA and State Department — that “sabotaged the [Bush] administration’s Iraq war plans” and was responsible for the failures of the U.S. war effort.

In one April 2008 email, Daioleslam wrote to Timmerman that he considered NIAC president Trita Parsi to be “the weakest part of the Iranian web” and that “destroying him will be the start of attacking the whole web.” Daioleslam continued (my emphasis): “This is an integral part of any attack on Clinton and Obama“. (The email was sent during the Democratic primaries, when it was not yet clear who would be the Democratic nominee.)

The email makes clear that the attacks on NIAC are simply a means to an end — the real goal being the sabotage of the Obama administration’s Iran policy. While it makes sense that the NIAC attacks have been picked up by the Weekly Standard set, one has to wonder whether the liberals who have aided and abetted them feel comfortable with participating in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to cripple a Democratic administration.

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.