Several patrons were hurt, one rushed to hospital with a blood clot caused by beating. Here's the conclusion:
But they had a good time beating the crap out of some faggots. No results yet of an inquiry into the actual violence. I don't know whether the cops involved have been diciplined.
A new report from the State Department shows that Iran does not have the capability to produce weapons-grade material before 2013. In that light, NIAC's case against sanctions is all the more relevant:
Most in Washington are aware that September will bring with it the biggest push for Iran sanctions in years. AIPAC has been lobbying for months on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), and on September 10 the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations will kick off a massive nationwide lobbying effort, which they compare to the “Save Darfur” movement. All of this will culminate at the end of the month when, conveniently enough, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York for the UN General Assembly.
Yes, right around the time Ahmadinejad is at the podium in the UN, Congress is expected to impose what it calls “crippling sanctions” on Iran’s economy. The plan is to blockade Iran’s foreign supplies of gasoline, hoping that an increase in the price per gallon at the pump will cause the Iranian people to rise up and demand a halt to Iran’s nuclear program.
But this plan has number of obvious flaws.
First, the Iranian people have already risen up against the government’s hardline leadership. What we have witnessed in Iran for the last two months is unprecedented. To think that marginally higher gas prices will mean anything to a population willing to risk their lives for freedom and democracy is at once naïve and hubristic. According to Juan Cole, imposing broad sanctions on Iran will likely only destroy Iranian civil society and bolster the state’s repressive apparatus–as it did in Iraq.
What’s more, even if the Iranian people were to demand that the government halt its enrichment program–which they wouldn’t, since the vast majority of Iranians support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology–does anyone think that the government will actually go along with it? Has Tehran been particularly responsive to the wishes of its citizens lately? No, in fact, that is what these people are fighting for each and every day: to have their voices heard.
A reader writes:
Actually I don't think you could come up with a workable way to do what your reader describes. If you used IPs to determine your paywall they'd get spoofed. If you used usernames and passwords, you'd have an enormous headache on your hands (somehow I don't see ISP security guys relishing sharing logon information — it would almost definitely be a second account).
There might be SOME people who are interested in getting a broadband connection that had some guaranteed content, but I doubt it would be a large number. The effect would be the same as the paywall over TimesSelect — whatever is behind a paywall will not be part of the conversation online. The business model of getting people to pay for news is dead.
People won't accept it now. If they wanted to do that they should have done it years ago. Now they have to deal with the business environment THEY created. The expectations of their customers are THEIR creation. To whine about it now is counterproductive and childish. I don't want to see print journalism die, but the CEOs and corporate leadership that allowed these companies to avoid adjusting in the 90s and early 2000s really need to feel some pain. So far they haven't – they've laid off the folks who did nothing but work hard to make the company go. It's a darn shame more of them haven't done the honorable thing and resigned.
A reader writes:
Well let's go to the video:
Now, I can see where the misunderstanding might come from.
The questioner asked if she believed the protests were a "legitimate, grassroot opposition" and when prompted by the interviewer whether they were astroturf, she said "well you be the judge." Then she notes that
They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.
I took her to mean that only very politically motivated activists really respond to the health insurance reforms being weighed by the Congress by ringing the debate immediately to the equation of Nazism. That's her response to the question of "legitimate". Normal people debating health reform with their representative don't bring swastikas with them. But I can see no serious way to see her as saying they were dressed up as Nazis to gain support and credibility.
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly spun it that way, of course. He wants his audience to believe that Pelosi was accusing Republicans of being Nazis. It's great for ratings. But, so far as I can see, it's untrue.
And now the health insurance debate becomes some gruesome mix of camp and high farce. Sarah Palin contributes her policy ideas for health insurance reform:
You thought it wouldn't get worse? Really?
(Photo courtesy of this fantastic series of photos in a slideshow from Runners' World.)
David Rothkopf thinks that Russia could be a bigger threat than Pakistan:
Russia, has been rattling its rusty sabers more frequently recently. There was the story the other day about its submarines off the U.S. coast, the not so comforting rebuttal today by one of its top generals, its recent naval exercises with the Iranians, its generally non-constructive attitude toward dealing with the Iranian nuclear problem, its belligerent rumblings throughout its near abroad … the list goes on. And this is a country that has the ability, as the submarine (and earlier strategic bomber readiness) stories suggest, to project force anywhere in the world. […] (For a very good take on Russia, see today's op-ed by one of our best experts on the country, Steve Sestanovich, in the Washington Post.) Russia also has, as Joe Biden impoliticly noted, some problems that could be complicating factors. In short, the bear has the wolf at its door-demographically and economically. Biden interpreted these as factors that might weaken Russia. But they are also the kind of factors that often inspire leaders to dangerous postures and strategies.
David Satter is also worried. But Larison scoffs at their hand wringing:
Our government arms and trains the military of a neighboring state [Georgia], which then uses its army to escalate a war with Russia and kill Russian soldiers, and it is Russia that has an “aggressive stance.” […] We try to bring every former satellite and province into our anti-Russian military alliance, and it is Russia that is the aggressor. When Russia has the gall to protest against these provocations and aggressive moves, or even dares to retaliate against attacks on its soldiers and the populations under their protection, it is Russia that must be acting aggressively. The most frustrating thing about these lies is that they are so transparent and incredible, but they are nonetheless widely accepted and believed. […]
P.S. Scoblete offers one of the few sensible comments on this story:
Either way, this should serve as a good reminder that it is jarring when a not-quite-friendly nation brings military power right up to your borders. Food for thought.
Update: WaPo today released details from an intelligence report by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research:
Blair concluded the Russian military "is a shadow of its Soviet predecessor." Its conventional forces are "not a direct military threat to central or western Europe," and its ability to project large forces abroad "is very limited."
DiA hears them at the Corner:
As of this typing (10:02 am), there is a post laughing at the Obama administration's efforts to "ban" the phrase "war on terrorism" […] Cliff May gets in a non-sequitur joke, that now we should start calling the two world wars "Overseas Contingency Operation I" and "Overseas Contingency Operation II". […] Playing lame word-games to show that the administration is not serious about terror is more important than noting, in any form whatsoever, the killing of the man believed to be behind Benazir Bhutto's assassination and countless terror attacks.
Update: The story was posted to the Corner, without comment, at 11:11, the 24th post of the day.
John Brennan delivered a major address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies yesterday. Ambers distills the speech. He later notes:
During the Q and A session, Brennan, speaking in a knowledgeable staccato, would not say whether he supported a classified annex to the Army Field Manual's interrogation practices, nor would he say how the administration might deal with future preventative detentions. He did say that those cases were "dwindling" because "foreign countries are standing up."
Marcy Wheeler adds that Brennan gave an evasive, "Gonzales-like" response to questions about his role in Bush's illegal surveillance program. Nevertheless, Ackerman was thoroughly impressed with the speech:
[It] was perhaps the most elegant articulation of a progressive approach to combating terrorism that I can remember hearing. Here's my wrap for the Washington Independent, which Holly Yeager and I headlined "Obama Aide Declares End To War On Terror," because Brennan did.
"Dignity and worth" as root-cause contributors to violent extremism! This would have been considered way too left-wing for mainstream discussion as recently as 2004. And the man saying them is now the president's assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security. He can walk into the Oval Office without an appointment. And he adjudicates counterterrorism-related disputes. Brennan could have done all the bad stuff everyone suspects him of doing and this would still be remarkable. Come to think of it, it's all the more remarkable that he said all this stuff if indeed he was involved in all this bad stuff. […] This really was a red-letter day for the Obama Doctrine.
Marc offers some final thoughts on "what Brennan knew."
Atlanta, Georgia, 2 pm
Contra Bacevich, Abu Muqawama writes:
Plenty of us in Washington have in fact been having a very sober-minded discussion about U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the limits of our new counterinsurgency doctrine.
Michael Cohen counters:
While sure some people have had this discussion; but to argue that it's been a key feature of the public discourse on Afghanistan is pretty hard to swallow. And for [Muqawama] to use Stephen Biddle's tortured logic argument for staying in Afghanistan that offers a strawman choice between withdrawal and stay the course is not what I would call a robust debate. […] And what's more I'll call your Stephen Biddle and raise you Peter Bergen's recent piece in the Washington Monthly. I like Peter and he is a colleague, but I think it's fair to say that his article focuses far more on the operational side of the Afghanistan war and tends to gloss over the larger strategic issues raised by Bacevich.
It's one thing to focus on cloistered debates among think tank denizens. It's quite another to call that a robust public debate. The level of public debate in Washington about US interests and objectives in Afghanistan has been frightfully constricted. The only discordant voices from political leaders is coming from the left of the Democratic Party, Russ Feingold and his ilk. When Bacevich says "Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed" well I'm sorry, but if we're talking the political realm that certainly seems to be the case.
From a media perspective, the WP and NYT are filled with stories about operational elements of our mission in Afghanistan; a lot less on national interests. Indeed, not one reporter even bothered to ask President Obama in his recent press conference a single question about Afghanistan. And as the mission evolves from a counter-terrorism mission (disrupt, defeat and dismantle Al Qaeda) into a full-fledged counter-insurgency (protecting the populace and building Afghan government legitimacy) it's more important than ever that these questions are asked and answered.
The Dish 