Chris Hedges sues Obama over indefinite detention-Has nice words for Santorum

Below is a video of Chris Hedges.  It is an interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now
.  I am not a man of the left, nor am I a small d democrat.  As a constitutionalist, surely there are many things Amy, Chris and moi disagree on.  There is, however, not much in this video I can gainsay.  I do think a better choice of words would have been corporativist elite than corporate elites.  It may be a quibble, but many big corporations do not have the standing that say Goldman or GE or Morgan do in influencing or controlling policy.

Yet in light of the fact that the security establishment did not want the indefinite detention aspects of the bill, his deduction that elite fear is the driver is not something to be dismissed.  In truth it scares the Neutralist all the more.  In the long run, it cannot succeed and points up how brittle the system is that it perceives this as necessary.  For a time, it will cause much suffering.  People this desperate have crossed a Rubicon.

Of course this might be a declaration that we have lost overseas.  After all, were "we not fighting them over there so we did not have to fight them over there?"  Maybe that should have been all along, "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight ourselves over here."

Other small observations: has Mitt Romney ever read the bill of rights?  I thought Rick Santorum a mindless chickenhawk opportunist, but give the lad his due.  He explained our rights under the constitution as well as Chris might have.

Jacob Sullum on Ron Paul the non-Isolationist

At reason.com Jacob Sullum has a fine article on Ron Paul's foreign policy beliefs.  My only disagreement is that he does not use the n word.  Neutralism is what a non-isolationist, non-interventionist ethos really means.  Then again, maybe I'm just splitting hairs.                                                                                    

Mr. Sullum starts off with a bang,

Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul's foreign policy views as "isolationist" because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.

I can't say Mr. Sullum is channeling the Neutralist, but his words,

The inaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be safely ignored. 

are close enough to our words to the right, The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet.

Mr. Sullum then distills Paul's ideas,

As the Texas congressman has patiently explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Furthermore, he supports military action when it is necessary for national defense—in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.

Where the Neutralist might disagree is the second sentence.  A military response of invading a landlocked country and chasing one's tales was the wrong response to 911.

Still, all in all a wonderful Neutralist column even without the word.

Over at the CFR they ask, Was the Iraq war worth it? To whom?

The Council on Foreign Relations has taken their sweet time about it, but they have held a roundup to ask if the Iraq War was worth it.  They've rounded up some experts to opine.  We'll summarize:

Andrew Bacevich of Boston University lost a son in a war he was never excited about.  Conceding that Saddam's demise makes a better world, he does not see much else positive.  Quote, Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft. With all remaining prudential, normative, and constitutional barriers to the use of force having now been set aside, war has become a normal condition, something that the great majority of Americans accept without complaint. War is U.S.  The Neutralist would argue that maybe a world with Saddam would be better than the eternal American war.


Next up to bat is chicken hawk, Max Boot.  He bats for the home team as a sinecurista, being Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations.  Max is hopeful.  The lad's argument is that the Korean War led to a rich successful South Korea.  Taking out troops now leaves him worried that the vast progress attained might falter.  He would have us leave troops until they are not needed like in ..............South Korea.  His comment is a great argument for we should never have gone there.  Unfortunately, neither he nor the CFR will get that.


The third man is Michael Ignatieff, Professor, University of Toronto and failed Canadian Prime Ministerial candidate.  Whatever his deficiencies as a politician, he hit the first pitch out of the park in his analysis, "The question to begin with is: worth it to whom?"  He continues to score points, If we add the damage that mendacious claims about WMD did to U.S. credibility, the relative strengthening of Iran in the region and the continuing failure of Iraq to achieve democratic stability, it becomes ever more difficult to believe the war was worth it.  He makes Boot look......let's be kind.


The final savant is Michael O'Hanlon who is Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution.  Boy is that a surprise.  I don't know if Mikey likes it as in the old commercial, but Mikey likes himself.  As he self-congratulated, I made mistakes in my Iraq analysis over the years at times, but one thing I surely got right was to warn from 2001 onward that any war would be very difficult and challenging -- as in a 2001 Washington Post op-ed with Philip Gordon that provoked Ken Adelman's well-known "cakewalk" op-ed in reply [Washington Post link not available]. Gordon and I predicted no cakewalk.  Gee, Mike can you remember any of the mistakes?


Mr. O'Hanlon concludes, So any interim assessment on my part at this stage would have to voice skepticism that the war was worth it. But again, as noted, I remain hopeful that over time, the benefits will be substantial and palpable enough to make the debate interesting. We are not there yet, however.  No kidding. 


It was a war on spec with no credible evidence to justify starting it.  That O'Hanlon and Boot are employed anywhere other than as carney shills is true evidence of failing upward.  It's not what you say, but who you say it for. 


We have pondered the question here at the Neutralist Institute and have come up with our answer to the question, was the Iraq War worth it?  If you are not an Iraqi killed in the violence or a dead or, injured Serviceman of any nationality, or an American taxpayer, it was all just hunky dory.

Do you see anything? Moi, nothing. David Pakman and Peter Ingemi do not confront the elephants in the room

The last day of the year and I am driving on Route 9 here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts from Wormtown to the Holy City of Noho.  This is truly a privilege as I get to listen to the radio and go from the loony right to the vapid left in one drive.

First up is Mr. Peter Ingemi, DaTechGuy on WCRN.  He did not talk tech, but politics as is his wont.  He sounds like what he is, a tea partier who was downsized and moved on.  He does not like Ronnie Paul because he won't save us from the muzzies or something.

As Worcester receded, and I got closer to Happy Valley.  Mr. David Pakman's voice got clearer on WHMP.  He is a bit more focused in his weltanschaung.  Ronnie had misgivings about evolution and ergo is not fit to be president.  Your man has a point.  Washington, Adams and Jefferson never heard of Darwin and they sucked as presidents and human beings.

Saturday is a talk radio ghetto.  I may have been one of the pairs only listeners.  Guys in working class Worcester are out doing something.  The cool people out west are listening to Bob and Ray, I mean Tom and Ray and Car Talk from the Ministry of Information.

It has been a hard few years for our country.  The average person's net worth is way down.  Still, no matter how hard it is, there is no one in this country so poor that they cannot afford an elephant in their living room to ignore.  The president has signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  If you agree with Glenn Greenwald, this is about as big a deal as it gets constitutionally.

El Presidente signs it today and nada from either Mutt or Jeff.  Now, I suspect the techie likes it because, gosh, we gotta be secure and he is always tired of hiding under the bed.  The bad news is who signed it.

Pakman, it is a little tougher.  You had George Bush and all his wars and now you have the demi-god and the wars have not changed (other than some cosmetic withdrawls).  An honest man would have to say Obama was a fraud.  Well, an honest man would say that.

As we head into the 12th year of the Bush/Obama administration maybe Rodney King couldn't get us to all get along, but there is at least some consensus in the Ingemi/Pakman Axis.

I believe in evolution, but opposing the NDAA and not believing evo is okay with me.  Being for NDAA and believing in NDAA is evidence of personal devolution.

David Pakman does his best to be the smarmiest guy on WHMP.  The competition is fierce.   Learn more about him here.

You can learn more about Mr. Ingemi here.

In truth, I may have not heard it because I was listening in the car.  If I am mistaken and they took the issue on, they have my apology.  If Mr. Pakman called Obama on it, I'll need a pacemaker.

National Defense Authorization Act of 2012-finally and admission that fighting them over there was a sham

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 has passed and the president is to sign it.  So we used to say we were fighting them over there so we would not have to fight them over here.  Well the Neutralist never said it.  We believe the whole posture of our so called War on Terror is a scam.  When semi chicken hawk (is a legal guy in the army, medal for paper cuts maybe), Lindsay Graham said the bill would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" he admitted as much.  If we are at this point, the terrorists have won.
Gene Healy's column, If America is the battleground, nobody has any rights at the Washington Times is worth reading.

Has any congress member, aside from those who voted no, ever read the Constitution?

He has truly won!

Somewhere, maybe Drudge, it was noted, the biggest story of 2011 is the death of OBL.  There was a victory dance or ten caught on media.  The heartbreaking aspect of it all is that dead or alive, he won.  If we won, the new defense authorization act could be slimmer and indefinite detention would not be on it.

Radley Balko had a post in May outlining our defeat.   If you don't sigh after reading, you don't get it.

Droning on and on

So, we've been using drones for years and they are pretty spiffy. It's been such a success that a drone was used to recapture some errant cows. The Neutralist is not a psychometrician, but we feel we have proof that proof that Iranians are smarter than cows. They seem to have captured a drone used by, we guess, the Air Force. So the relative IQ scale is Iranians, drones, cows. I won't go on with this, because as an American, I find it embarrassing.

So we are using drones and have covert ops going on in Iran.  Yet we are in high dudgeon over a plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that looks pretty shaky.  So it's right and just for us to bug the Persians because we're the good guys, but not right for them to do something here that might or might not be a set-up.


The Iranians have been telling us to go fry ice for a number of years now.  I just hope they don't have a viable plan to close the Strait of Hormuz as the Neutralist does not like an interesting life.


America's greatest chickenhawk is dissing the pres who has to be saying, "what have I gotta do.  I killed Osama and gave you another war and am deploying troops to more countries."


Well BHO, I have a suggestion.  Insert Cheney to retake the drone.