Yesterday, the Brookings Institution and National Security Network hosted a panel on Human Rights in Iran to mark the release of a new report, Placing Human Rights in Iran on top of the Foreign Policy Agenda.

Published by The Century Foundation and the Heinrich Boll Stiftung, the report is the second to be generated from a series of meetings with Iranian democracy activists, with the goal of better understanding the current state of Iran’s democracy movement, the nature and extent of political repression in Iran, and to develop ways in which democratic governments can best help the movement overcome that repression. The first report was discussed at a Center for American Progress event in April.

One of the panelists yesterday was Mojtaba Vahedi, a close aide of 2009 Iranian presidential candidate and Green movement leader Mehdi Karroubi.

Through an interpreter, Vahedi discussed some of the details of the abuse endured by protesters detained during the June 2009 election demonstrations, which included “placing 145 people in a room of 70 square meters for three days” at Kahrizak detention center. At one point during that time, according to Vahedi, 25 violent prisoners — murderers and rapists — were put into the room. “Many of the rapes that occurred happened this way,” Vahedi said. “After 16 months, not one person has been held accountable.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei eventually admitted that crimes were committed at Kahrizak, but insisted they were trivial when compared to “the injustice that some did to the regime” by protesting the election.

Calling on the Obama administration to take a stronger stand in favor of Iranian human rights, report co-author Geneive Abdo said that, unlike the nuclear issue, around which there is fairly strong support in Iran, “human rights is a subject that can really turn public opinion against the regime.” There’s also evidence that criticism on this front is a sensitive issue for the regime, Abdo said, as it strikes at the core of their claim to be a just Islamic government.

Asked about Western talk of military action against Iran, Vahedi said that such an eventuality “is not in the picture for us,” something not even being considered. “As an Iranian, I don’t like talk of military strikes on my country,” Vahedi said, and “if pressure [against the regime] is applied intelligently, there will be no need for it.”

Back in May, formerly imprisoned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji was adamant that talk of a U.S. military option was harmful to the cause of Iranian democracy. “If you do not have the threat of foreign invasion and you do not use the dialog of invasion and military intervention, the society itself has a huge potential to oppose and potentially topple the theocratic system,” Ganji said. “What I’m trying to get to is that jingoistic, militaristic language used by any foreign power would actually be detrimental to this natural evolution of Iranian society.”

Looking at the idea that we must “keep force on the table” with regard to Iran, Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch recently wrote “If the administration is really having an internal debate about whether to put the military option openly on the table, I hope that they quickly and firmly resolve it in the negative.”

It would not increase U.S. bargaining leverage over Iran. It would undermine the international consensus on sanctions for which they have worked so hard. It would almost certainly kill any prospect for the meaningful diplomatic process which is so badly needed. And it would represent the next step in the seemingly inexorable ratcheting process towards an unnecessary and counterproductive war. This would be yet another of those painfully predictable victories of narrowly-conceived tactics over realistic strategy. It may offer momentary satisfaction to U.S. domestic hawks and earn a few fleeting moments of praise, but at the expense of real U.S. strategic interests. Let’s not go there.

A couple weeks ago, I reported that the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was urging Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to apologize for and stop running a race-baiting anti-immigrant attack ad on his opponent, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that contained offensive ethnic stereotypes. “We found the ad to be totally abhorrent and shocking, and I’m going to use the ‘R’ word and say racist,” Darlene Kattan of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana told a local news station.

In a debate last night, Vitter was asked to respond to the allegations. Rather than apologizing, Vitter affirmed, “I stand by the ad.” According to him, the images in it aren’t a “stereotype,” but rather, “a fact”:

MODERATOR: Do you offer them an apology or do you stand by the ad?

VITTER: We have an illegal immigration problem and a huge part of that is the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Ninety seven percent of our apprehensions of illegals is at the Mexican border. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Over 80 percent of the 12-15 million illegals in this country have come through that border from Mexico and South American countries. That is a fact, that is not a stereotype. Now there’s one thing in that ad that is offensive and that is Mister Melancon’s votes that the ad highlights. [...]

MODERATOR: How do you respond to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Charities, the Archdiocese of New Orleans who say that this ad played into offensive racial stereotypes?

VITTER: Let me just ask you, what is the stereotype?

MODERATOR:They’re talking about the images seen in your ad.

VITTER: Is it a stereotype that folks coming across the border — that is a problem and they look like that? Dennis that is a fact, that is not a stereotype! Let’s get our heads out of the sand!

Watch it:

It’s interesting that Vitter avoided taking the Sharron Angle route of denying that the negative images in the ad are necessarily Latinos. Instead, he readily admits that there’s a connection between the two. Yet, Vitter’s ad isn’t a “fact,” it’s a racist parody of Latin culture. His implication that the running image of goofy Latino men who sneak through a hole in a fence with a giant neon welcome sign and then run off with a check from the government is somehow representative of people from Mexico and South America says a lot about how Vitter perceives reality.

It also shows just how disconnected the Senator is from the immigration issue. While it is true that many undocumented immigrants are from Latin America, most of them don’t look anything like the caricatures shown in the ad. Their journey to the U.S. is plagued by the threat of violence, kidnapping, rape, and death. When they arrive, they’re not greeted with a welcome sign and a check. Instead, many of them work below the minimum wage for abusive employers in towns where their presence is resented and in states that are driving them out. Meanwhile, all undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving major federal federal benefits.

About two dozen New Orleans-area community leaders called on Vitter to apologize and remove the ad, including representatives of African-American, Latino and Vietnamese groups and Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans.

In a sane world, the malfunction of a squadron of ICBMs would cause great alarm at the instability of the US maintaining so many irrelevant nuclear missiles on a hair trigger alert. After all, the Cold War ended 20 years ago and the US has no peer nuclear threat. Yet, in the current reality-warped world of tea-party gripped America, the mechanical failure of a squadron of ICBMs has actually prompted demands for more nuclear weapons.

Last week, a mechanical failure caused the Air Force to lose control of 50 ICBMs. This is not the first incident of its kind; a few years ago a B-52 flew across the country with “hot” nuclear weapons aboard, unbeknownst to the pilots and crew. Also, throughout the nuclear age there have been a number of mechanical and human errors that have almost led to absolute catastrophe, making a nuclear accident in many ways a greater and more likely danger than nuclear war.

Yet, as Marc Ambinder reported, to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the malfunction is actually a reason not to pass the New START treaty:

If new START had been in place on Sunday, we would have immediately been below an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies. Before ratifying this treaty, the Senate must ensure we modernize our own nuclear weapons and strengthen our national security.

Honestly, what is Barrasso talking about? The notion that the US was left exposed by this failure is laughable. Does Barrasso seriously think that having only 375-400 ICBMs ready to roll instead of 450 would have put the US below “an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies.” And what enemies is Barrasso talking about? Iran? China? Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear weapon yet and China has about 300 nuclear weapons total (compared to our roughly 2,000). Perhaps he is talking about Russia. But does he not realize the Cold War ended a long time ago, and does he really think that Russia would suddenly launch a first strike? It’s absurd.

Furthermore, Lt. General Dirk Jameson said that the interruption had “no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces to carry out their deterrent mission.” And if the modest reductions contained in the New START treaty had already taken place when this incident happened it would have made zero difference. Joe Cirinicione of the Ploughshares Fund explained that the incident shows that we have significant overkill capabilities:

Even with the 50 missiles off-alert, we still had 400 nuclear missiles each armed with a warhead twenty times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima ready to launch in 15 minutes, plus 1,500 hydrogen bombs on submarines and bombers.

Really, Barrasso is just talking nonsense. He is, after all, from an ICBM state and wants to keep the nuclear pork flowing; Obama is for New START, therefore Barrasso thinks he must be against it. But his comments also just demonstrate how untethered from actual reality the far right in the Senate has become. As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said this week:

There are those in America that are trying to flex their muscles and pretend they’re ballsy by saying, ‘we’ve got to keep those nuclear weapons… [They think] that’s very rugged, when you say that. It’s not rugged at all. It’s an idiot that says that. It’s stupid to say that.

This past Friday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) guest hosted CNBC’s Squawk Box. The senator covered a variety of topics while hosting the show, including his belief that Republicans should and will alter the recently passed health care bill instead of simply repealing it.

At one point, the Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen explained that the show received e-mails asking them to ask Corker “what he wants to cut” in order to reduce the budget deficit. Corker responded that “everything need to be on the table.” Kernen followed up by asking, “Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?” Corker once again replied, “Everything! I mean look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it”:

KERNEN: We get e-mails coming in saying, “You’re going to have Corker on. For once ask a Republican what he wants to cut.” [...] The rap is all you say is cut but you’ve got no idea what to cut. What would you specifically cut?

CORKER: Well, first of all I think everything needs to be on the table.

KERNEN: Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?

CORKER: Everything! I mean, look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it.

KERNEN: Other than waste, though?

CORKER: Well, obviously that’s going to be more difficult, let’s face it. Because it’s our national security, that’s the most important thing we do in Washington, but everything we do needs to be looked at. So I would say nothing’s off the table, nothing.

Watch it:

Corker’s sentiments are in line with at least five Republicans running for Senate this year. Last week, Oregon nominee Jim Huffman called for defense cuts, citing the “vaste amount of money wasted in defense.” Earlier that week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.

If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has been on an Islamophobic tear lately. O’Reilly initially took heat for saying that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ and he has since defended that claim, saying that “there is a Muslim problem in the world.” After receiving criticism for that statement, O’Reilly defended himself again, claiming that there is a “Muslim problem” because “good” Muslims don’t combat extremism — a point radio host Don Imus told O’Reilly was not “accurate.”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) seems to have picked up on O’Reilly’s spurious reasoning, telling Imus yesterday that leaders in the Muslim community “do not cooperate”:

KING: It’s not just people who are involved with the terrorists and extremists, it is people who are in mainstream Islam, leaders of mosques, leaders of Muslim organizations who do not come forward and denounce, officially denounce, officially cooperate with the police against those extremists and terrorists. So, it goes beyond the terrorists and the extremists and also includes those in what others call mainstream Muslim leadership.

Watch it:

King didn’t provide any evidence that Muslims aren’t cooperating with authorities. While many Muslim leaders have complained of a heavy-handed FBI presence in their communities, American Muslims have been integral in combating domestic terrorism. As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, “About a third of all foiled al-Qaida-related plots in the U.S. relied on support or information provided by members of the Muslim community.” Indeed, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention. And the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — who failed in his attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit last year — alerted U.S. authorities of his son’s “extreme radical views” months before he tried to carry out the attack.

Moreover, a recent academic study found that American contemporary mosques are serving as a deterrent to the spread of extremism and terrorism. The New York Times noted that the study found that “many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.” “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization,” said study co- author David Kurzman. “This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”

King’s claim that Muslim organizations in the U.S. aren’t denouncing terrorism is simply false. For example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading American Muslim organization, unequivocally condemned terrorism and has launched numerous anti-extremism campaigns.

One of the architects of Arizona’s immigration law, Kris Kobach, has often had to defend himself against accusations of bigotry. One of his most common lines of defense is that he is religious man with Christian values. As proof, Kobach even cited his Christian missionary work in Africa, saying groups like the Anti-Defamation League who have accused him of bigotry “don’t want you to know that in my spare time I do Christian missionary work in Uganda.”

However, Lauri Lebo of Religion Dispatches has revealed some more interesting information on the church that Kobach affiliates himself with. Lebo writes:

However, despite his assertions that his faith prevents him from being a bigot, the church Kobach attends, the Christ Church, Anglican of Overland Park, Kan., has close ties to the anti-homosexuality movement in Africa. Christ Church was part of the Anglican Realignment, one of a group of theologically conservative parishes which aligned themselves with bishops outside the Episcopal Church in the United States following the ordination of Gene Robinson, the church’s first openly gay bishop.

According to its website, Kobach’s church is part of the Anglican Mission of the Americas, which is sponsored by the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Like the Anglican Church of Uganda, the Church of Rwanda is virulently anti-homosexual. Its previous Archbishop Emmanuel Musaba Kolini likened homosexuality to “moral genocide” and his successor Most Rev. Onesphore Rwaje has vowed to carry on his predecessor’s policies.

The Kansas City-based alternative newsweekly The Pitch reports that Kobach continues to visit Africa, working as a missionary with Christ Church in Overland Park. Kobach told the Pitch that he distributes bibles to “people who live in huts, who have no written material whatsoever” and used his university experience to teach men “Christian and universal values.”

In a speech before the Christian Heritage, Kobach himself blasted gay marriage, stating “the institution of marriage is under assault.” Kobach worries about the “normalization” of homosexuality, compares efforts to legalize gay marriage to a frog in boiling water, and advocated for a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Though Kobach’s religious affiliation doesn’t necessarily imply that he is a bigot or a homophobe, it’s probably not the smartest thing to point to when he’s trying to argue that he’s not. Lebo writes, “If Kobach wants to use his faith to argue that the legislation he has been promoting is not rooted in bigotry, perhaps he should choose a church that better embraces a more convincing message of tolerance.”

Finally, Kobach’s “Christian values” don’t account for his crusade against undocumented immigrants and his commitment to making life as miserable as possible for them.

Today, the South Florida Sun Sentinel posted an interview with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In the interview, Gingrich was asked several times about what he thinks Latinos care about. Each time, Gingrich provided an array of answers from the Pope, to abortion, to the economy. However, not once did Gingrich cite immigration as an important issue in the Latino community:

HOST: Is it a hard sell given the rancor over immigration…a number of Republicans have taken a hardline on immigration. Is it a hard sell?

GINGRICH: I would start and say if you are a Hispanic who is interested in a job and a paycheck rather than unemployment and food stamps, there’s no reason to look at Harry Reid. [...] I would like to appeal to every Hispanic American on the basic interests of their family, their values and their concerns. [...]

HOST: Besides the economics what else are the key issues that you’ve identified in the center right group that appeal to Hispanics?

GINGRICH: We just did a movie about called Nine Days That Changed the world about Pope John Paul II. [...] In most of their community that movie would be very well received because the community is actually very religiously faithful. If you look at the values of the Hispanic community they are much more conservative than the values that Harry Reid has been voting for.

HOST: So what are some of the issues besides the faith stuff?

GINGRICH: You talk about strong family values, you talk about right to life. There are a number of issues where the Hispanic community finds itself much more compatible…you talk about the importance of work and education. Those are all very important values in the Hispanic community.

Listen:

According to the Pew Hispanic Research Center, Latinos rank education, jobs, and health care (which Gingrich also failed to mention) as the three most important issues. Immigration is ranked fourth. And though immigration certainly isn’t the most important issue, it’s often a deal breaker when it comes time to vote. According to a poll by Latino Decisions, immigration is the second-most important issue Latino voters look at when deciding who to vote for, after the economy.

It’s no wonder Gingrich avoided mentioning immigration as an issue that attracts Latinos to the “center-right.” An overwhelming majority of Latinos support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to legalization and oppose state and local immigration initiatives like Arizona’s immigration law. Meanwhile, there is not a single Republican in currently Congress who has been willing to sign on to immigration reform, while the GOP has largely been behind Arizona-copycat efforts. That’s probably a main reason why, when asked which party has more concern for Latinos, 47 percent of Latino registered voters identify the Democratic Party as the better party and only 6 percent see the Republican Party.

Gingrich did mention immigration in a response to a separate question later in the interview on what he hopes to get done at an upcoming conference he’s hosting. “I think we do have to find an answer on immigration,” said Gingrich. Though he didn’t provide any specifics, in the past, he has proposed sending 12 million undocumented immigrants back to their home countries and allowing them to return on temporary guest worker visas.

Surveying the vast trove of WikiLeaks Iraq documents, Steve Coll makes what I think is a great point about how “American understanding of the Iraq war has so far been distorted, in a way, by the heavy scrutiny of American conduct, generalship, politics, and domestic narratives of who won and who lost, who succeeded and who failed”:

The war we have absorbed much less of, but the one experienced by many Iraqis, is the one Jon Lee Anderson, among others, chronicled in this magazine in 2007. It was, particularly between 2005 and 2007, a war of nihilism, death squads, and elemental sectarian violence. The WikiLeaks archive seems to contain a lot of that war because it is weighted toward the frontline experience of the officers and soldiers sent to try to bring the sectarian violence under some semblance of control. The Times has organized its online selection of the documents into sections, one of which is entitled, “Country In Chaos.” An intelligence report under that heading has been labeled “Unchecked Torture.” It says, in the startlingly routine language of a forwarded office e-mail,

EVIDENCE OF UNCHECKED TORTURE WAS NOTED IN THE IRAQI POLICE STATION IN HUSAYBAH, IZ. LARGE AMOUNTS OF BLOOD ON THE CELL FLOOR, A WIRE USED FOR ELECTRIC SHOCK AND A RUBBER HOSE WERE LOCATED IN THE HOLDING CELL. ENCLOSURES

That is the Iraq war that will live on for a long time in the memories of families, militia commanders and political leaders — and by doing so, it will shape the future of the country in ways that are hard to predict, but are unlikely to be constructive.

To put in some perspective the role that 2005-2007 will play in Iraqi politics, my recent trip to Israel and Palestine, with my colleague Matt Yglesias as well as a number of other journalists, brought home once again the enormity of the challenge of overcoming the pain, resentment, and distrust that has calcified (both between and within the Jewish and Palestinian communities) in the decades since the expulsion and displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians in 1948, amid the conflicts that Israelis refer to collectively as their War of Independence, and the Palestinians refer to as al-Nakba, the catastrophe. To be honest, I’m as pessimistic as I’ve ever been about the possibility of disentangling the various claims and counter-claims toward arriving a just accommodation (though also as sure as I’ve ever been that it’s imperative that President Obama continue to try).

But the point is this: between 2003 and 2009, in addition to the more than 100,000 Iraqis killed and many more wounded and maimed, more than 4.5 million Iraqis were expelled and displaced amid Iraq’s sectarian civil war — new, grim details of which are contained in the WikiLeaks trove. Around 2.6 million remain internally displaced in Iraq, unable to return to their homes. Another 1.9 million remain refugees, mostly in neighboring Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It has utterly changed the face not only of Iraq, but of the region. If Americans are going to learn the right lessons from Iraq, and satisfy the huge moral debt we’ve incurred, we’ve simply got to regain our sense of shock about the enormity of what we have done there: Through a combination of hubris, idealism, incompetence, and plain ignorance, the United States facilitated, sponsored, and oversaw Iraq’s Nakba.

Since taking office, President Obama has endeavored to put the political arguments surrounding Iraq behind us. In terms of American political unity, I suppose that’s admirable. But, as we know — as Obama has shown that he himself knows — the past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past. Not in America. Not in Iraq. We will be paying the costs and grappling with the consequences of the Iraq war for decades. I see nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by refusing to squarely and publicly confront those costs and consequences.

Back in 2008, I did a video for my friend Mark Goldberg’s On Day One project, which allowed people to share what they would like the next president to do on his or her first day in office. I called for the President of the United States to announce support for, and full cooperation with, the creation of an Iraqi Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I’d like to repeat that now:

Yesterday, 24-year-old Canadian citizen Omar Khadr pleaded guilty to terrorism related charges during his military tribunal hearing at Guantanamo Bay. Khadr admitted to throwing a grenade on an Afghanistan battlefield that killed an American soldier in 2002 and planting numerous roadside bombs. Khadr had been reluctant to admit guilt, but his Canadian lawyer, speaking with the CBC’s As It Happens last night, explained the situation Khadr faced:

DENNIS EDNY: He’s agreed to accept this deal because when he looks at the alternatives and the alternatives are that he’s in a military process…that has been condemned by military prosecutors themselves who say that it is designed to make findings of guilt. He faced the potential of life in prison under this system here because the jury is hand picked, the judge is hand picked, the prosecution is hand picked and the military defense is hand picked. And then what I think really capped it all off was, much of the evidence against Omar are statements that he made while being abused and tortured and under duress. So the cards were stacked.

Indeed, Khadr was both mentally and physically abused at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, where he was first interrogated, and at Gitmo. Those statements he made under duress were deemed admissible in court. Moreover, the New York Times notes that Khadr’s prosecution was “unusual” not only because child soldiers are normally not prosecuted (Khadr was 15 years old when the U.S. military apprehended him), but also because the main charge against him was killing a soldier on the battlefield, an action, again, that is not traditionally prosecuted. Thus, the U.S. military took great pains (see the “Jurisdiction” section of Khadr’s Stipulation of Fact) to make the case that Khadr lacked military immunity. One reason the military cited was the fact that Khadr wore no national military uniform. The Times reports the Obama administration’s shocking reaction to this conundrum:

The uniform issue also led to a scramble by the Obama legal team to rewrite commission rules on the eve of a hearing for Mr. Khadr. Because Central Intelligence Agency drone operators also kill while not wearing uniforms, the team rewrote the rules to downgrade “murder in violation of the laws of war” to a domestic law offense from a war crime to avoid seeming to implicitly concede that the C.I.A. is committing war crimes.

During his CBC interview, Edny further explained the bizarre circumstances surrounding Khadr’s plea:

EDNY: In court today, they added two more charges that we’d never heard of and it seems to be that he is responsible for everybody that got injured or killed in that fight in the compound with the Taliban. [...] These charges that Omar faces are unknown under the laws of war. The Americans made them up in order to justify detaining people who didn’t wear a uniform in the battlefields of Afghanistan and I’ve often said over the years, can someone tell me what uniform the Northern Alliance was wearing when it joined the Americans in attacking the Taliban? So it’s all smoke and mirrors here.

Listen to Edny’s interview with the CBC:

Under the terms of the agreement, Khadr will serve one more year in detention in Guantanamo Bay and then be repatriated to Canada to serve the remaining seven years.

A number of legal scholars questioned the legitimacy of Khadr’s proceedings. “The conviction of this child soldier for non-existent war crimes is a disgraceful travesty and a stain on America’s reputation,” said former Gitmo defense lawyer David Frakt, who added that the plea “saved the administration from the unseemly spectacle of a trial” and that the U.S. will “still go down in history as the first civilised nation to prosecute a child soldier as a war criminal.” Stanford Law lecturer Chip Pitts said, “This plea bargain shouldn’t be taken as indication of the legitimacy of the irredeemably tainted military commissions.”

“I don’t know how anyone who cares about the integrity and moral standing of the United States can absorb the full details of this case and not be profoundly ashamed,” writes the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan. “To prosecute a child soldier, already nearly killed in battle, tortured and abused in custody, and to imprison him for this length of time and even now, convict him of charges for which there is next to no proof but his own coerced confessions…well, words fail.”

In an interview with Univision, senatorial candidate and son of Cuban immigrants, Marco Rubio (R-FL) told the Spanish language network that he doesn’t like to use the term “illegal” and prefers “undocumented” when talking about immigrants in the U.S. without papers:

UNIVISION: Is there a difference between an illegal and an undocumented?

RUBIO: Well “illegal” is a term that I don’t like to use, though it is a violation of the law to enter the U.S. with documents. They’re humans. I prefer to talk about the issue as “undocumented” because they are people who don’t have documents that follow the law.

Watch the Univision video and past clips of Rubio’s immigration remarks [In English and Spanish]:

I couldn’t find any clips in which Rubio ever employed the term “undocumented.” To his credit, in recent months, he has talked about undocumented immigrants as “people who come to the U.S. illegally.” However, when he was fighting a tough primary in which he tried to portray his opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist, as soft on immigration, Rubio didn’t hesitate to use the term “illegal immigrant”:

In February, Rubio opted to use “illegal immigrants” when arguing that undocumented immigrants should be excluded from the census, saying:

“Gov. Crist’s position to include illegal immigrants in this count would dilute the voting power of every American citizen. It would actually incentivize politicians to perpetuate our broken immigration system by rewarding states with large illegal immigrant populations with a louder voice in Washington.”

When he “delivered a six-minute discourse on immigration policy” back in November in which he slammed Ronald Reagan’s support of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Rubio stated:

“There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, ‘No, no no no , I’m illegal.’ Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”

Rubio also appears to have no problem with the fact that the term regularly appears on his website:

“Crist’s only real Social Security plan is to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants but that has actually been debunked as an idea that would lead to Social Security’s bankruptcy sooner rather than later.”

“Marco believes that our nation’s immigration policy should consist of border enforcement, securing the border, fixing the visa process and ensuring that no law extends amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

Many in the Latino and immigrant communities find the term “illegal immigrant” offensive because it “qualifies an entire person, rather than an act.”

This past weekend Rubio stated on CNN’s State of the Union that he supports fixing the legal immigration system so that “people in this country without documents” can go back to their home countries and reenter the country legally. In his interview with Univision, Rubio explained that he supports modernizing the immigration system so that undocumented immigrants can enter the U.S. through a process that works, but didn’t mention anything about going back to their “homeland.” You can watch the full interview here.

First, Republican senatorial candidate Sharron Angle ran offensive images of menacing Latino men with flashlights walking along a fence alongside a snapshot of an innocent looking white family in order to make the point that her opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is the “best friend an illegal alien ever had.” Then her campaign released a second commercial with a new image of scowling Latino men juxtaposed against a photo of white college graduates. Despite the fact that her ads have sparked outrage in the Latino community, Angle has decided to continue with her anti-Latino campaign theme.

In her newest attack ad, Angle pits brown against white in order to make the case that Reid is a friend of dark-skinned, scary looking “illegal aliens” and an enemy of white Nevadans like her:

Watch it:

Angle’s third ad is especially surprising considering the fact that many outlets are reporting that Latinos may decide the tight Nevada senatorial race. “Angle has made few friends among Latinos after she supported neighboring Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 law, the strictest in the nation to curb illegal immigrants. And as polling day gets closer, her gaffes and missteps are helping to bring the Latino vote out for Reid,” reported Reuters last week.

Robert de Posada, the man behind the group telling Latino voters not to vote, has denied any affiliation with the Republican Party, or that he is trying to advance the party in close elections. The GOP has similarly distanced itself from de Posada’s controversial ads. However, besides the fact that de Posada’s own resume includes stints at the RNC and Bush White House, de Posada is toeing the conservative line.

For someone who claims to be independent, de Posada’s message is closely aligned with the Spanish-language talking points espoused by GOP pundits like Ana Navarro and Alfonso Aguilar, and Republican lawmaker Mario Diaz-Balart who constantly claim: 1) Democrats promised Latinos immigration reform and have done nothing; 2) Democrats are in “full control” and would’ve passed immigration reform if they were really serious about it; 3) Latinos shouldn’t look at the Republican party’s record, but rather the record of each individual candidate:

DE POSADA: The Democrats, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, promised us immigration reform two years ago in one year. After that, he hasn’t done anything. There’s hasn’t been one vote in one subcommittee.

DIAZ-BALART: Let’s be clear, the President — on your program — said that in his first 12 months he would present and approve immigration reform. He didn’t do it in his first 12 months, he didn’t do it in his second 12 months. Basically, he used us.
NAVARRO: President Obama has talked and talked talked. He told our community — on your program — that he would pass immigration reform within his first year in office. We all agree that President Obama has talked a lot about immigration reform, but he’s done little.
AGUILAR: During the 2008 elections, they [Democrats] said they would do something about immigration. In two years they haven’t done anything.

DE POSADA:He [Reid] has the power to do whatever he wants. Besides that, he didn’t need the Republicans for health care reform, for the stimulus, for finance reform, for a number of things. Why didn’t he do that for Latinos? You know why? Because we aren’t his priority.

DIAZ-BALART: They [Democrats] blame Republicans, but we all know that the Democrats control the House, the White House and the Senate. If they were serious about approving immigration reform, they would’ve done it by now the way they did with health care reform.
NAVARRO: I think Republican senators don’t feel that the White House is serious about this issue. Evidently they did have 60 votes to pass health care reform, evidently they have 60 votes to pass economic things. They have 60 votes when the White House puts forth all its support.
AGUILAR: They tell us that it’s the Republicans, but the truth is they know that they don’t have all the Democratic votes. They had the votes to pass health care reform, but what happened with immigration reform? Absolutely nothing.

DE POSADA: They [Latinos] have to evaluate the records of the candidates.

NAVARRO: Latinos have to evaluate each candidate — their values, where they are on different issues.
AGUILAR: The important thing is not to make generalizations. [..] The Latino voter has to balance and look at all the issues. Immigration is one issue, it’s not the only issue for Latinos.

Watch it [in Spanish]:

Most Republicans aren’t coming out and telling Latinos not to vote. However, when Republicans slam Democrats on Spanish-language television they usually don’t mention that Democrats have been unable to push immigration reform due to Republican obstructionism that has delayed — if not stalled — the entire White House’s agenda. They also fail to note that while the majority of Democrats support immigration reform, it doesn’t have the same support that other policy proposals have and that more Republicans are needed to enact it. However, while Democrats could’ve done more to move immigration reform, it has been pretty clear that the GOP support needed to make it happen is non-existent. Finally, even if Latino voters ignored the Republican Party’s overarching anti-immigrant platform and just looked at individual candidates, they’d still be hard-pressed to find many Republicans who are willing to fight for the Latino community’s interests.

In an interview with radio host, Eddie “Piolin” Sotelo, President Obama explained, “There is a notion that somehow if I had worked it hard enough, we could have magically done it. That’s just not the way our system works. If I need 60 votes to get this done, then I’m gonna have to have some support from the other side. If the Latino community decides to sit out this election, then there will be fewer votes and it will be less likely to get done. And the other side, which is fighting against this, is not gonna support it.”

In what has to be seen as an unintended (but very welcome, for decent people) consequence of the Mufreesboro, Tennessee mosque controversy, in which local opponents charged that the building of a new mosque represented an unacceptable Islamist infiltration of America, the Tennessean newspaper has an investigative report, entitled “Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear,” that looks at some of the leading players in the right-wing effort to scare people about their Muslim neighbors.

Part I of the report looks at Steven Emerson, who has made quite a name for himself as a terrorism “expert” since the 1990s, peddling all kinds of wild claims, like the idea that 80% percent of mosques in America are controlled by Islamic extremists, that, despite being completely untrue, end up getting repeated all over the place.

Salon’s Justin Elliott, who has been doing fantastic work in this area, zeroes in on Emerson’s tax shenanigans:

The thumbnail version: Emerson collected over $3 million in 2008 for his tax-exempt non-profit, the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The Investigative Project then paid all of that money to another entity controlled by Emerson, the for-profit SAE Productions (the two entities also share a Washington, D.C., address). The result: it’s impossible to see how the money is being used by Emerson, including how much he is paying himself and others. A spokesman for the groups maintains that this setup was created for security reasons so names of employees are not publicly released.

The Tennessean also has this on Wonk Room’s favorite conspiracy theorist:

Frank Gaffney, head of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Security Policy, earned a $288,300 salary from his charity in 2008. Gaffney was a key witness in recent hearings in the Rutherford County lawsuit filed by mosque opponents. He said he paid his own way.

On the stand, the Reagan-era deputy assistant defense secretary accused local mosque leaders of having ties to terrorism, using ties to Middle Eastern universities and politics as evidence. His main source of information was his own report on Shariah law as a threat to America, one he wrote with other self-proclaimed experts.

But, under oath, he admitted he is not an expert in Shariah law.

The fact that Gaffney is not an expert in Sharia law is already abundantly obvious to anyone familiar with a) Sharia law and b) Gaffney’s work relating to Sharia law, but it’s still nice to have it on record. As I wrote when Gaffney’s Sharia report was released, what’s notable that no actual experts in Sharia law were involved in its writing. It’s simply a work of fear-mongering.

The key thing to understand here about Emerson, Gaffney, and the rest of the “creeping sharia” charlatans is that they are making claims about Islam and Islamic practice, and the threat that they represent to the U.S., that aren’t just controversial, but are demonstrably false, and thus not taken seriously by people who actually study and know about these subjects. It would be great if TV bookers understood this better and stopped calling on them as experts.

This morning, CNN hosted a debate with Republican, Democratic, and Independent candidates for Florida’s Senate seat, Marco Rubio, Rep. Kendrick Meek, and Gov. Charlie Crist. The three candidates debated a variety of current issues, and highlights included Crist and Rubio stating that they felt that all of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, even those for the wealthiest Americans.

At one point, a CNN moderator asked the candidates if “America is safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?” Rubio responded, “I think ultimately yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge….The world is a safer place not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.”

Meek went next, saying that the “war was based on falsehoods and not on fact” and refused to give a “blanket yes” to the question of whether the world was safer thanks to the war. The congressman continued, “I think we would’ve been better off if we had looked at diplomatic solutions and hadn’t been lied to by the Bush administration.”

Crist then gave the last answer. “I think the world is a safer place because of the action we took in Iraq,” he concluded:

MODERATOR: Mr. Rubio, is America safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?

RUBIO: I think ultimately, yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge. He is no longer in charge of that country. Let’s understand one thing. Right now we’re worrying about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. If Saddam Hussein was still there you’d have a full-blown arms war the way you’ve seen between Pakistan and India. So the world is a safer place not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. [...]

MODERATOR: Mr. Meek, same question.

MEEK: Well I would tell you this. There was a no-fly zone prior to going to war in Iraq. It was a war based on falsehood and not on fact. And also there are a number of American lives that have been lost. Saying that, those sacrifices that have been made, it’s important to note that the international community needs to continued to be engaged in Iraq. The largest U.S. embassy in the world is in Iraq because of the Bush doctrine. I understand the situation as to the world being safer because we went into Iraq, I couldn’t give you an overall blanket yes on that.

MODERATOR: Do you think we would’ve been better off if we hadn’t gone in?

MEEK: I think we would’ve been better off if we would’ve looked at diplomatic solutions and wouldn’t have been lied to by the Bush administration. I think a number of American lives would’ve been saved and this would be a different world if we would’ve given diplomacy an opportunity.

CRIST: I think the world is a safer place because of the action we took in Iraq.

Watch it:

It is an oddity of American political life that, more than seven years after the Bush administration launched its illegal and disastrous war in Iraq that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily, that major political players are still debating whether or not the war made our country and the world “safer and better off.” Nevertheless, it is important to dismantle the claims put forward by Rubio and Crist.

Rubio displays a hefty ignorance history by claiming that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would’ve engaged in an arms war like that between India and Pakistan. Ever since the Gulf War, Iraq was under draconian sanctions that reduced its military to levels where it was completely unable to threaten any of its neighbors — and, unfortunately, exacted an enormous human cost on its civilian population. There could have been no arms race because Iraq did not have access to the materials to make them.

Rubio and Crist both claim that the world is a safer place thanks to the war in Iraq. The facts tell very a different story. In 2007, terrorism experts and research fellows at Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank conducted a survey of terrorism incidents worldwide since the Bush administration-led U.S. war in Iraq. Their study found that terrorism incidents worldwide increased by seven times, or six hundred percent, since the Bush administration invaded Iraq.

More recently, researchers Robert Pape of the University of Chicago and James Feldman of Air Force Institute of Technology found that, “from 1980-2003, there were 350 suicide attacks in the world, only 15% of which were anti-American.” Yet after the Bush-led war in Iraq, “there have been 1,833 suicide attacks, 92% of which were anti-American.”

Whether is Iraq is “better off” is more of a subjective question, but the level of suffering borne by the Iraqi people suggests they are not. In 2004, a year after the toppling of Saddam Hussein and well-before the spike in levels of violence that started with the sectarian warfare in 2005, Iraqis were 58 times more likely to die a violent death than they were before the invasion. Sectarian tensions and a fragile political system led to Iraq breaking the world’s record for the longest time without a government. Damage to the country’s infrastructure limits Iraqis to an average of five hours of electricity a day, and a recent document dump by the whistleblower organization Wikileaks has uncovered tens of thousands of previously unreported civilian deaths and the widespread use of torture and other brutal military techniques by the Iraqi government. All of this is without noting that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, entire generations of children have grown under occupation or in sectarian warfare, and millions fled the country. All for the cost of $4-$6 trillion dollars, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

While the attempt to treat Juan Williams as some kind of martyr for free speech is ridiculous on its face, (and the use of the word “dissident” for a guy who just got a $2 million contract for his trouble is disgusting) I agree with Reuel Marc Gerecht that “We would all be better off — Muslim Americans first and foremost — if we could have a more open discussion about Islam, Islamic militancy and what Muslims, here and abroad, think it means to be Muslim.” I’m just not sure if we necessarily agree on what “more open” means, or on the role that the President of the United States is supposed to play in that discussion:

The firing of Williams, who is also a paid commentator with Fox News, sparked a heated argument over political correctness — and calls for the public “defunding” of NPR — that is, in part, obscuring a more necessary debate: How do you approach the problem of Islamic militancy in the West and in the Middle East? President Obama, who has had innumerable briefings on the threats posed by al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups, has chosen to dial down American rhetoric (it was actually pretty tame under President George W. Bush) in the hope that average Muslims, wherever they may be, will view the United States as more friend than foe, and help Washington combat “violent extremism.”

This friendly approach is probably, unfortunately, counterproductive. So far, it’s unlikely that Muslim self-criticism — our ultimate salvation from Islamic holy warriors — has improved under Obama. Judging by the satellite channel Al-Jazeera, a vibrant hodgepodge of all things Arab, the opposite current, fed by Western self-doubt, appears to be gaining force. By being nice, we suggest that nothing within “Islam” — by which I mean the 1,400-year-old evolving marriage of faith, culture and politics — is terribly wrong. By being kind, we fail to provoke controversy among Muslims about why so many Muslims from so many lands have called suicide bombers against Western targets “martyrs” and not monsters.

Obviously, Gerecht makes some claims here about the impact of Obama’s rhetorical approach that he doesn’t provide evidence for (note the strategic use of words like “probably,” “unlikely,” “appears”). Leaving aside whether Gerecht’s rendering of the trends in “Muslim self-criticism” is accurate, color me skeptical of his suggestion that Obama could make a more positive impact if only he would be ruder to the world’s Muslims. And I’m always a bit perplexed by warnings against “Western self-doubt,” as if Western liberalism’s tendency toward self-criticism and self-correction weren’t one of its greatest strengths. This is, after all, according to Gerecht, precisely what we’re supposed to be hoping for and cultivating in the so-called “Muslim world,” a sense of self-doubt and self-criticism about the trajectory of their faith and their societies.

In terms of self-criticism, as Marc Lynch showed in his book Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today, al-Jazeera provided an important forum for quite a bit of self-criticism among Arabs over why they had countenanced Saddam’s tyranny for so long. This is obviously anecdotal, but I get invited on al-Jazeera fairly regularly despite my habit of saying outrageous things about how democracy is good and how no, we’re not just doing it for the oil. This also gets at the fact that it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to decouple America’s message to the world’s Muslims from the American policies that impact many of those Muslims, either directly or through media, which unfortunately involve a lot of people and things exploding.

As for the President Obama’s rhetoric, I don’t think it’s really the president’s responsibility to get into fine-grained discussions about Islamic doctrine, but to set a general tone for the debate. In my view Obama has, despite a few missteps, done this fairly well. To his credit, so did George W. Bush, even though his party has pretty much devolved into an endless game of Islamophobic one-downsmanship since he left office.

Carrying out the deeper public debate about the problem of violent Islamic extremism, and America’s response to it, is the job of scholars, pundits, and analysts like Gerecht, and like your humble narrator. And in that, I think it’s clear that we need to do a lot better. I don’t think anyone can look at the quality of the current mainstream media discourse around Islam, America, national security, particularly the persistence of the ridiculous and deeply stupid-making “war of civilizations” frame, and conclude anything other than that we have, despite some bright exceptions, collectively pretty much failed at promoting a discussion of these issues at a level of seriousness that they really merit, given what’s at stake. And that’s a problem.

It’s not a problem, however, that has much to do with Juan Williams, though I suspect that one of the consequences of Williams’ axing is that it will be used by Islam-bashers to continue to deny that there is actually a double standard in regard to what is permissible to say about Islam and Muslims versus other faiths and groups, or that this somehow righted the imbalance. What Williams said was stupid and offensive, but I don’t think he should’ve been fired by NPR in the way that he was. He should’ve been fired long ago for not having offered a remotely interesting political insight in years. But then they’d have had to fire Cokie Roberts, too. (Which they should do!)

The fact is that if Williams were an effective advocate for progressivism/critic of conservatism he wouldn’t have had a job at Fox News in the first place, but I hope that his new status as the world’s best remunerated, least oppressed “dissident” won’t serve to further cheapen the important debate around how best to confront Islamic extremism.

Last night, Oregon’s U.S. Senate candidates Sen. Ron Wyden (D) and Republican Jim Huffman debated a variety of issues. Highlights from the debate include Huffman’s advocacy for extending all the Bush tax cuts and Wyden arguing in favor of ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.

At one point during the debate, the moderators asked the nominees about their stance on funding the National Guard and other defense programs. Both agreed that giving adequate funding to the National Guard was important to the state of Oregon. Interestingly, Huffman criticized members of Congress for “constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or [military] funding in their states just because it’s funding in their state.” He added that he has “no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense” and advocated for taking “a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget,” because he believes “Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with”:

HUFFMAN: I, too would be a strong supporter of the National Guard, I think it’s a very critical part of the community and of the state. As for funding I think it has to be part of a larger examination of military funding in this country. I think it’s a mistake as we found way back we found before the base closure act to have members of Congress constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or funding in their states just because its funding in their state, it needs to be part of a comprehensive national review of how we spend money in defense. I have no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense, but at the same time I think it’s the most important thing the federal government does, and it has to be something it does all over the country. So I would be a very strong supporter of the National Guard but I’d also take a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget, because I think Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with.

Watch it:

Huffman’s statement makes him at least the fifth Republican running for Senate who has gone on the record as saying that defense cuts are necessary in order to deal with the budget deficit and tackle waste in government. Earlier this week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” Last week, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.

If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.

A couple weeks ago, I reported that the chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Hispanic Caucus and Sharron Angle (R-NV) spokesperson, Tibi Ellis, criticized her own candidate’s immigration ads on Spanish-language radio. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Ellis told 1060 AM Spanish radio host Edwin Saldarriaga “I condemned this type of propaganda, no matter who is running them, where they blame Mexicans as the only problem and where they attack them as the only source of illegal immigration.”

Yesterday, Ellis told progressive radio host Mario Solis Marich that the Las Vegas Sun misrepresented her remarks. In an attempt to set the record straight, Ellis began to tepidly back away from her criticisms of Angle’s ads and defend the conservative movement:

HOST: Are you okay with Sharron Angle’s ads that have been condemned nationwide as anti-immigrant?

ELLIS: I am okay with Sharron Angle’s ads that condemn anti-illegal immigration, yes.

HOST: So you’re okay with those ads?

ELLIS: No no no! Your question is about the anti-illegal immigration ads, yes, because I am an anti-illegal immigration policy person. I am not okay with having only the face of a Mexican immigrant as the representation of illegal immigration because illegal immigration has many colors. [...]

HOST: So you’re okay with Sharron Angle’s ads, we established that. Okay, so now we can move on. You’re set, okay? [Silence] [...] Does the anti-immigrant movement in this country — is it based within the conservative movement?

ELLIS: I disagree with that.

Listen:

Ellis may not be aware of the fact that Angle told a group of Latino students that they have been “misinterpreting” her commercials. “I’m not sure that those are Latinos in that commercial. What it is, is a fence and there are people coming across that fence. What we know is that our northern border is where the terrorists came through,” she said.

Ellis also accused Angle’s opponent, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) of “scapegoating” Latinos by using an image of a Latina to represent the undocumented students that Reid is trying to help via his support of the DREAM Act. Solis Marich explained to Ellis that there’s a difference between pandering and scapegoating and that while Reid may be guilty of pandering to Latinos, he can’t be accused of scapegoating them. In fact, the two words are logical opposites in politics.

When asked about the controversial ads telling Latinos not to vote which almost aired in Nevada, Ellis denied they had any connection to the conservative movement. Instead, she tried to argue that they were funded by the Latino Coalition, which she described as a bi-partisan organization. However, the Latino Coalition explicitly condemned the ads.

Curiously, Solis Marich opened the segment explaining that Ellis had agreed to go on his show to talk about politics, but changed her mind at the last minute and would not be appearing. Apparently, Ellis was under the impression that his show was in Spanish and shortly after finding out it was actually in English, she sent Solis Marich’s producer an email saying that it was her birthday and she no longer wanted to participate. Apparently, she had a change of heart and ended up calling in anyway. You can listen to the full interview here.

Today, Capital Wire posted a press release issued by the conservative Latino Coalition denouncing the controversial ads released by Latinos for Reform, another right-leaning political group, which told Latinos not to vote. Latino Coalition president Hector V. Barreto stated:

The Latino Coalition believes in holding all our elected representatives accountable, by actively participating in the democratic process. At the heart of this process is our right and duty as citizens to vote. That we have not achieved Comprehensive Immigration Reform, yet, should motivate us to deepen our participation, not withdraw to the sidelines. [...] What is clear is that any message of abstention to Latinos is terribly ill-founded and contrary to our best interests.

Earlier this week, the president of Latinos for Reform, Robert de Posada, tried to tell MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that the Spanish-version of the ad was more tempered and only called on Latinos not to vote for candidates who betrayed them (the Spanish ad vaguely makes this point, but later clearly tells them not to vote at all). Also, when O’Donnell pointed out that “there are no other Latino organizations on board with this,” de Posada told him that he was simply listening to “a group of [Latino] leaders in Washington, DC who depend on access to the White House.”

Watch de Posada’s interview on MSNBC:

The Latino Coalition’s statement debunks de Posada’s first claim: “the spot’s Spanish translation deviates significantly from its English version, by widening blame to both political parties –as opposed to its English counterpart, which focuses on Democrats – and urging Latino voters not to vote in any election, as opposed to the specific instruction in the English-language spot not to vote in Congressional races only.”

Furthermore, the Latino Coalition also doesn’t have much to do with the current White House. In fact, what their press release curiously doesn’t mention is that the Latino Coalition was founded and led by Robert de Posada himself.

De Posada told Talking Points Memo earlier this week that he created the Hispanic Business Roundtable in 1994, which later became the Latino Coalition which he led until 2007. In fact, when Barreto became president, de Posada issued a statement saying “As national chairman, Hector Barreto will be a leader that helps set the
community on the right course to greater prosperity.”

There’s a lot to recommend in Ken Pollack’s new piece outlining an Iran containment strategy, but I’d put his dismantling of the argument that Iran’s nuclear program can be dealt with through air strikes at the top of the list. Many of the key points — an attack would unify Iranians, deal a death blow to the Green movement, cause the regime to redouble its efforts toward obtaining a nuclear deterrent — have appeared elsewhere, but Pollack assembles them into a methodical and devastating (and, I think, dispositive) argument against the sort of “roll of the dice” that air strikes would represent.

Pollack also dispatches the notion, currently a favorite of those pushing for military action against Iran, that launching preventive strikes wouldn’t really be a war:

Once the United States starts a war with Iran — and launching air strikes will be war — it is impossible to know how it will end, and what would be required of Washington to end it. America may well feel compelled to respond to any Iranian retaliation, setting off a tit-for-tat cycle, raising the risk of escalation on both sides. The incredible paranoia and intractability of the Iranian regime has led to repeated instances in which Tehran refused to abandon courses of action even though it was suffering horrific damage — remember the hostage crisis? The Iran-Iraq war? In other words, the same behavior patterns that make it hard for the United States to coerce Iran by sanctions also make it unlikely that Washington can coerce the Islamic Republic by war. As we should have learned in Iraq, wars always entail very significant unforeseen consequences, and we need to recognize that bombing Iran could lead us down unexpected paths to even-worse outcomes (like invading and occupying Iran) to end what we started.

With a country as difficult as Iran, the United States should only launch air strikes if it is ready to pay all of the potential costs — and there are few Americans ready to bear the price of another major U.S. war in the Middle East.

After seven years in Iraq, and almost ten years in Afghanistan, Americans are clearly not enthusiastic about getting into another war, which is why the Bomber Boys would much rather not have to discuss the actual implications or likely consequences of the “military action” they keep calling for. It’s also why it’s important that they be forced to. Because at the end of the day, there’s only one way that Iran’s nuclear program will be dealt with to anyone’s satisfaction: Inspections. The only question is whether those inspections will be conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, under the auspices of the United Nations, or by occupying U.S. troops.

Last night, Pennsylvania Democratic and Republican U.S. Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey debated a variety of issues before a national television audience.

At one point during the debate, one of the moderators asked the two candidates about their thoughts on “fat” in the Pentagon budget that needs to be cut out. Sestak responded first, boasting that even though “some parts of [the F-22]” — a program the Obama administration’s Pentagon has struggled to end — are built in his district, he supported ending funding for the unnecessary program. Interestingly, Toomey, while reiterating that he wants to give our troops “all the resources they need to get the job done,” insisted that “there is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is voting on systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want”:

TOOMEY: My dad’s a veteran of the Korean War era. My brother in law served 20 years in the Navy. One of the things that’s very, very important to me is to make sure that when we ask me and women to go into harm’s way, they have all the resources they need to get the job done. I have always voted to provide those resources, and I always will. But the fact is, there is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want. Congress has real serious spending problems, and it manifests itself in many ways. Certainly wasteful defense programs are occasionally in that list.

Watch it:

Toomey’s statement makes him at least the fourth Republican running for Senate who has gone on the record as saying that defense cuts are necessary in order to deal with the budget deficit and tackle waste in government. Last week, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.”

If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. Assembled by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and consisting of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts, the SDTF identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.