| ||||
|
democracynow.org
Stories:
Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger, a retired three-star U.S. general who helped command troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, joins us to discuss his new book, "Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars." Bolger writes: "I am a United States Army general, and I lost the Global War on Terrorism. It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry." Bolger is now calling for a public inquiry along the lines of the 9/11 Commission to look into why the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone so poorly.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The United States marked Veterans Day on Tuesday with a series of events nationwide. Speaking at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said honoring the nation’s troops includes questioning the policies that send them to war.
DEFENSE SECRETARY CHUCK HAGEL: The wall reminds us to be honest in our telling of history. There is nothing to be gained by glossing over the darker portions of a war, the Vietnam War, that bitterly divided America. We must openly acknowledge past mistakes, and we must learn from past mistakes, because that is how we avoid repeating past mistakes. The wall reminds us that we must never take the security of our country for granted, ever. And we must always question our policies that send our citizens to war, because our nation’s policies must always be worthy, worthy of the sacrifices we ask of the men and women who defend our country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel yesterday. Well, we turn now to a retired three-star U.S. general who helped command troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger has just published a book titled Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. He writes, quote, "I am a United States Army general, and I lost the Global War on Terrorism. It’s like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry."
AMY GOODMAN: In a piece published this week in The New York Times headlined "The Truth About [the] Wars," General Bolger called for a public inquiry, along the lines of the 9/11 Commission, to look into why the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone so poorly.
To find out more, we’re joined by General Daniel Bolger, served 35 years in the U.S. Army before retiring last year, commanded the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team in Iraq, 2005 to ’06; the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, 2009 to ’10; and the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan from 2011 to ’13. His military awards include five Bronze [Star] medals, including one for valor, and the Combat Action Badge.
We welcome you to Democracy Now!
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Thanks very much, Amy, Juan.
AMY GOODMAN: How did the U.S. lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: I think that the simplest way to say it is that we misapplied the forces of our armed forces. We didn’t use them in the way that they’re trained and prepared. You know, Senator, now Secretary, Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, like his brother, served together in the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam. His statement there is a very powerful. You’ve got to have a public debate before you commit American military forces. We did have that after 9/11, but it was very rushed. We had that again in 2002 before going into Iraq. We never continued the debate. The initial phases of both wars went successfully from a military standpoint, but we never followed it up by having a discussion: Is it appropriate to send thousands of young American men and women into foreign countries to go house to house and try to sort out who’s a terrorist, who’s a villager? That’s something we tried in Southeast Asia, and it didn’t work. And yet we repeated it once in Afghanistan and then again in Iraq. And that’s very disturbing, and I think that led directly to our failure in both campaigns.
AMY GOODMAN: The surge in Iraq?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: The surge in Iraq was a—the word is what it means: A surge is a temporary measure. And it was a temporary increase in troops. The best way I would sort of use an analogy is if a patient is ill and has a fever, you can give them a lot of aspirin and bring the temperature down, but when you stop giving the aspirin, the underlying fever is still there. So the surge in Iraq gave some temporary relief—and we did a surge in Afghanistan, as well, in 2009, '10, ’11—but it wasn't permanent, and it didn’t solve the underlying problem, which is to say that both countries have an insurgency, and the solution to those insurgencies, if there’s going to be a solution, rests in the hands of the Iraqis and the Afghans.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But the enormous amount not only of casualties that occurred on the U.S. side as well as the Iraqi side in the war, and then this enormous buildup of an Iraqi army trained by the United States that then essentially disintegrated with the rise of ISIS, how did that happen?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, we shouldn’t be surprised by that. The old Iraqi army—we had fought them twice, in '91 and 2003—they also disintegrated when we came into contact with them. ISIS had a similar experience. It takes many decades to build a decent army. And a few years of training, a couple days at the rifle range, some marching around is not going to do the trick. We've had experience building armies in other countries—I think particularly the South Koreans, who did not do all that well in the Korean War in 1950 to '53, but now have an army capable of defending their country and, in fact, going around the world and doing United Nations missions. South Korean troops served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and served with distinction. But that was an effort of decades. And it does not require hundreds of thousands of troops. It doesn't require fleets of jet bombers. It requires a small number of trainers and a long-term commitment to a solution that the people of that country, the Afghans and the Iraqis, want.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, you state in your book that the United States military is essentially not prepared to mount counterinsurgency wars. Conventional wars is one thing, but the counterinsurgencies is a whole other world. Could you expand on that?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: I could. I think our challenge is—we’re very good at conventional wars. In fact, we were so good at it that myself and other commanders thought, this time we’re going to fight Vietnam and get it right, because our quality young men and women, so brave, so tough, so well supported by the American people with equipment, training and their families—we thought this time we’re going to pull it off.
And we missed the fundamental strategic error of that thought, and it’s an error based in arrogance, hubris, whatever word you want to use. And that is, by their nature, when a country is having a problem with rebels or with insurgents, the solution must lie with the local people. The solution will be partially political in nature. There may be a violent component to it. There may be deals cut. But it’s not something that hundreds of thousands of American or Western troops can solve, no matter how well they’re trained at military skills. So I think we missed a fundamental strategic point there.
And I know I definitely blame myself. I am concerned about my own failings in that area, because I studied Vietnam in the Army War College and in the other Army schools. I knew what we had done wrong there. And in my arrogance, I made the error, along with many of my peers, of thinking, well, this time, because our troops are better, we might pull it off. It doesn’t change the fundamentals on the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: You have called a commission to look at the flaws of what happened—you’ve called for a kind of commission. In June, we spoke to Richard Clarke, the nation’s top former counterterrorism official. He said he believes George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He served as national coordinator for the security and counterterrorism during Bush’s first year in office. He resigned in 2003 following the Iraq invasion. This is a part of his response, whether George Bush should be held on war—should be tried for war crimes.
RICHARD CLARKE: I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing.
AMY GOODMAN: Richard Clarke went on to say that then President George Bush had wanted him to place the blame for 9/11 on Iraq.
RICHARD CLARKE: I resigned, quit the government altogether, testified before congressional committees and before the 9/11 Commission, wrote a book revealing what the Bush administration had and had not done to stop 9/11 and what they did after the fact, how the president wanted me, after the fact, to blame Iraq for the 9/11 attack.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Richard Clarke, former top terrorism—counterterrorism czar. Your response?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, I would tell you, I don’t know that war crimes or that is in order; I don’t have enough knowledge about those aspects. I will tell you, though, where Richard Clarke is on very firm ground is the seriousness and the importance of a public hearing as to what went wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
You know, if you go back to the Korean War, that I mentioned earlier, in 1951, there were major hearings. We called in MacArthur, who had been fired by that time, the general in the theater—he came and testified; Omar Bradley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dean Acheson, the secretary of state—pretty much everybody but President Truman testified in front of those congressional hearings. Senator Fulbright called similar hearings during the Vietnam War. And in that case, the field commander general, William Westmoreland, did come back and testify.
Where are those hearings on this war? Where is the similar event? People like Richard Clarke need to be called in so that they can explain fully what they know, and then it can be corroborated and put to the full light of day, so the American people then can say, through their elected representatives, "Hey, we think this is a good idea. We want you to stick with it and train these guys," or, "Hey, this has not worked out. Let’s do something different." But the key thing we need is a public hearing. The last public vote on war or peace in Iraq or Vietnam was in October of 2002 with the use of authorization for use of force for Iraq. Other than that, there’s just been the annual budgets. And despite a lot of rhetoric, every year that budget gets approved.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask about the whole issue that you raise not only of what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but how the branding of the war on terrorism has expanded to so many other countries, some of which Americans don’t know anything about. You mention that just the label, Operation Enduring Freedom, there was an OEF in CCA, in the Caribbean and Central America; OEF-HOA in the Horn of Africa; OEF-K in Kyrgyzstan; an OEF-P in the Philippines.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Yes.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Given the fact that so many Arab and Muslim countries have now been targeted for this expansion of our war on terrorism, how do you, as a general, as a military man, deal with this perception, growing perception, in the Arab and Muslim world that there is almost a civilizational battle—
AMY GOODMAN: Crusade.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —between the West and their region of the world?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: It’s obviously a great concern. And remember, we should not forget, when we speak of this as Americans, the primary victims so far of the war on terrorism in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaign have been the Iraqis and the Afghans. We’ve caused some of that. We didn’t mean to. I can tell you, we tried very hard to prevent civilian casualties, but when you use modern weapons, you can’t always be that careful, and especially when you’re trying to pick out an enemy who’s wearing civilian clothes. It’s just very difficult. The enemy has also inflicted casualties on their own populations, and these are civil wars, in many ways.
So, the primary victims of this war on terrorism numerically have been from the Arab and Muslim world. You would think there would be common cause, that we could get together and find some ground where we could agree on who is the enemy here and what to go after. And that’s where I think we’ve really had a challenge, because we don’t hold those meetings, either. We tend to—we tend to stay very focused on threats to the American homeland—I’m glad we are. I don’t want to see another 9/11 here or any attack like that. It’s horrific. But as a result, we end up in a lot of places with our intelligence entities and with our special forces chasing a lot of people.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have to be retired, General, to say something like this?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: No, and I’m glad you ask that, Amy. Believe it or not—and Secretary Hagel is a good example of that. When we close the doors and have a meeting in the military or with members of government—I met with Secretary of Defense Hagel; I’ve met with his predecessor, Secretary Panetta; his predecessor, Secretary Gates; his predecessor, Secretary Rumsfeld; you know, Secretaries Rice, Kerry, etc. You know, we get to have our say with all those people. And when the door is closed, we can be very honest about what we think or don’t think. But there is a tradition of civilian control of the military in the United States. And when the decision is made, you salute and carry out that decision. Once the door opens, that is the decision that you carry out to the best of your ability. And if you can’t carry it out, then you have to do like Richard Clarke and say, "OK, I can no longer work in this organization."
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Can you talk a little bit about your personal experiences as a commander when—particular incidents that really drove home to you the failures of our policies and of our efforts in those areas?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: When I was first there in 2005, in the spring of 2005, in Iraq, my duties involved going out with both U.S. and Iraqi forces. And I would go out into the villages, and it was very obvious, almost immediately, that as much as we’ve tried to develop intelligence and tried to figure out who’s who, you’re going into a village where the notification of the target individual you’re looking for says "40-plus-year-old male, name is Mohammed." Well, in a village of a thousand people, there’s 500 people who could answer to that description. And you’re trying to sort out, so you’re going into homes, you’re going into marketplaces, you’re going into schools, trying to figure out who’s the enemy. You don’t speak the language, so you’re working through your Iraqi counterparts in all this.
And it became painfully obvious to me that—that is, the armed forces of a superpower, if this is what we were reduced to, we were following the wrong policy. This was not a fight that we should be doing. And it’s a—I think it’s a very legitimate fight for the Iraqis to determine the future of their country, or the Afghans. We can help them, but they have to take the lead. And I believe when they take the lead, what we’ve seen is they use a much larger political component. They cut deals. They make arrangements. They bring people in. They don’t feel like they have to hunt down and kill everybody.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to a piece we did yesterday. Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro did this film, Body of War, about one young man, a veteran named Tomas Young—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: —who died this weekend. This clip goes to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner of 2005. It includes President Bush joking about the missing weapons of mass destruction. This is what it is.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Those weapons of mass destruction got to be somewhere. Nope, no weapons over there. Maybe under here.
AMY GOODMAN: There you have it. There you have it, President Obama at the White House—President Bush—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: President Bush.
AMY GOODMAN: —at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, joking in 2005, as thousands of U.S. soldiers were dying because the pretext was weapons of mass destruction, looking under the tables of his Oval Office, saying, "No weapons there, no weapons here."
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Yeah, well, I mean, that’s—you should never joke about serious business like that. That’s obviously some poor judgment on the part of the president to make light of that. But I—
AMY GOODMAN: But he’s expressing a profounder truth, as well, even if he is laughing about it.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: To a degree. And I think we need to remember that, you know, whatever we think about the going into Iraq, there were a series of votes in the U.S. Congress, going back to the early ’90s, and in the United Nations, that identified Saddam Hussein as a problem for multiple things. The chemical weapons program was one thing. The New York Times has recently, in a very good article, explained his residual program that did exist. I saw it when I was over there. There were both nerve gas and mustard gas rounds that were still there. They were not modern, they were not in great shape, but they were present, and the enemy did sometimes use them.
AMY GOODMAN: And that the U.S. helped to provide him with.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: During the '80s, yeah, when they were fighting the Iranians, helped to provide the technology, for sure. But with that in mind, the other things that Saddam Hussein had, you know, on his ledger that we shouldn't forget, tremendously dangerous to his neighboring countries, had invaded several of them, including Iran and Kuwait.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. supported him in—with his war in Iran.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, in Iran, yes, but certainly not in Kuwait. I mean, that was the reason for the first war against Iraq in ’90, ’91. But he had done that. He had obviously killed a large number of his own civilians, to include using chemical weapons against both Shia Arabs and Kurds. And it followed the Gulf War with a repressive campaign against the Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north. And then the other is a connection to terror and terror groups, that was not inconsequential. I mean, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who was later the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was already leading Ansar al-Sunna in northern Iraq in 2002, before we came in.
AMY GOODMAN: But this was Kurdistan, which the U.S. was supporting, the northern—northern Iraq.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, we had an arrangement with Kurdistan. But the other thing I would mention, Abu Abbas, the mastermind of Palestinian Liberation Front, the death of Leon Klinghoffer in 1985 aboard the cruise ship, Achille Lauro, he was a guest in Baghdad.
AMY GOODMAN: But President Bush saw that it didn’t fly to use other examples. The imminent threat to the United States, what they settled on, the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq, was weapons of mass destruction, because that could hurt people in the United States. And that proved to be a pretext and a lie. My question—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, I don’t agree that it’s a lie. I mean, that I can’t go with, because there were weapons over there. I think we misunderstood the scale of them. "Lie" would imply that the president or somebody knew there was nothing there and said, "Well, let’s say we do it anyway." And I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about Richard Clarke saying, right after 9/11, he bumps into Bush in the White House, and Bush says to him, "We’ve got to get Iraq," and he looks at him like, "What are you talking about? They have nothing to do with 9/11"?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Yeah, there were similar statements in Bob Woodward’s book, you know, Bush at War, where—same things, where—the initial question. Part of it was because Iraq was on our threat radar. What the United States knew about Afghanistan in 2001 was very minimal. We did know about Iraq, and we knew they were trouble.
AMY GOODMAN: Just last week, I went to Vienna, Austria, and I interviewed Robert Kelley —
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: —who is a former director of the IAEA for the Iraq Action Team—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN: —what is known as a U.N. weapons inspector. He expressed regret over the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying his team’s observations on the ground in Iraq went unheeded by U.S. officials.
ROBERT KELLEY: I feel very bad about what happened in 2003. It’s extremely embarrassing that the country ignored the people who were in Iraq making the observations and didn’t take us into account. And when the U.S. sent this team in, two months after the war or so, the leader of the team, after two months, quit. And his statement was: "We were all wrong. They had no weapons of mass destruction." Well, we weren’t all wrong. The people who were in the field were saying there’s nothing there.
AMY GOODMAN: That is Robert Kelley, former director at the IAEA for the Iraq Action Team, what we call a U.N. weapons inspector.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Saying they weren’t there.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: No, I mean, again, residual program was what existed, several—as The New York Times pointed out, several thousand rounds. We certainly saw the remainder of that. I mean, when I was in Baghdad, they were still removing yellow cake uranium leftovers from the Tuwaitha plant, the old Osirak plant that the Israelis had bombed in 1981. So there were pieces and parts. And intelligence work is never—is never complete. I think one of the things that we’ve certainly got to remember is the atmosphere of the time. I mean, one thing that interested me when I was researching the book we’re talking about here, the vote for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 was even more decisive than the one in January of ’91. And—
AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton supported it.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Among others, you know, John Edwards, you know, the current secretary of defense, as well.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Or secretary of state, rather.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to the next question, we’ve got to break, but we’re going to come back, and Juan’s got a question for you. Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger is our guest. His book is Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. He served 35 years in the U.S. Army before retiring in 2013. We’ll be back with him in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger. He has written a book called Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, served 35 years in the U.S. Army before retiring in 2013. Juan?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, General Bolger, I wanted to ask you about a couple of other strategic decisions of the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan: in Iraq, the decision early on not only to topple Saddam Hussein, but to basically purge all Baathists from the government and military, the result being basically a disintegration of governing structures in the entire country and now the virtual dismemberment of Iraq as a functioning state. And also, in Afghanistan, going in after al-Qaeda and ending up, for 10 years, fighting the Taliban—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Right, who had never attacked the United States.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Who had never attacked the United States. And could you talk about both of those?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: I will. In the case of Iraq, misunderstanding of the history of Iraq, the role of the Baathist Party, false analogies of what he had experienced going after the Nazis in occupied Germany or imperial Japan, going against the imperial government remnants in 1945—didn’t fully understand that the Baathists and the Sunni Arab population, a big overlap, and that those were all the technocrats, those were the educated folks, those were the people who not just ran the police, the military and the intelligence services, they also ran the power, the water, the education system, the hospitals. And so, when you go in and sign a blanket order and say, "Well, these people can have nothing to do with society," not only have you disenfranchised and essentially created the core of what will be the insurgency—the insurgency, by the way, that still provides a core of fighters for ISIS to this day—the other thing you’ve done is you’ve basically chopped out modern society for the rest of society that had depended on these guys to keep the lights on, to keep the roads clear, to keep all these other things done. Not well thought out, and as a result, very difficult to reverse. And one of the things—in this case, we were a victim of our own success. Sir John Keegan, the British military historian who recently passed away, he commented in his book on the Iraq War. He said, you know, we talk about disbanding the Iraqi army. The Iraqi army had already disbanded itself in the face of the U.S. invasion. So we would have not just had to, you know, kept these people in government; we would have had to call them back, make sure they—you know, figure out who was who. It would have been quite a process, and it was not something that we thought out at all.
And then you go to the other country, Afghanistan, you know, you correctly said, the people who attacked us on 9/11 were Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network. They were resident in Afghanistan, but the Taliban that ran Afghanistan, although a pretty unsavory group and trouble in their own right, their dealings and activities were all within their own country. They were not an international terrorist group. But to get to al-Qaeda, we felt like we had to go through the Taliban.
AMY GOODMAN: Fifteen of the 19 of them were from Saudi Arabia.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Very true, exactly right, because al-Qaeda, international terrorist group. And from an individual, Osama bin Laden himself, from Yemen, although a Saudi family, resident for a while in Sudan. He was an international businessman. His father was a very famous and well-known and wealthy construction contractor.
AMY GOODMAN: General Bolger, what if war was simply not an option? What if it was off the table?
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Well, I’ll tell you, Amy, that’s one thing that always needs to be brought up when we make discussions, decisions about should we go to war. There always needs to be a voice that says, "What if we just don’t do this?" And the military people sometimes have been that voice. You know, very controversial figure in the war, although I admire him a great deal, is General Colin Powell. He was that voice in the first Gulf War, based on his very difficult experiences in Vietnam. He had been an adviser to Vietnamese forces. He had been with the Americal Division at the time of the My Lai massacre. You know, he knew what he was doing. And he was the guy counseling the first Bush administration, saying, "Be careful about this. Think hard about this. Don’t go to—you know, do what you need to do." By the second war, he’s a voice crying in the desert, and nobody’s listening to him.
AMY GOODMAN: You rarely hear the questioning generals, people like you, when it comes to actually making the decision, in the media. You rarely hear them. You hear a lot of generals. You don’t know about their connections to military contractors and how they’ll benefit personally financially.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: I have none.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think there’s a problem with that? That if someone is in the military and is being interviewed, they should—you should hear, "They work for Boeing," "They work for Lockheed Martin."
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: I think that degree of transparency is important in our society. And I can tell you this, from any other line of work, they would certainly identify what the guy was doing for a living. I can tell you where I work: I work at North Carolina State University, and I’m an adjunct professor, and I enjoy teaching history to the men and women who go there.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole issue of the—we’ve seen off and on over the years the problems with the contracting of these wars, of the private contractors—
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Sure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —that come in and make huge killings off of the military, servicing the military, off of the presence of the military in these countries, that they, in essence, fuel political support for the war. And we’ve just got about 30 seconds.
LT. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER: Yeah, certainly, there’s that aspect. And I think, in a comprehensive look at the war, that’s got to be one of the things we look at. You know, why are these contractors there? Did we form our military incorrectly that we have to buy all these contracts to do the job?
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much. General Daniel Bolger has been our guest, lieutenant general, who has written the book Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. He served 35 years in the U.S. Army before retiring last year.
I’ll be speaking at Maplewood High School tomorrow night, Thursday night, at 7:30. Check our website. And on Saturday, I’ll be in Berlin, Germany, at Campact’s 10th anniversary. Go to democracynow.org.
|
The United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, have agreed on new target limits for greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Announcing the deal in China with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Obama said the United States will set a goal of reducing carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a doubling of current reduction efforts. China has also made its first-ever commitment to stop emissions from growing by 2030. We are joined by Jake Schmidt, director of the International Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The United States and China, the world’s two largest carbon polluters, have announced a joint plan to begin implementing limits on greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. President Obama announced the accord at a news conference in Beijing.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Today I can also announce that the United States has set a new goal of reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. This is an ambitious goal, but it is an achievable goal. It will double the pace at which we’re reducing carbon pollution in the United States. It puts us on a path to achieving the deep emissions reductions by advanced economies that the scientific community says is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s first-ever commitment to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.
PRESIDENT XI JINPING: [translated] We published a joint statement about dealing with climate change and together announced our individual action goals for after 2020. We have agreed to push forward international climate change talks at the 2015 United Nations climate change conference in Paris and to deepen practical cooperation in the fields of clean energy and environmental protection between our two countries.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the U.S.-China deal, we’re joined by Jake Schmidt, director of the International Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He’s joining us from Washington, D.C.
Jake Schmidt, your response to the deal? And first, lay out what it is.
JAKE SCHMIDT: Hi, Amy. Thanks for having me on. Well, the deal is an agreement between the two countries in terms of the next steps in their carbon cuts. So, as we go into the international agreement next year in Paris, countries are supposed to propose what they will do for the period after 2020. And this is these two countries stepping up and saying what their targets will be for that period. So, the U.S. has proposed to further strengthen their target by cutting them to 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, as President Obama outlined, and the Chinese have outlined that, for the first time, they are going to commit to have their CO2 emissions peak, which is a huge deal given their fast-growing economy.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, in terms of the statement by President Obama, to what degree is this largely symbolic, since obviously he would need some kind of congressional support or endorsement of such a policy?
JAKE SCHMIDT: Well, our assessment has looked at this, and we’ve come up with a very strong conclusion, which is that this can actually be achieved under the existing law. Congress has passed the Clean Air Act. Congress has given them the authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And we expect that this kind of target can be met without having to go back to Congress for new legislation. Clearly, we have to ensure that Congress doesn’t try to stop that, but the president does have the power to veto those, and we expect that this and future administrations will clearly send that signal, that any efforts to try to roll back these landmark agreements will be undercut.
AMY GOODMAN: After the deal was announced, Senate Minority Leader—who could me majority leader—Mitch McConnell said, quote, "Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners. This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs." Jake Schmidt, your response?
JAKE SCHMIDT: Well, we’ve proven time and time again that you can grow the American economy and not—and solve environmental challenges. We’re having a booming wind and solar market that’s creating jobs in the United States. People are installing energy-efficient windows and light bulbs and insulation throughout the U.S. So, we’re confident that as America continues to invest in these clean energy solutions, that it won’t drive the economy into bankruptcy, as some claim. In fact, the opposite has been proven over the past decades, where we’ve been proven that, you know, the reality is that America can grow and can still solve our environmental challenges.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jake, one question about the Chinese commitment. They’re talking about producing 20 percent of all of China’s energy needs by 2030 from nonfossil fuel energy. How big a deal is that, and what would it take for the Chinese government to be able to accomplish that?
JAKE SCHMIDT: They’re about halfway to that goal now, which is a huge challenge as they go forward. They have clearly broken almost every record that’s been ever set in terms of wind and solar deployment. So the Chinese have proven that they can actually deploy these clean energy solutions. And they’ll just have to double down on it. But the reality is, is that China builds out sort of its next branch of energy infrastructure—the cost of wind and solar and energy efficiency is much more cost-competitive with things like coal. And given—excuse me—given the challenging air pollution in China, it’s quite clear that they cannot continue to rely on coal, because that’s just having a devastating impact on their own citizens.
AMY GOODMAN: Last year, the Climate Desk compiled a video of Republican lawmakers talking about China and climate change.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER: We can’t do it alone as one nation.
SEN. JAMES INHOFE: Problem is in China, the problem is in Mexico, the problem is in India.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER: If we got India, China and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we’re going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: China made the comment that they will not be engaging in a cap-and-trade system.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO: There are other countries that are polluting in the atmosphere much greater than we are at this point. China, India, they’re not going to stop doing what they’re doing.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: They won’t be engaging and reducing their own emissions.
SEN. JIM DEMINT: This motion, what it does, it would prevent Congress from passing any law with new mandates on greenhouse gas emissions, unless both China and India had the same mandates.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO: America is a country, it’s not a planet.
SEN. DAVID VITTER: If countries like China and India and Russia aren’t part of a carbon reduction global program, that it does not matter what we do.
SEN. JIM DEMINT: And it makes no sense if we don’t require the major—the industrial countries like China and India to do the same thing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Jim DeMint, that last voice, now the head of Heritage Foundation. Jake Schmidt, your final comment, since China is now at the table?
JAKE SCHMIDT: Well, for almost two decades, we’ve heard from the opposition that they want other countries like China to also be engaged in this battle. And this is a clear sign that China is going to engage in that. They have made a commitment to peak their CO2 emissions, and they’ve done it as a part of an international agreement, or they will next year. So this is, I think, a huge shift in the political debate in the U.S. But clearly, we expect that the opposition will continue to trot out these lines as we go forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Jake Schmidt, we want to thank you for being with us, director of the International Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. And you are with Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
|
In a strong statement in favor of a free and open Internet, President Obama has called on the Federal Communications Commission to uphold the principle of net neutrality by classifying the Internet as a public utility. Obama said such protections would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast from blocking access to websites, slowing down content or providing paid fast lanes for Internet service. Obama’s proposal comes as his appointed FCC chair, Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cellphone and cable industries, is considering breaking with the president on net neutrality. According to The Washington Post, Wheeler met with officials from Google, Yahoo and Etsy on Monday and told them he preferred a more nuanced solution. Wheeler reportedly said: "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business. What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby." On Monday, protesters called on Wheeler to favor net neutrality as they blockaded his driveway when he attempted to go to work. Protests also took place in a dozen cities last week after The Wall Street Journal reported the FCC is considering a "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. This would apply expanded protections only to the relationship between Internet providers and content firms, like Netflix, and not to the relationship between providers and users. We discuss the ongoing debate over the Internet’s future with Steven Renderos of the Center for Media Justice.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As President Obama attends trade talks in China, he used a video message on Monday to issue a strong statement in favor of a free and open Internet. He called for the Federal Communications Commission to uphold the principle of net neutrality by classifying the Internet as a public utility. Obama said such protections would prevent Internet service providers like Comcast from blocking access to websites, slowing down content or providing paid fast lanes for Internet service.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Cable companies can’t decide which online stores you can shop at or which streaming services you can use. And they can’t let any company pay for priority over its competitors. To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassify Internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act. In plain English, I’m asking them to recognize that for most Americans the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life. The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is theirs alone, but the public has already commented nearly four million times.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: President Obama’s proposal comes as his appointed FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cellphone and cable industries, is considering breaking with the president on net neutrality. According to The Washington Post, Wheeler met with officials from Google, Yahoo, Etsy on Monday and told them he preferred a more nuanced solution. Wheeler reportedly said, quote, "What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business. What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby." On Monday, protesters called on Wheeler to favor net neutrality as they blockaded his driveway when he attempted to go to work.
PROTESTER: I’m sorry, but we can’t let you go to work today, because you work for Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, and not for the people. And so, we can’t let you go there, because you’re selling us out on Internet neutrality, and that’s not OK with us. So, we want to know which side you’re on, Tom.
AMY GOODMAN: Protests also took place in a dozen cities last week after The Wall Street Journal reported the FCC is considering a so-called "hybrid" approach to net neutrality. This would apply expanded protections only to the relationship between Internet providers and content firms, like Netflix, and not to the relationship between providers and users.
For more on the latest developments in the debate over the Internet’s future, we’re joined by Steven Renderos of the Center for Media Justice. As the Center’s national organizer, he helped arrange two hearings with FCC Chair Tom Wheeler earlier this year. Renderos is also part of a network of 175 social justice organizations from around the country called Media Action Grassroots Network, or MAG-Net.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
STEVEN RENDEROS: Thank you for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: First start by talking about the significance of what President Obama said.
STEVEN RENDEROS: It’s significant in the sense that what President Obama said was really basically agree on all the points that we’ve been making around net neutrality, the things that we actually agree to in regards to net neutrality, meaning that there should be no blocking or discrimination, meaning that Comcast can’t block the certain websites that I want to visit, that there shouldn’t be fast lanes and slow lanes, no paid prioritization schemes that allow websites to pay for faster access to consumers. And most importantly for us, he talked about applying these rules also to mobile broadband, which is where we know that a lot of, you know, users of color tend to access the Internet, through their cellphone devices; and in addition to that, also said that the way to do it is by reclassifying the Internet as a Title II broadband telecommunications service, essentially treating it like a utility, which is, for most of us, what it is today.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Steve, within hours of President Obama making the announcement earlier this week, my inbox at the New York Daily News was literally flooded by opposition candidates from industry and other conservative groups who basically portrayed this as a catastrophe for business and for innovation on the Internet in America. How important is this battle going to be now over the next few weeks on this issue of what the FCC decides?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Critically important. I mean, some of the indications that we’ve gotten from Chairman Tom Wheeler is that he’d like to delay the vote now. When he first came into office about a year ago into his position at the FCC—
AMY GOODMAN: He may not have a choice, if they keep blockading his driveway.
STEVEN RENDEROS: Absolutely. He might not even be able to get to the FCC. But he talked about wanting to get these rules done efficiently and quickly, using a different set of authorities under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. But now all of a sudden that the president has laid it out fairly clearly what the roadmap is, now all of a sudden he wants to step back and delay, which is unfortunate. Obviously, like shortly after President Obama’s statement, Senator Ted Cruz came out with his tweet, which is ironic, given that it’s because of an open Internet that Senator Ted Cruz has like a platform like Twitter to be able to share his misguided interpretations of what Obama is saying. But it also provides a platform for other voices to be heard.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And this whole issue of the government interfering with free enterprise over the Internet, doesn’t it somehow distort the historical record of how the Internet initially was created and the backbone of the Internet, which was largely built as a result of government financing?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Certainly. If you want to maintain innovation, maintain a place where the Internet is an economic driving engine for us and all of our communities throughout the United States, you want to maintain net neutrality. That’s all it’s really doing, is basically keeping in place what we’ve had with the Internet since its inception, how we’ve experienced the Internet since its inception. It’s not about protecting Google or Facebook. It’s really about providing the conditions for the next Google and Facebook to exist.
AMY GOODMAN: And just to clarify, the Ted Cruz tweet: "'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet: the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure, which means absolutely nothing. It’s great political theater. But again, it’s because of an open Internet that Senator Ted Cruz has a platform like that. But it’s also because of an open Internet that we have platforms to hear about what’s happening in Ayotzinapa in Mexico. It’s because of an open Internet that we get to hear about what’s happening in Ferguson—all of these political moments much more significant because people have a platform to actually share their stories.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain what you mean by that, because for people who aren’t familiar with this whole debate, why wouldn’t they be able to know what’s happening in Ferguson with a, quote, "hybrid" model? Why wouldn’t they know what’s happening in Mexico?
STEVEN RENDEROS: If you think about the foundational principles of the Internet, which is very different to the rest of our media system, you know, users are both consumers and producers of information. There’s no distinction. So, you know, I can create a blog. I can start a Twitter stream. I can start, you know, a Tumblr, like a lot of black trans women of color do. They use Tumblr to, you know, shape their stories, shape their representations, because the mainstream media doesn’t really reflect their lived experiences. On the Internet, there is no distinction, and so we are both consumers and producers of information, meaning that we can control and shape our own narratives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, one of the things that Wheeler initially tried to do was make a distinction between preserving net neutrality on broadband or through cable services, for example, and—but not necessarily in terms of mobile net. But recent reports have shown that the problems of telephone companies and mobile companies also slowing down content has grown. Can you talk about that, as well?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure. I mean, the first thing to really think about is who’s on mobile? Sixty percent of Latinos primarily use their cellphones to access the Internet. Forty-three percent of African Americans use the Internet [sic] to primarily access the Internet.
AMY GOODMAN: The phone.
STEVEN RENDEROS: So that’s who we’re talking about. Yeah, through their cellphone. So, that’s who we’re talking about. That’s who needs to be protected. Part of the fallacy of the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules was that it completely left wireless unprotected. But the reality is, for the Internet user, like my mom, for example, when she’s accessing Facebook through her cellphone, that is the Internet to her. So it doesn’t matter; there’s no distinction between accessing it through a computer or through a cellphone for the user. It’s the Internet.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And some of the recent examples that were reported on in terms of cellphone providers impinging on net neutrality?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Sure. We’ve seen examples in which AT&T, for example, blocked the FaceTime app on the iPhone. We’ve seen examples, actually, shortly after 2010, the 2010 FCC net neutrality rules, MetroPCS coming out with a tiered data plan that—where you pay $40, and you get access to certain websites; you pay $10 more, and you get access to more websites—which is essentially just taking the cable model and applying it to the Internet.
AMY GOODMAN: A series of public hearings have been held to draw attention to support for net neutrality, including one in Brooklyn last month. Among those who testified was Cayden Mak, technical director of 18 Million Rising.
CAYDEN MAK: I am 100 percent serious when I say I come from the Internet. The Internet raised me. The Internet saved my life. Have you ever been young and queer and brown in the great American suburb? Because I have. It takes its toll. Not all of us make it out—of the closet, of the subdivision, of our teenage years. Man, I am almost 28 years old, and it’s been a decade since I lived there, and I am still healing those wounds.
An open Internet isn’t just a matter of survival. It’s a matter of opening us to the possibility of magic, not just magic in an Arthur C. Clarke sense that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but magic in the sense that we’re open to the encounter that will change us. The Internet gave me my first chosen family. It wasn’t just about ego tripping that there were these college kids on this message board who wanted to talk to me about ideas. It was about the moment of mutual recognition. It was a series of encounters that changed everything. The foggy predetermined procession of days snapped into focus. There, a route of escape that was not forfeit or death, a word for how I felt, concepts that described what I saw, other people who made it out alive. That’s how I know an open Internet is about making magic. I’ve seen it happen. I am living proof that when you have an open network that empowers the least among us to become creators just as much as the rich and powerful, we are literally saving lives.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Cayden Mak, technical director of 18 Million Rising. Your response, Steve?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Online groups, like 18 Million Rising, Presente.org, Color of Change, would not exist were it not for an open Internet. And we need those spaces for—you know, for Asian Americans, for black and Latinos to have a space to actually shape and be part of the political system in a very significant way, and the open Internet provides that for us.
AMY GOODMAN: Tom Wheeler is the former head of the NCTA, right, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association—
STEVEN RENDEROS: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —which is now headed by Michael Powell, who is the former head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, so they just switched places.
STEVEN RENDEROS: Talk about the revolving door. There’s no better example than that.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet President Obama appointed him.
STEVEN RENDEROS: Absolutely. And I think it will be an interesting moment now to see what Tom Wheeler chooses to do. There was a recent Washington Post article that I think Juan alluded to, where Tom Wheeler is making—you know, separating himself, saying, "We’re an independent agency. We’re going to do our own thing." And there’s some real—he called President Obama’s approach to net neutrality "naive" and "simplistic." It could be "naive" and "simplistic." And what’s naive and simplistic is to really consider that four million people have, you know, commented on this issue, the most ever at the FCC, and to not really take those voices into account, 99 percent of which were in support of net neutrality.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Steve, I’d like to ask you about a touchy question, because President Obama, in taking this stand, is not only going against the cable industry and the telecommunications industry, he’s also going against many of the major civil rights organizations in the country, who have been remarkably AWOL, some of them, on this issue of net neutrality or have actually been supporting the cable companies and the telecommunication companies, which always provide their conferences and their conventions and their programs major funding. Can you talk about this internal battle in the civil rights community over the issue of net neutrality?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Certainly. It’s unfortunate to see that a lot of the legacy civil rights organizations have taken this kind of position when it comes to such a critical, important issue in today’s day. You know, Rashad Robinson from Color of Change oftentimes compares net neutrality to the Voting Rights Act from the '60s. So I think it's very unfortunate that that’s the reality today. However, there’s a whole online community of people of color, of queer, trans, other communities that really stake out their voices through an online—through an open net. So, yes, the legacy civil rights organizations are not with us on this issue, but there are new civil rights organizations, like Color of Change, Presente.org, 18 Million Rising, that really present where we really should be at.
AMY GOODMAN: And the number of people who responded online to the FCC around an open Internet? Was it—
STEVEN RENDEROS: Four million.
AMY GOODMAN: Four million people. And the percentage of those who support an open Internet, not the so-called "hybrid" model that Wheeler is putting forward?
STEVEN RENDEROS: Ninety-nine percent. And what’s interesting is four million people, and that’s the most that the FCC has ever received on any issue. This is including Janet Jackson’s Super Bowlgate. So, you know, it’s pretty significant.
AMY GOODMAN: Steven Renderos, I want to thank you for being with us, with the Center for Media Justice. He is the national organizer.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a three-star lieutenant general says the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost. Stay with us.
|
U.S., China Reach Deal for New Targets on Capping Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, have agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. President Obama unveiled the deal at a news conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
President Obama: "Today I can also announce that the United States has set a new goal of reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. This is an ambitious goal, but it is an achievable goal. It will double the pace at which we’re reducing carbon pollution in the United States. It puts us on a path to achieving the deep emissions reductions by advanced economies that the scientific community says is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change."
China has also made its first-ever commitment to stop emissions from growing by 2030. The agreement was negotiated in secret over nine months.
U.N.: Funding Shortfall Threatens Up to 1 Million Refugees in Iraq, Syria
The United Nations has issued a new warning over the plight of refugees displaced by war in Syria and Iraq. On Tuesday, U.N. spokesperson Melissa Fleming warned that a funding shortfall threatens up to a million people as winter looms.
Melissa Fleming: "We are very concerned by an over $58 million funding shortfall that could leave as many as one million people without proper help. This is partly due to this sharp increase of internal displacement that we have witnessed in Iraq."
Close to 13.6 million people have been displaced by the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The U.N. World Food Program has cut rations for 4.25 million people, and more cuts could be on the way.
U.S. Drone Strikes Kill 4 in Pakistan, 7 in Yemen
A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan has killed at least four people. The victims were described as suspected militants in the North Waziristan tribal district. Meanwhile, at least seven people have died in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. The Yemeni military claims those killed were on their way to carry out an attack.
Israeli Settlers Torch West Bank Mosque; Soldiers Kill Palestinian Demonstrator
Israeli settlers have set a Palestinian mosque on fire amidst worsening unrest in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The torching of the mosque near the West Bank city of Ramallah follows separate Palestinian knife attacks that killed an Israeli settler and an Israeli soldier. On Tuesday, Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian man in the West Bank after a crowd of protesters threw stones and fuel bombs. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhahu is vowing to crush renewed Palestinian protests, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Netanyahu of seeking to ignite a "religious war." The latest round of tensions escalated following new Israeli settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem and an attempt by extremist Israelis to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Mexican Protesters Burn Political Party Building in Massacre Uproar
Outrage continues in Mexico over the apparent massacre of 43 students by police and a drug gang in the southern state of Guerrero. On Tuesday, protesters in Guerrero set ablaze the ruling political party’s state headquarters. Riot police clashed with masked demonstrators who threw stones and firebombs and briefly kidnapped a police commander.
Missouri Gov. Threatens to Deploy National Guard After Grand Jury Decision
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon says he is prepared to redeploy the National Guard after a grand jury reaches its decision in the Michael Brown case. On Tuesday, Nixon said Guard members will be on standby should protests erupt.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon: "Officers from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, St. Louis County Police and St. Louis City Police will operate as a unified command to protect the public. The National Guard has been and will continue to be part of our contingency planning. The Guard will be available when we determine it is necessary to support local law enforcement. Quite simply, we must and will be fully prepared."
According to Nixon, more than 1,000 officers have recently undergone some 5,000 hours in training on crowd control. The deployment of the National Guard in the protests that followed Brown’s killing in August helped fuel criticism of the state’s militarized crackdown. Leaks in the case have suggested Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Brown, will not be indicted. Prosecutors say they expect a grand jury decision later this month.
Michael Brown’s Parents Appeal to U.N. Panel on Torture
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s announcement on the National Guard comes as Michael Brown’s parents have taken their case to the United Nations in Geneva. Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden have been accompanied by a group of Ferguson activists to testify before the United Nations Committee Against Torture. On Tuesday, they asked the committee to end discriminatory U.S. policing tactics, including racial profiling, and investigate the targeting of communities of color.
NYC Doctor Released from Hospital After Beating Ebola
The New York City doctor who contracted Ebola after treating patients in West Africa has been released from the hospital after being declared Ebola-free. Dr. Craig Spencer was the city’s first and only known Ebola case. In a news conference upon his release, Spencer said his early detection proves the effectiveness of existing safety protocols. He also urged support for public health workers volunteering in West Africa.
Dr. Craig Spencer: "My early detection, reporting and now recovery from Ebola speaks to the effectiveness of the protocols that are in place for health staff returning from West Africa. I am a living example of how those protocols work and of how early detection is critical to both surviving Ebola and ensuring that it is not transmitted to others. Please join me in turning our attention back to West Africa and ensuring that medical volunteers and other aid workers do not face stigma and threats upon their return home. Volunteers need to be supported to help fight this outbreak at its source."
Spencer was diagnosed last month after having taken the subway and visiting a bowling alley, sparking initial alarm. With his recovery, there are now no known cases of Ebola inside the United States. Meanwhile, nurses across the country are holding rallies and strikes today to protest what they call the inadequate protection of health workers treating patients hospitalized over Ebola. National Nurses United says hospitals still lack proper equipment and protocols weeks after a pair of nurses contracted the disease at a Dallas hospital.
____________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment