alternet--2020-12-09--How two former service members became critics of American forever wars and the military machine

If you have a moment , how about joining two retired officers , Bill Astore and me , Danny Sjursen , as we think about this country 's catastrophic forever wars that , regardless of their deadly costs and lack of progress , never seem quite to end ?
Recently , in a podcast chat about our very different but somehow twin journeys through those wars , he and I got to thinking about what might have happened if our paths had crossed so much earlier .
Both of us , after all , have been writing for TomDispatch for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , thinking about his post-military writing career , `` You know , Danny , in my small way I was trying -- and failing -- to stop the wars you were heading into . ''
Now that 's an interesting , if disturbing , thought .
But Bill , what would you have said to Lieutenant Danny ( that was me once upon a time ! )
and how might he have responded then ?
Who could know now , of course ?
Still , here 's our retrospective attempt to sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we track about 15 years ' worth of this country 's unending wars .
The Frankenstein and Star Trek Years of American War Bill : When you were graduating from West Point in 2005 and shining your lieutenant 's bars , Danny , I was putting my uniform away after 20 years in the Air Force and driving to Pennsylvania for a new career as a history professor .
I thought I 'd teach and maybe write a book or two .
I never pictured myself as a dissenter , and I 'd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were in .
The one time I was interviewed about them , in 2005 when I was still the military dean of students at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey , I remember saying that I preferred our troops use words rather than rifle butts to communicate with the Afghans and Iraqis .
Of course , we had so few troops who spoke Arabic or Pashto or Dari that we leaned on our rifles instead , which meant lots of dead and alienated people in both countries .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly disgusted by the way the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was hiding behind the bemedaled chest of Iraq commander General David Petraeus .
Our civilian commander-in-chief , George W. , was avoiding responsibility for the disastrous Iraq War by sending Petraeus , then known as the `` surge '' general , before Congress to testify that some sort of victory was still possible , even as he hedged his talk of progress with words like `` fragile '' and `` reversible . ''
So I got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that argued we needed to end the Iraq War and our folly of `` spilling blood and treasure with such reckless abandon . ''
I submitted it to newspapers like the New York Times with no success .
Fortunately , a friend told me about TomDispatch , where Tom Engelhardt had been publishing critical articles by retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich .
Luckily for me , Tom liked my piece and published it as `` Saving the Military from Itself '' in October of that same year .
That article put me on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars , even if I was n't so much antiwar as anti-dumb-war then .
As I asked at the time , how do you win someone else 's civil war ?
Being a Star Trek fan , I referred to the Kobayashi Maru , a `` no-win '' scenario introduced in the second Star Trek movie .
I saw our troops , young lieutenants like yourself in Iraq , being stuck in a no-win situation and I was already convinced that , no matter how much Petraeus talked about `` metrics '' and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to happen , that `` winning '' really meant leaving , and we have n't won yet since , god help us , we 're still there .
Of course , the so-called surge in Iraq back then did what it was actually meant to do .
It provided an illusion of progress and stability even while proving just as fragile and reversible as the weaselly Petraeus said it would be .
Worse yet , the myth of that Iraqi surge would lead disastrously to the Afghan version of the same under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petraeus who would prove to be a general for all presidents .
Lucky you !
You were on the ground in both surges , were n't you ?
Danny : I sure was !
Believe it or not , a colonel once told me I was lucky to have done `` line duty '' in both of them -- platoon and company command , Iraq and Afghanistan , Baghdad and Kandahar .
To be honest , Bill , I knew something was fishy even before you retired or I graduated from West Point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , it 's funny that you should mention Bacevich .
I was first introduced to his work in the winter of 2004 as a West Point senior by then-Lieutenant Colonel Ty Seidule .
Back then , for a guy like me , Bacevich had what could only be called bracing antiwar views ( a wink-nod to your Bracing Views blog , Bill ) for a classroom of burgeoning neocons just about certain to head for Iraq .
Frankly , most of us could n't wait to go .
And we would n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The first of our classmates to die , Emily Perez , was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb in September 2006 within 18 months of graduation ( and five more were to die in the years to come ) .
I took a scout platoon to southeast Baghdad a month later and we did n't leave -- most of us , that is -- for 15 months .
My partly Bacevich-bred sneaking suspicions about America 's no-longer distant wars were , of course , all confirmed .
It turned out that policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own country 's making , while dodging counter-counterinsurgent attacks aimed at expelling us occupiers from that country was as tough as stateside invasion opponents had predicted .
On lonely outpost mornings , I had a nasty daily habit of reading the names of our announced dead .
Midway through my tour , one of those countless attacks killed 1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich .
When I saw that name , I realized instantly that he must be the son of the man whose book I had read two years earlier , the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment remains painfully crystal clear in my memory .
By the way , Bill , your Iraq War take was dead on .
During my own tour there , I came to the same realization .
Embarrassingly enough , though , it took me seven years to say the same things publicly in my first book , fittingly subtitled `` The Myth of the Surge . ''
By then , of course , ISIS -- the Frankenstein 's monster of America 's misadventure -- was already streaming across Syria 's synthetic borders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which made an anti-Iraq War screed seem quaint indeed , at least in establishment circles .
But Bill , do go on .
Bill : It was also back in 2007 when something John McCain said on PBS really ticked me off .
In essence , he warned that if the U.S. military lost in Iraq , it would n't be the generals ' fault .
No , it would be ours , those of us who had questioned the war and its conduct and so had broken faith with that very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece at TomDispatch with the sarcastic title , `` If We Lose Iraq , You 're to Blame , '' because I already found such `` stab-in-the-back '' lies pernicious beyond words .
As Andy Bacevich noted recently when it came to such lies about an earlier American military disaster : we did n't lose the Vietnam War in 1975 when Saigon fell , we lost it in 1965 when President Johnson committed American troops to winning a civil war that South Vietnam had already lost .
Something similar is true for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We wo n't lose those conflicts when we finally pull all U.S. troops out and the situation goes south ( as it most likely will ) .
No , we lost the Afghan War in 2002 when we decided to turn a strike against the Taliban and al-Qaeda into an occupation of that country ; and we lost the Iraq War the moment we invaded in 2003 and found none of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush and his top officials had sworn were there .
Those were wars of choice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only `` win '' them by finally choosing to end them .
We lose them -- and maybe our democracy as well -- by choosing to keep on waging them in the false cause of `` stability '' or `` counterterrorism , '' or you-name-it .
Early in 2009 , I had an epiphany of sorts while walking around a cemetery .
With those constant deployments to Iraq , Afghanistan , and dozens of other countries globally , the U.S. military , I thought , was becoming a foreign legion , almost like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , increasingly separated from the people , and increasingly recruited from `` foreign '' elements , including recent immigrants to this country looking for a fast-track to citizenship .
Danny : Bill , one of my own soldiers fit the mold you just mentioned .
Private First Class Gustavo Rios-Ordonez , a married father of two and a Colombian national .
Partly seeking citizenship through service , he was the last trooper to join my command just before we shipped out and the first killed when , on June 20 , 2011 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within sight of the Afghan outpost I then commanded .
Typing this now , I stare at a framed dusty unit guidon , the pennant that once flew over that isolated sandbagged base of ours and was gifted to me by my soldiers .
Bill : So I wrote an article that asked if our military was morphing into an imperial police force .
As I put it then : `` Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands ; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the elites that profit most from its actions , yet serve the least in its ranks . ''
And I added , `` Now would be a good time to ask exactly why , and for whom , our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan . ''
A few people torched me for writing that .
They thought I was saying that the troops themselves were somehow foreign , that I was attacking the rank-and-file , but my intent was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military for their own purposes and agendas and all the other Americans who were acquiescing in the misuse of our troops .
It 's a strange dynamic in this country , the way we 're cajoled into supporting our troops without ourselves having to serve or even pay attention to what they 're doing .
Indeed , under George W. Bush , we were even discouraged from commemorating the honored dead , denied seeing footage of returning flag-draped caskets .
We were to celebrate our troops , while they ( especially the dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sight -- literally behind curtains , by Bush administration order -- and so mostly out of mind .
I was against the Afghan surge , Danny , because I knew it would be both futile and unsustainable .
In arguing that case , I reached back to the writings of two outspoken opponents of the Vietnam War , Norman Mailer and Mary McCarthy .
As President Obama deliberated on whether to surge or not , I suggested that he should confer with broadminded critics outside the government , tough-minded freethinkers cut from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , had argued that the Vietnamese were `` faceless '' to Americans ( just as the Iraqis and Afghans have been all these years ) , that we knew little about them as a people and cared even less .
He saw American intervention in `` heart of darkness '' terms .
McCarthy was even blunter , condemning as `` wicked '' the government 's technocentric and hegemonic form of warfare with its `` absolute indifference to the cost in human lives . ''
Predictably , Obama listened to conventional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Stanley McChrystal and then , of course , under Petraeus .
Danny : Well , Bill , paltry as it may now sound , I truly thank you for your post-service service to sensibility and decency -- even if those efforts did n't quite spare me the displeasure of a second stint in a second theater with Petraeus as my supreme commander for a second time .
By the way , I ran into King David ( as he came to be known ) last year in a long line for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I 've been tearing the guy 's philosophy and policies up for years .
Still , I decided decorum mattered , so I introduced myself and mentioned that we 'd met once at a Baghdad base in 2007 .
But before I could even kid him about how his staff had insisted that we stock ample kiwi slices because he loved to devour them , Petraeus suddenly walked off without even making it to the stall !
I found it confusing behavior until I glimpsed myself in the mirror and remembered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Against the War '' t-shirt .
Okay , here 's a more instructive anecdote : Have I ever mentioned to you that my Afghan outpost , `` Pashmul South '' as it was then known , featured prominently in the late journalist Michael Hasting 's classic book , The Operators ( which inspired the Netflix original movie War Machine ) ?
At one point , Hastings describes how Petraeus 's predecessor in Afghanistan , Stanley McChrystal , visited an isolated base full of war-weary and war-exasperated infantrymen .
In one of the resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 original members had `` been killed , wounded , or lost their minds . ''
And yes , that was the `` palace '' I took over a couple of years later , an outpost the Taliban was then attacking almost daily .
By the time I took up the cause of `` Enduring Freedom '' ( as the Afghan operation had been dubbed by the Pentagon ) , I had already resigned myself to being one of those foreign legionnaires you 've talked about , if not an outright mercenary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for pay , healthcare , a future West Point faculty slot , and lack of a better alternative ( or alternate identity ) .
My principles then were simple enough : patrol as little as possible , kill as few locals as you can , and make sure that one day you 'll walk ( as many of my scouts literally did ) out of that valley called Arghandab .
I was in a dark headspace then .
I did n't believe a damn thing my own side said , held out not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and could n't even be bothered to hate my `` enemy . ''
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks , staff officers at brigade headquarters sent a Reuters reporter deep into the boonies to profile the only commander around from the New York City area and I told him just what I thought , or close enough in any case .
Suffice it to say that my colonels were less than pleased when Captain Sjursen was quoted as saying that `` the war was anything but personal '' and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' or when he described the Taliban this way : `` It 's farm-boys picking up guns .
How do you hate that ? ''
Rereading that article now , I feel a certain sadness for that long-gone self of mine , so lost in fatalism , hopelessness , and near-nihilism .
Then I catch myself and think : imagine how the Afghans felt , especially since they did n't have a distant home to scurry off to sooner or later .
Anyway , I never forgot that it was Obama -- from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- who ordered my troops on that even more absurd Afghan surge to nowhere ( and I 'm not sure I 've forgiven him either ) .
Still , if there was a silver lining in all that senselessness , perhaps it was that such a bipartisan betrayal widened both the breadth and depth of my future dissent .
Bill : Speaking of surges , Danny , even the word is a military misnomer .
It 's dishonest .
Real generals advance and retreat .
They reinforce .
They win ( or lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lines move on maps .
Foes are beaten and surrender .
None of this happens with a `` surge . ''
Our generals just added more troops to exert temporary control over an area in what was nothing more than a fallacious face-saving gesture .
A mask .
A conceit .
All those surges did was sustain a losing cause and reinforce failure .
Consider them a fundamental mistake of military strategy , like throwing good money after bad or doubling down on a losing hand .
Why did n't they listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iraq and Afghan surges and end those wars ?
And now that , with other retired military types , we 're both in the Eisenhower Media Network ( EMN ) you organized , continuing to speak out against the twenty-first-century American way of making war , why do they still not listen to us ?
I fear that the answer 's simple enough : they have a trillion reasons not to .
After all , roughly a trillion-plus dollars is spent each year on the Pentagon , on so-called homeland security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance , on buying weaponry and then more of the same after that .
Why wo n't they listen to us ?
We threaten their bottom line , their profits .
And why should we get invites to CNN and MSNBC and other mainstream media sites when they already have Pentagon cheerleaders on their staffs and retired senior officers who spout the party line , as journalist David Barstow revealed in his Pulitzer-award-winning series ?
We are n't really in EMN , Danny , we 're in the IMF , the impossible missions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the 1930s that were quite blunt about how to end war : get the profit motive out of it .
That was when the standing U.S. military was fairly small and Americans were skeptical of weapons makers , the `` merchants of death '' as they were so rightly called back then .
Almost a century later , we 're the leading merchant of death , the country that arms the world .
Domestically , we 're awash in weaponry , with a gun for every American and a mini-tank for every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creeping militarism , this degradation of our democracy , but with little success .
So welcome to the IMF from the classic TV show Mission Impossible .
Unless we smarten up and end these perpetual wars , this democracy will self-destruct in five seconds .
The odds are long , but it 's a mission we just have to accept .
Danny : I could n't agree more , Bill .
The militarism problem is cyclical and systemic with a backstory that 's sure to ping our shared historian 's radar .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks I made at legendary antiwar vet Smedley Butler 's graveside ( the former major general I wrote about at TomDispatch in February ) .
Highlighting his prophetic aspect , I noted that the two-time Medal of Honor-recipient had diagnosed core components of the military-industrial complex a quarter of a century before our new organization 's namesake , former president Dwight D. Eisenhower , coined the term in his Cassandra-like 1961 farewell address .
If that is n't proof our forever-war problems are systemic rather than discrete , I do n't know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was occasioned by the 19th anniversary of our absurd Afghan War , the conflict you could n't singlehandedly stop in time to save me from a second surge excursion .
Anyway , do n't beat yourself up about that , Bill .
Like you said , the war-state beast is humongous and our buddy Bacevich has been beating this drum since you were still wearing Air Force blue .
Under the circumstances and in these pandemic times , what could be more appropriate than a buck-up from that ever-cheery French novelist of plagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle itself ... is enough to fill a man 's heart . ''
And you wo n't believe this , but I had to stop there a moment to field a tortured text from an ex-student of mine turned Army lieutenant who 's now straddling those spheres of doubt and dissent that you and I know all too well .
You may recall that I penned a piece last year for our mutual friend Tom Engelhardt on `` Watching My Students Turn Into Soldiers of Empire . ''
Damned if that was n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think of it , that must be precisely the feeling of failure you 've described in our recent correspondence .
Well , at least the military dissent gestation period seems to be shortening .
I commissioned exactly 20 years after you .
The last crop of cadets from the freshman history class I taught at West Point after I returned from those wars were just 15 years behind me and some of them are now in doubt deep .
The thing is , I fear you 're a better man than I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the script that 's coming down the dusty and well-trodden trail , but I 'm not sure I could stomach writing a co-column with one of those kids -- let alone attending one of their funerals .
I guess we old hands had better get to work .
In the battle against endless war , our motto has to be : no retreat , no surrender .
William Astore , a retired lieutenant colonel ( USAF ) and professor of history , is a TomDispatch regular and a senior fellow at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an organization of critical veteran military and national security professionals .
His personal blog is Bracing Views .
Danny Sjursen , a TomDispatch regular , retired U.S. Army major , contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy , directs the Eisenhower Media Network and cohosts the `` Fortress on a Hill '' podcast .
A former history instructor at West Point , he served in Iraq and Afghanistan .
His two books are Ghost Riders of Baghdad , and Patriotic Dissent : America in the Age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter at @ SkepticalVet .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook .
Check out the newest Dispatch Books , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and William J. Astore

If you have a moment, how about joining two retired officers, Bill Astore and me, Danny Sjursen, as we think about this country's catastrophic forever wars that, regardless of their deadly costs and lack of progress, never seem quite to end?
Recently, in a podcast chat about our very different but somehow twin journeys through those wars, he and I got to thinking about what might have happened if our paths had crossed so much earlier. Both of us, after all, have been writing for TomDispatch for years. As Bill once said to me, thinking about his post-military writing career, "You know, Danny, in my small way I was trying -- and failing -- to stop the wars you were heading into."
Now that's an interesting, if disturbing, thought. But Bill, what would you have said to Lieutenant Danny (that was me once upon a time!) and how might he have responded then?
Who could know now, of course? Still, here's our retrospective attempt to sort that out in joint correspondence in which we track about 15 years' worth of this country's unending wars.
The Frankenstein and Star Trek Years of American War
Bill: When you were graduating from West Point in 2005 and shining your lieutenant's bars, Danny, I was putting my uniform away after 20 years in the Air Force and driving to Pennsylvania for a new career as a history professor. I thought I'd teach and maybe write a book or two. I never pictured myself as a dissenter, and I'd never spoken out publicly against the wars we were in. The one time I was interviewed about them, in 2005 when I was still the military dean of students at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey, I remember saying that I preferred our troops use words rather than rifle butts to communicate with the Afghans and Iraqis. Of course, we had so few troops who spoke Arabic or Pashto or Dari that we leaned on our rifles instead, which meant lots of dead and alienated people in both countries.
In the summer of 2007, I was increasingly disgusted by the way the administration of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was hiding behind the bemedaled chest of Iraq commander General David Petraeus. Our civilian commander-in-chief, George W., was avoiding responsibility for the disastrous Iraq War by sending Petraeus, then known as the "surge" general, before Congress to testify that some sort of victory was still possible, even as he hedged his talk of progress with words like "fragile" and "reversible."
So I got off my butt and wrote an article that argued we needed to end the Iraq War and our folly of "spilling blood and treasure with such reckless abandon." I submitted it to newspapers like the New York Times with no success. Fortunately, a friend told me about TomDispatch, where Tom Engelhardt had been publishing critical articles by retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich. Luckily for me, Tom liked my piece and published it as "Saving the Military from Itself" in October of that same year.
That article put me on the path of dissent from America's forever wars, even if I wasn't so much antiwar as anti-dumb-war then. As I asked at the time, how do you win someone else's civil war? Being a Star Trek fan, I referred to the Kobayashi Maru, a "no-win" scenario introduced in the second Star Trek movie. I saw our troops, young lieutenants like yourself in Iraq, being stuck in a no-win situation and I was already convinced that, no matter how much Petraeus talked about "metrics" and "progress," it wasn't going to happen, that "winning" really meant leaving, and we haven't won yet since, god help us, we're still there.
Of course, the so-called surge in Iraq back then did what it was actually meant to do. It provided an illusion of progress and stability even while proving just as fragile and reversible as the weaselly Petraeus said it would be. Worse yet, the myth of that Iraqi surge would lead disastrously to the Afghan version of the same under Barack Obama and -- yet again -- Petraeus who would prove to be a general for all presidents.
Lucky you! You were on the ground in both surges, weren't you?
Danny: I sure was! Believe it or not, a colonel once told me I was lucky to have done "line duty" in both of them -- platoon and company command, Iraq and Afghanistan, Baghdad and Kandahar. To be honest, Bill, I knew something was fishy even before you retired or I graduated from West Point and headed for those wars.
In fact, it's funny that you should mention Bacevich. I was first introduced to his work in the winter of 2004 as a West Point senior by then-Lieutenant Colonel Ty Seidule. Back then, for a guy like me, Bacevich had what could only be called bracing antiwar views (a wink-nod to your Bracing Views blog, Bill) for a classroom of burgeoning neocons just about certain to head for Iraq. Frankly, most of us couldn't wait to go.
And we wouldn't have that long to wait either. The first of our classmates to die, Emily Perez, was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb in September 2006 within 18 months of graduation (and five more were to die in the years to come). I took a scout platoon to southeast Baghdad a month later and we didn't leave -- most of us, that is -- for 15 months.
My partly Bacevich-bred sneaking suspicions about America's no-longer distant wars were, of course, all confirmed. It turned out that policing an ethno-religious-sectarian conflict, mostly of our own country's making, while dodging counter-counterinsurgent attacks aimed at expelling us occupiers from that country was as tough as stateside invasion opponents had predicted.
On lonely outpost mornings, I had a nasty daily habit of reading the names of our announced dead. Midway through my tour, one of those countless attacks killed 1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich. When I saw that name, I realized instantly that he must be the son of the man whose book I had read two years earlier, the man who is now our colleague. The moment remains painfully crystal clear in my memory.
By the way, Bill, your Iraq War take was dead on. During my own tour there, I came to the same realization. Embarrassingly enough, though, it took me seven years to say the same things publicly in my first book, fittingly subtitled "The Myth of the Surge." By then, of course, ISIS -- the Frankenstein's monster of America's misadventure -- was already streaming across Syria's synthetic borders and conquering swaths of northern and western Iraq, which made an anti-Iraq War screed seem quaint indeed, at least in establishment circles.
But Bill, do go on.
Bill: It was also back in 2007 when something John McCain said on PBS really ticked me off. In essence, he warned that if the U.S. military lost in Iraq, it wouldn't be the generals' fault. No, it would be ours, those of us who had questioned the war and its conduct and so had broken faith with that very military. In response, I wrote a piece at TomDispatch with the sarcastic title, "If We Lose Iraq, You're to Blame," because I already found such "stab-in-the-back" lies pernicious beyond words. As Andy Bacevich noted recently when it came to such lies about an earlier American military disaster: we didn't lose the Vietnam War in 1975 when Saigon fell, we lost it in 1965 when President Johnson committed American troops to winning a civil war that South Vietnam had already lost.
Something similar is true for the Iraq and Afghan wars today. We won't lose those conflicts when we finally pull all U.S. troops out and the situation goes south (as it most likely will). No, we lost the Afghan War in 2002 when we decided to turn a strike against the Taliban and al-Qaeda into an occupation of that country; and we lost the Iraq War the moment we invaded in 2003 and found none of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush and his top officials had sworn were there. Those were wars of choice, not of necessity, and we could only "win" them by finally choosing to end them. We lose them -- and maybe our democracy as well -- by choosing to keep on waging them in the false cause of "stability" or "counterterrorism," or you-name-it.
Early in 2009, I had an epiphany of sorts while walking around a cemetery. With those constant deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries globally, the U.S. military, I thought, was becoming a foreign legion, almost like the quintessential French version of the same, increasingly separated from the people, and increasingly recruited from "foreign" elements, including recent immigrants to this country looking for a fast-track to citizenship.
Danny: Bill, one of my own soldiers fit the mold you just mentioned. Private First Class Gustavo Rios-Ordonez, a married father of two and a Colombian national. Partly seeking citizenship through service, he was the last trooper to join my command just before we shipped out and the first killed when, on June 20, 2011, he stepped on an improvised explosive device within sight of the Afghan outpost I then commanded. Typing this now, I stare at a framed dusty unit guidon, the pennant that once flew over that isolated sandbagged base of ours and was gifted to me by my soldiers.
Sorry, Bill, last interruption... scout's honor!
Surges to Nowhere
Bill: So I wrote an article that asked if our military was morphing into an imperial police force. As I put it then: "Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks." And I added, "Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan."
A few people torched me for writing that. They thought I was saying that the troops themselves were somehow foreign, that I was attacking the rank-and-file, but my intent was to attack those who were misusing the military for their own purposes and agendas and all the other Americans who were acquiescing in the misuse of our troops. It's a strange dynamic in this country, the way we're cajoled into supporting our troops without ourselves having to serve or even pay attention to what they're doing.
Indeed, under George W. Bush, we were even discouraged from commemorating the honored dead, denied seeing footage of returning flag-draped caskets. We were to celebrate our troops, while they (especially the dead and wounded) were kept out of sight -- literally behind curtains, by Bush administration order -- and so mostly out of mind.
I was against the Afghan surge, Danny, because I knew it would be both futile and unsustainable. In arguing that case, I reached back to the writings of two outspoken opponents of the Vietnam War, Norman Mailer and Mary McCarthy. As President Obama deliberated on whether to surge or not, I suggested that he should confer with broadminded critics outside the government, tough-minded freethinkers cut from the cloth of Mailer and McCarthy.
Mailer, for example, had argued that the Vietnamese were "faceless" to Americans (just as the Iraqis and Afghans have been all these years), that we knew little about them as a people and cared even less. He saw American intervention in "heart of darkness" terms. McCarthy was even blunter, condemning as "wicked" the government's technocentric and hegemonic form of warfare with its "absolute indifference to the cost in human lives." Predictably, Obama listened to conventional wisdom and surged again, first under General Stanley McChrystal and then, of course, under Petraeus.
Danny: Well, Bill, paltry as it may now sound, I truly thank you for your post-service service to sensibility and decency -- even if those efforts didn't quite spare me the displeasure of a second stint in a second theater with Petraeus as my supreme commander for a second time.
By the way, I ran into King David (as he came to be known) last year in a long line for the urinals at Newark airport. Like you, I've been tearing the guy's philosophy and policies up for years. Still, I decided decorum mattered, so I introduced myself and mentioned that we'd met once at a Baghdad base in 2007. But before I could even kid him about how his staff had insisted that we stock ample kiwi slices because he loved to devour them, Petraeus suddenly walked off without even making it to the stall! I found it confusing behavior until I glimpsed myself in the mirror and remembered that I was wearing an "Iraq Veterans Against the War" t-shirt.
Okay, here's a more instructive anecdote: Have I ever mentioned to you that my Afghan outpost, "Pashmul South" as it was then known, featured prominently in the late journalist Michael Hasting's classic book, The Operators (which inspired the Netflix original movie War Machine)? At one point, Hastings describes how Petraeus's predecessor in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, visited an isolated base full of war-weary and war-exasperated infantrymen. In one of the resident platoons, all but seven of its 25 original members had "been killed, wounded, or lost their minds." And yes, that was the "palace" I took over a couple of years later, an outpost the Taliban was then attacking almost daily.
By the time I took up the cause of "Enduring Freedom" (as the Afghan operation had been dubbed by the Pentagon), I had already resigned myself to being one of those foreign legionnaires you've talked about, if not an outright mercenary. During the Afghan surge, I fought for pay, healthcare, a future West Point faculty slot, and lack of a better alternative (or alternate identity). My principles then were simple enough: patrol as little as possible, kill as few locals as you can, and make sure that one day you'll walk (as many of my scouts literally did) out of that valley called Arghandab.
I was in a dark headspace then. I didn't believe a damn thing my own side said, held out not an ounce of hope for victory, and couldn't even be bothered to hate my "enemy." On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, staff officers at brigade headquarters sent a Reuters reporter deep into the boonies to profile the only commander around from the New York City area and I told him just what I thought, or close enough in any case. Suffice it to say that my colonels were less than pleased when Captain Sjursen was quoted as saying that "the war was anything but personal" and that he never "thought about 9/11 at all" or when he described the Taliban this way: "It's farm-boys picking up guns. How do you hate that?"
Rereading that article now, I feel a certain sadness for that long-gone self of mine, so lost in fatalism, hopelessness, and near-nihilism. Then I catch myself and think: imagine how the Afghans felt, especially since they didn't have a distant home to scurry off to sooner or later.
Anyway, I never forgot that it was Obama -- from whom I'd sought Iraq War salvation -- who ordered my troops on that even more absurd Afghan surge to nowhere (and I'm not sure I've forgiven him either). Still, if there was a silver lining in all that senselessness, perhaps it was that such a bipartisan betrayal widened both the breadth and depth of my future dissent.
The Struggle Itself
Bill: Speaking of surges, Danny, even the word is a military misnomer. It's dishonest. Real generals advance and retreat. They reinforce. They win (or lose). They occupy the battlefield. Lines move on maps. Foes are beaten and surrender. None of this happens with a "surge." Our generals just added more troops to exert temporary control over an area in what was nothing more than a fallacious face-saving gesture. A mask. A conceit. All those surges did was sustain a losing cause and reinforce failure. Consider them a fundamental mistake of military strategy, like throwing good money after bad or doubling down on a losing hand.
Why didn't they listen to me? Why didn't they stop the Iraq and Afghan surges and end those wars? And now that, with other retired military types, we're both in the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN) you organized, continuing to speak out against the twenty-first-century American way of making war, why do they still not listen to us? I fear that the answer's simple enough: they have a trillion reasons not to. After all, roughly a trillion-plus dollars is spent each year on the Pentagon, on so-called homeland security, on nuclear weapons, on intelligence and surveillance, on buying weaponry and then more of the same after that. Why won't they listen to us? We threaten their bottom line, their profits. And why should we get invites to CNN and MSNBC and other mainstream media sites when they already have Pentagon cheerleaders on their staffs and retired senior officers who spout the party line, as journalist David Barstow revealed in his Pulitzer-award-winning series? We aren't really in EMN, Danny, we're in the IMF, the impossible missions force.
I remember reading old newspapers from the 1930s that were quite blunt about how to end war: get the profit motive out of it. That was when the standing U.S. military was fairly small and Americans were skeptical of weapons makers, the "merchants of death" as they were so rightly called back then. Almost a century later, we're the leading merchant of death, the country that arms the world. Domestically, we're awash in weaponry, with a gun for every American and a mini-tank for every police force. I've attacked this creeping militarism, this degradation of our democracy, but with little success. So welcome to the IMF from the classic TV show Mission Impossible. Unless we smarten up and end these perpetual wars, this democracy will self-destruct in five seconds. The odds are long, but it's a mission we just have to accept.
Danny: I couldn't agree more, Bill. The militarism problem is cyclical and systemic with a backstory that's sure to ping our shared historian's radar. I hinted at this two months ago in remarks I made at legendary antiwar vet Smedley Butler's graveside (the former major general I wrote about at TomDispatch in February). Highlighting his prophetic aspect, I noted that the two-time Medal of Honor-recipient had diagnosed core components of the military-industrial complex a quarter of a century before our new organization's namesake, former president Dwight D. Eisenhower, coined the term in his Cassandra-like 1961 farewell address. If that isn't proof our forever-war problems are systemic rather than discrete, I don't know what is.
That short speech of mine was occasioned by the 19th anniversary of our absurd Afghan War, the conflict you couldn't singlehandedly stop in time to save me from a second surge excursion. Anyway, don't beat yourself up about that, Bill. Like you said, the war-state beast is humongous and our buddy Bacevich has been beating this drum since you were still wearing Air Force blue. Under the circumstances and in these pandemic times, what could be more appropriate than a buck-up from that ever-cheery French novelist of plagues and philosopher Albert Camus: "The struggle itself... is enough to fill a man's heart."
And you won't believe this, but I had to stop there a moment to field a tortured text from an ex-student of mine turned Army lieutenant who's now straddling those spheres of doubt and dissent that you and I know all too well. You may recall that I penned a piece last year for our mutual friend Tom Engelhardt on "Watching My Students Turn Into Soldiers of Empire." Damned if that wasn't a hard pill to swallow. Come to think of it, that must be precisely the feeling of failure you've described in our recent correspondence.
Well, at least the military dissent gestation period seems to be shortening. I commissioned exactly 20 years after you. The last crop of cadets from the freshman history class I taught at West Point after I returned from those wars were just 15 years behind me and some of them are now in doubt deep.
The thing is, I fear you're a better man than I am, my friend. I can seethe script that's coming down the dusty and well-trodden trail, but I'm not sure I could stomach writing a co-column with one of those kids -- let alone attending one of their funerals.
I guess we old hands had better get to work. In the battle against endless war, our motto has to be: no retreat, no surrender.
William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, is a TomDispatch regular and a senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), an organization of critical veteran military and national security professionals. His personal blog is Bracing Views.
Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular, retired U.S. Army major, contributing editor at Antiwar.com, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, directs the Eisenhower Media Network and cohosts the "Fortress on a Hill" podcast. A former history instructor at West Point, he served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His two books are Ghost Riders of Baghdad, and Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.opyright 2020 Danny Sjursen and William J. Astore


alternet--2020-12-09--Why America's future depends on rebuilding our factories

Brian Banks and his colleagues at Nipro Glass log 60- or 70-hour weeks right now in a grueling race to produce the glass tubing and vials essential to distributing millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccine .
Banks , a maintenance mechanic for nearly three decades , often feared over the years that the Millville , New Jersey , complex would close like so many other glass-making facilities around the country .
If it had , America would struggle all the more to turn the corner on a pandemic that 's already claimed 282,000 U.S. lives .
COVID-19 laid bare the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation straining to produce the face masks , ventilators , glass vials and other items needed to contain the coronavirus .
Now , with vaccines nearly ready for distribution , America has an opportunity to defeat the virus and revive a manufacturing base crucial for protecting the country from future crises .
Of all the responsibilities that President-elect Joe Biden faces upon taking office on January 20 , none demands more attention—and requires greater urgency—than ramping up production capacity and rebuilding broken supply chains to keep America safe .
Biden 's Build Back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. manufacturing that put millions to work and ensure a reliable , high-quality supply of critical goods , like the Nipro vials that are used to store not only COVID-19 vaccine but also the other drugs needed to treat hospitalized patients .
`` It 's comforting for us to know that what we 're doing is contributing to something major , '' explained Banks , president of United Steelworkers ( USW ) Local 219M , which represents the 200 or so dedicated workers keeping Nipro 's two Millville plants operating around-the-clock .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places where we could get this glass .
They 've left .
If we did n't have this plant , where would we get it from ? ''
asked Banks , who saw his own local shrink by thousands of members as several local glass facilities closed in recent decades .
In the urgent scramble to build stockpiles of vaccine that can be swiftly released for distribution once federal regulators give approval , multiple drugmakers approached Nipro for help .
The company added production capacity to help meet the flood of orders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shifts .
However , as Banks noted , the nation could have more easily addressed the surging demand if it still had the large number of producers it did in years past and marshaled those collective resources to ramp up glass production .
`` The product is still being made , just not in the U.S .
It could have stayed here , '' said Banks , who already wonders whether Nipro will embrace America 's long-term need for manufacturing and maintain its recently added capacity once the pandemic ends .
Although there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Better will not only arrest the long erosion of the manufacturing base but restore America 's power to produce critical goods of all kinds .
Because while the pandemic exposed the nation 's struggle to produce personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , hand sanitizer , pharmaceutical ingredients and even the super-cold freezers needed to keep COVID-19 vaccines viable during transport , that 's really just the tip of the iceberg .
Over the past 30 years , as greedy corporations closed thousands of U.S. factories and offshored millions of jobs to exploit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries , America also gave away the capacity to produce appliances , tires , cars , ball bearings and many other items .
Not even the pandemic , which highlighted the nation 's urgent need for more manufacturing muscle , slowed the corporate quest for ever-higher profits .
In September , FreightCar America announced it will close its Alabama factory , eliminate 500 jobs and move operations to Mexico by the end of the year .
And Mondelēz , a company that previously shifted American jobs to Mexico , just threatened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nabisco bakeries .
America needs thousands of other manufactured products every bit as much as it needs PPE .
It relies on trucks , boxes and containers to move commerce every day , textiles to refurnish homes devastated by hurricanes and steel , aluminum and other materials for military vehicles .
Biden understands that rebuilding the manufacturing base is a top priority that transcends politics .
He will require government agencies and contractors to spend taxpayer dollars on U.S.-made materials , products and labor , ensuring America invests in itself .
`` You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things to survive , '' observed Libbi Urban , vice president of USW Local 9231 , noting that America 's dependence on foreign suppliers puts the nation at grave risk .
Foreign countries can experience their own production problems , jack up prices during emergencies , deliver inferior products or simply cut off supplies any time they want , noted Urban , who represents workers at two ArcelorMittal steel facilities in New Carlisle , Indiana .
`` Do you want to rely on steel from China if you want to make battleships , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think they 're going to sell you good-quality steel ? ''
said Urban , who chairs her local 's Women of Steel program .
`` If you go to war with somebody , you ca n't rely on them to make your ships or your tanks . ''
Even as they put in wearying amounts of overtime , Banks and his colleagues have to maintain constant vigilance and observe numerous safety precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19 .
With millions of lives riding on their work , Banks said , they can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupt production .
Banks hopes America remembers the risks essential workers continue to make .
But what he really wants is for the nation to learn from its failures and commit to a full-scale revitalization of manufacturing to keep his members employed—and America safe—long after the threat of COVID-19 is over .
`` We 're happy to be doing this , '' he said .
`` But we are also worried .
At some point , when this pandemic ends , are we still going to thrive ? ''
Tom Conway is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( USW ) .
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute .

Brian Banks and his colleagues at Nipro Glass log 60- or 70-hour weeks right now in a grueling race to produce the glass tubing and vials essential to distributing millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccine.
Banks, a maintenance mechanic for nearly three decades, often feared over the years that the Millville, New Jersey, complex would close like so many other glass-making facilities around the country. If it had, America would struggle all the more to turn the corner on a pandemic that's already claimed 282,000 U.S. lives.
COVID-19 laid bare the decades-long decline of manufacturing that left the nation straining to produce the face masks, ventilators, glass vials and other items needed to contain the coronavirus. Now, with vaccines nearly ready for distribution, America has an opportunity to defeat the virus and revive a manufacturing base crucial for protecting the country from future crises.
Of all the responsibilities that President-elect Joe Biden faces upon taking office on January 20, none demands more attention—and requires greater urgency—than ramping up production capacity and rebuilding broken supply chains to keep America safe.
Biden's Build Back Better campaign will make commonsense investments in U.S. manufacturing that put millions to work and ensure a reliable, high-quality supply of critical goods, like the Nipro vials that are used to store not only COVID-19 vaccine but also the other drugs needed to treat hospitalized patients.
"It's comforting for us to know that what we're doing is contributing to something major," explained Banks, president of United Steelworkers (USW) Local 219M, which represents the 200 or so dedicated workers keeping Nipro's two Millville plants operating around-the-clock.
"There used to be lots of different places where we could get this glass. They've left. If we didn't have this plant, where would we get it from?" asked Banks, who saw his own local shrink by thousands of members as several local glass facilities closed in recent decades.
In the urgent scramble to build stockpiles of vaccine that can be swiftly released for distribution once federal regulators give approval, multiple drugmakers approached Nipro for help.
The company added production capacity to help meet the flood of orders and relied on workers to put in extra shifts. However, as Banks noted, the nation could have more easily addressed the surging demand if it still had the large number of producers it did in years past and marshaled those collective resources to ramp up glass production.
"The product is still being made, just not in the U.S. It could have stayed here," said Banks, who already wonders whether Nipro will embrace America's long-term need for manufacturing and maintain its recently added capacity once the pandemic ends.
Although there are no quick fixes, Build Back Better will not only arrest the long erosion of the manufacturing base but restore America's power to produce critical goods of all kinds.
Because while the pandemic exposed the nation's struggle to produce personal protective equipment (PPE), hand sanitizer, pharmaceutical ingredients and even the super-cold freezers needed to keep COVID-19 vaccines viable during transport, that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the past 30 years, as greedy corporations closed thousands of U.S. factories and offshored millions of jobs to exploit cheaper labor and lax environmental laws in other countries, America also gave away the capacity to produce appliances, tires, cars, ball bearings and many other items.
Not even the pandemic, which highlighted the nation's urgent need for more manufacturing muscle, slowed the corporate quest for ever-higher profits. In September, FreightCar America announced it will close its Alabama factory, eliminate 500 jobs and move operations to Mexico by the end of the year. And Mondelēz, a company that previously shifted American jobs to Mexico, just threatened to close two of its five remaining U.S. Nabisco bakeries.
America needs thousands of other manufactured products every bit as much as it needs PPE. It relies on trucks, boxes and containers to move commerce every day, textiles to refurnish homes devastated by hurricanes and steel, aluminum and other materials for military vehicles.
Biden understands that rebuilding the manufacturing base is a top priority that transcends politics. He will require government agencies and contractors to spend taxpayer dollars on U.S.-made materials, products and labor, ensuring America invests in itself.
"You've got to be able to produce things to survive," observed Libbi Urban, vice president of USW Local 9231, noting that America's dependence on foreign suppliers puts the nation at grave risk.
Foreign countries can experience their own production problems, jack up prices during emergencies, deliver inferior products or simply cut off supplies any time they want, noted Urban, who represents workers at two ArcelorMittal steel facilities in New Carlisle, Indiana.
"Do you want to rely on steel from China if you want to make battleships, tanks or aircraft carriers? Do you think they're going to sell you good-quality steel?" said Urban, who chairs her local's Women of Steel program. "If you go to war with somebody, you can't rely on them to make your ships or your tanks."
Even as they put in wearying amounts of overtime, Banks and his colleagues have to maintain constant vigilance and observe numerous safety precautions to protect themselves from COVID-19.
With millions of lives riding on their work, Banks said, they cannot risk a spate of infections that could disrupt production.
Banks hopes America remembers the risks essential workers continue to make. But what he really wants is for the nation to learn from its failures and commit to a full-scale revitalization of manufacturing to keep his members employed—and America safe—long after the threat of COVID-19 is over.
"We're happy to be doing this," he said. "But we are also worried. At some point, when this pandemic ends, are we still going to thrive?"
Tom Conway is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW).
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-12-08--House votes to end federal marijuana prohibition

Breaking almost entirely along party lines , the House on December 4 voted to approve the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement ( MORE ) Act of 2019 ( H.R .
3884 ) .
The vote was 228 to 164 , with only a handful of Republicans voting `` aye '' and a handful of Democrats voting `` nay . ''
The MORE Act would effectively end federal pot prohibition by removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act 's list of scheduled substances and eliminating federal criminal penalties for the possession , cultivation , and sale of marijuana .
The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marijuana , but it would end the conflict between states that have already legalized marijuana and federal law .
The bill also includes strong social equity provisions , including the creation of a fund to support programs and services for communities devastated by the war on drugs , a provision for expungement of past federal marijuana offenses , and a provision that bars the federal government from discriminating against people for marijuana use , which would protect immigrants from being deported for past marijuana convictions and would ensure that earned benefits are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote marks the first time either chamber of Congress has voted to end marijuana prohibition .
But there is virtually no chance that the Republican-led Senate will take up—let alone approve—the measure in the remaining days of this session , meaning this is a battle that will continue in the next Congress .
Still , marijuana law reform advocates were quick to celebrate the victory .
`` Today 's [ December 4 ] vote marks a historic victory for the marijuana policy reform movement .
It indicates that federal lawmakers are finally listening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in favor of ending prohibition and comes at a critical time as this important measure addresses two key challenges we currently face , '' Marijuana Policy Project executive director Steven Hawkins said in a statement , moments after the voting ended .
`` Serious criminal justice reform can not begin in our country without ending the war on cannabis , '' Hawkins continued .
`` The MORE Act would set federal marijuana policy on a path toward correcting an unfair system and help restore justice to those who have been victimized by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address our country 's fiscal and economic challenges by empowering states to implement programs that can stimulate economic growth and generate new tax revenue at a time when both are desperately needed .
We call on the Senate to listen to the American people and pass the MORE Act without delay . ''
`` This is HUGE ! ''
said a blog post by Erik Altieri , the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( NORML ) , while speaking about the vote on December 4 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ marijuana policy in the United States .
This vote marks the first time in 50 years that a chamber of Congress has ever revisited the classification of cannabis as a federally controlled and prohibited substance , and it marks the first time in 24 years—when California became the first state [ to ] defy the federal government on the issue of marijuana prohibition—that Congress has sought to close the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana policies . ''
`` The criminalization of marijuana is a cornerstone of the racist war on drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victories , one person was arrested nearly every minute last year for simply possessing marijuana , '' said Maritza Perez , director of the office of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance ( DPA ) , in a press release issued by the group .
`` Today the House took the most powerful step forward to address that shameful legacy .
But the MORE Act as passed is imperfect , and we will continue to demand more until our communities have the world they deserve . ''
DPA is particularly irked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process that limits expungement and resentencing provisions for people with nonviolent marijuana offenses and language that blocks people with marijuana felony convictions from `` fully participating in the industry at the federal level . ''
The group said in its press release that it would work with Congress next session `` to remove these additions and pass a bill that fully aligns with our principles . ''
`` Getting to this point definitely gives us hope , but the fight is far from over .
We will continue to build support for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next session , '' Queen Adesuyi , policy manager for DPA 's office of national affairs , said in the press release .
`` We are grateful that members of Congress have rightly come to the realization that the drug war has exacerbated the racial injustices in this country and ending marijuana prohibition is a concrete tangible action they can take to benefit our communities now . ''
Not everyone was happy , though .
America 's leading anti-pot activist , Dr. Kevin Sabet , president and co-founder of Smart Approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out at the vote and the House leadership in a post about the passage of the bill on SAM 's website calling it a `` useless show vote . ''
`` The pot industry has won a post-season exhibition game , but they 're treating it like Game 7 of the World Series , '' Sabet said in a statement .
`` The bill is a smokescreen for Altria Phillip [ sic ] Morris and their Big Tobacco gang of investors .
As we have seen in state after state , marijuana commercialization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for disadvantaged communities and social equity programs continue to be manipulated .
Legalization simply results in rich , overwhelmingly white men getting richer while using predatory marketing tactics to expand substance abuse in the communities that were somehow supposed to benefit .
Big Pot does n't care about social justice or equity , its only concern is profit . ''
But while Sabet goes on about a `` Big Pot '' boogeyman , he neglects to mention who actually supports the bill : the American people .
In the latest Gallup poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American adults said they wanted legal marijuana .
They may have to wait for the next Congress to get it done at the federal level , but the passage of the MORE Act is in line with what the public wants , even if prohibitionists do n't wish to acknowledge this .
Phillip Smith is a writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent of Drug Reporter , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
He has been a drug policy journalist for more than two decades .
He is the longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chronicle , the online publication of the nonprofit Stop the Drug War , and was the editor of AlterNet 's coverage of drug policy from 2015 to 2018 .
He was awarded the Drug Policy Alliance 's Edwin M. Brecher Award for Excellence in Media in 2013 .
This article was produced by Drug Reporter , a project of the Independent Media Institute .
The Drug Policy Alliance is a funder of Drug Reporter .

Breaking almost entirely along party lines, the House on December 4 voted to approve the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019 (H.R. 3884). The vote was 228 to 164, with only a handful of Republicans voting "aye" and a handful of Democrats voting "nay."
The MORE Act would effectively end federal pot prohibition by removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act's list of scheduled substances and eliminating federal criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana. The bill would not affect state laws that criminalize marijuana, but it would end the conflict between states that have already legalized marijuana and federal law.
The bill also includes strong social equity provisions, including the creation of a fund to support programs and services for communities devastated by the war on drugs, a provision for expungement of past federal marijuana offenses, and a provision that bars the federal government from discriminating against people for marijuana use, which would protect immigrants from being deported for past marijuana convictions and would ensure that earned benefits are not denied to marijuana users.
The historic vote marks the first time either chamber of Congress has voted to end marijuana prohibition. But there is virtually no chance that the Republican-led Senate will take up—let alone approve—the measure in the remaining days of this session, meaning this is a battle that will continue in the next Congress.
Still, marijuana law reform advocates were quick to celebrate the victory.
"Today's [December 4] vote marks a historic victory for the marijuana policy reform movement. It indicates that federal lawmakers are finally listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who are in favor of ending prohibition and comes at a critical time as this important measure addresses two key challenges we currently face," Marijuana Policy Project executive director Steven Hawkins said in a statement, moments after the voting ended.
"Serious criminal justice reform cannot begin in our country without ending the war on cannabis," Hawkins continued. "The MORE Act would set federal marijuana policy on a path toward correcting an unfair system and help restore justice to those who have been victimized by prohibition. This legislation would also help address our country's fiscal and economic challenges by empowering states to implement programs that can stimulate economic growth and generate new tax revenue at a time when both are desperately needed. We call on the Senate to listen to the American people and pass the MORE Act without delay."
"This is HUGE!" said a blog post by Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), while speaking about the vote on December 4. "This is an historic day for marijuana policy in the United States. This vote marks the first time in 50 years that a chamber of Congress has ever revisited the classification of cannabis as a federally controlled and prohibited substance, and it marks the first time in 24 years—when California became the first state [to] defy the federal government on the issue of marijuana prohibition—that Congress has sought to close the widening chasm between state and federal marijuana policies."
"The criminalization of marijuana is a cornerstone of the racist war on drugs. Even after a decade of reform victories, one person was arrested nearly every minute last year for simply possessing marijuana," said Maritza Perez, director of the office of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), in a press release issued by the group. "Today the House took the most powerful step forward to address that shameful legacy. But the MORE Act as passed is imperfect, and we will continue to demand more until our communities have the world they deserve."
DPA is particularly irked by the insertion of language during the legislative process that limits expungement and resentencing provisions for people with nonviolent marijuana offenses and language that blocks people with marijuana felony convictions from "fully participating in the industry at the federal level." The group said in its press release that it would work with Congress next session "to remove these additions and pass a bill that fully aligns with our principles."
"Getting to this point definitely gives us hope, but the fight is far from over. We will continue to build support for an even stronger, and more inclusive bill in the next session," Queen Adesuyi, policy manager for DPA's office of national affairs, said in the press release. "We are grateful that members of Congress have rightly come to the realization that the drug war has exacerbated the racial injustices in this country and ending marijuana prohibition is a concrete tangible action they can take to benefit our communities now."
Not everyone was happy, though. America's leading anti-pot activist, Dr. Kevin Sabet, president and co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), lashed out at the vote and the House leadership in a post about the passage of the bill on SAM's website calling it a "useless show vote."
"The pot industry has won a post-season exhibition game, but they're treating it like Game 7 of the World Series," Sabet said in a statement. "The bill is a smokescreen for Altria Phillip [sic] Morris and their Big Tobacco gang of investors. As we have seen in state after state, marijuana commercialization does not lead to any tangible benefit for disadvantaged communities and social equity programs continue to be manipulated. Legalization simply results in rich, overwhelmingly white men getting richer while using predatory marketing tactics to expand substance abuse in the communities that were somehow supposed to benefit. Big Pot doesn't care about social justice or equity, its only concern is profit."
But while Sabet goes on about a "Big Pot" boogeyman, he neglects to mention who actually supports the bill: the American people. In the latest Gallup poll, released in November, 68 percent of American adults said they wanted legal marijuana. They may have to wait for the next Congress to get it done at the federal level, but the passage of the MORE Act is in line with what the public wants, even if prohibitionists don't wish to acknowledge this.
Phillip Smith is a writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent of Drug Reporter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has been a drug policy journalist for more than two decades. He is the longtime writer and editor of the Drug War Chronicle, the online publication of the nonprofit Stop the Drug War, and was the editor of AlterNet's coverage of drug policy from 2015 to 2018. He was awarded the Drug Policy Alliance's Edwin M. Brecher Award for Excellence in Media in 2013.
This article was produced by Drug Reporter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. The Drug Policy Alliance is a funder of Drug Reporter.


alternet--2020-12-08--Why Bill Barr will go down as the second-biggest loser of the Trump era

Of all the bombastic statements ever uttered by Attorney General William `` Bill '' Barr , a remark made toward the end of a lengthy interview with CBS News in May will be remembered above the rest .
Asked how `` history '' will look upon his controversial motion to dismiss the criminal charges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought against Michael Flynn for making false statements to the FBI , Barr raised his eyebrows , chortled loudly , and flashed a sly smile .
Barr 's attempt to dismiss Flynn 's prosecution went wildly awry .
The dismissal motion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still awaiting sentencing when , on November 25 , President Trump issued the retired Army lieutenant general and former national security adviser a `` full and unconditional pardon '' for `` any and all possible offenses '' arising from the Mueller investigation .
No matter that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to the false statement charge .
So much for the rule of law .
Barr 's Justice Department responded to the pardon with another dismissal motion on Flynn 's behalf .
The motion was granted on December 8 .
Flynn , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social media with reckless abandon , tweeting an ad from the Washington Times that called for Trump to suspend the Constitution and `` invoke limited martial law '' to permit the military to conduct an election do-over .
The history of Barr 's service as Trump 's attorney general will no doubt be the subject of much future academic and political commentary .
And while future historians may debate the details of his record , Barr will not be among the `` winners '' who will get to pass judgment on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement officer .
To the contrary , Barr will go down as the second-biggest loser of the Trump era , subordinate only to Trump himself .
It may be tempting to look at Barr as something of a tragic figure , as someone who lost his moral compass and sacrificed his good name in fealty to a corrupt leader .
Tempting , perhaps , but wrong .
Yes , it 's true that a few Democrats , along with some influential mainstream legal commentators , supported Barr 's nomination to become attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed he was an `` institutionalist , '' and they hoped that he would be an improvement over his immediate predecessors , Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker , who had disgraced the Department of Justice .
They were fooled .
The real tragedy is that anyone left of center ever viewed Barr as a fair-minded institutionalist .
The truth is that Barr has always been an aggressively partisan right-wing ideologue , bent on entrenching the most retrograde of GOP policies .
A longtime and fervent proponent of the `` unitary executive '' theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power is vested in the president and in its most extreme form amounts to a blueprint for presidential supremacy , Barr served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 in the administration of George H.W .
Bush .
Barr is widely credited with using his position as attorney general at the time to secure pardons for six criminal defendants accused of breaking federal law in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s .
Two of the Iran-Contra pardons—granted to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and former CIA officer Duane Clarridge—were issued `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a fashion reminiscent of Gerald Ford 's pardon of Richard Nixon and those Trump is reportedly contemplating for himself and members of his family and inner circle .
For his work procuring the Iran-Contra pardons , Barr earned himself the nickname of the `` Coverup-General . ''
After Trump nominated Barr to serve a second stint as attorney general , the ACLU issued a scathing report , asserting : Since resuming the reins as attorney general , Barr has proven to be everything the ACLU feared , and more .
From publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defying congressional subpoenas , intervening in the sentencing of Roger Stone , forcing Geoffrey Berman to step down as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York , and allegedly giving the order to assault peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters outside the White House , Barr has strived to transform the Justice Department into a neofascist ministry of the interior dedicated to advancing the personal interests of the president rather than those of the nation .
And do n't be misled by Barr 's recent revelation , made in an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ has found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election .
Barr may have incurred Trump 's ire with the disclosure and he may even be considering resignation as tensions with Trump mount , but as the multiple litigation debacles of Rudy Giuliani have shown , Barr simply stated the obvious to the AP—that there is no credible case of voter fraud to be made .
In the same interview , Barr disclosed that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel to continue an ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigations conducted by both Mueller and the FBI .
Unless Biden 's new attorney general rescinds Barr 's order , Durham will be in a position to perpetuate the corrosive right-wing myth that agents of the `` deep state '' had conspired to `` stab [ Trump ] in the back '' and cripple his presidency .
Durham 's appointment is Barr 's cynical parting gift to the country , illustrating once again that there is no honor or redemption to be found in the public works of Bill Barr .
Not now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ever .

Of all the bombastic statements ever uttered by Attorney General William "Bill" Barr, a remark made toward the end of a lengthy interview with CBS News in May will be remembered above the rest. Asked how "history" will look upon his controversial motion to dismiss the criminal charges that Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought against Michael Flynn for making false statements to the FBI, Barr raised his eyebrows, chortled loudly, and flashed a sly smile.
Then he answered:
"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it [the move to drop the Flynn case] was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law."
Barr's attempt to dismiss Flynn's prosecution went wildly awry. The dismissal motion was intensely litigated, and Flynn was still awaiting sentencing when, on November 25, President Trump issued the retired Army lieutenant general and former national security adviser a "full and unconditional pardon" for "any and all possible offenses" arising from the Mueller investigation. No matter that Flynn had twice pleaded guilty to the false statement charge. So much for the rule of law.
Barr's Justice Department responded to the pardon with another dismissal motion on Flynn's behalf. The motion was granted on December 8.
Flynn, for his part, responded to the pardon on social media with reckless abandon, tweeting an ad from the Washington Times that called for Trump to suspend the Constitution and "invoke limited martial law" to permit the military to conduct an election do-over.
The history of Barr's service as Trump's attorney general will no doubt be the subject of much future academic and political commentary. And while future historians may debate the details of his record, Barr will not be among the "winners" who will get to pass judgment on his performance as the nation's top law enforcement officer. To the contrary, Barr will go down as the second-biggest loser of the Trump era, subordinate only to Trump himself.
It may be tempting to look at Barr as something of a tragic figure, as someone who lost his moral compass and sacrificed his good name in fealty to a corrupt leader. Tempting, perhaps, but wrong.
Yes, it's true that a few Democrats, along with some influential mainstream legal commentators, supported Barr's nomination to become attorney general before his appointment in 2019. They believed he was an "institutionalist," and they hoped that he would be an improvement over his immediate predecessors, Jeff Sessions and Matthew Whitaker, who had disgraced the Department of Justice. They were fooled.
The real tragedy is that anyone left of center ever viewed Barr as a fair-minded institutionalist. The truth is that Barr has always been an aggressively partisan right-wing ideologue, bent on entrenching the most retrograde of GOP policies.
A longtime and fervent proponent of the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that all executive branch power is vested in the president and in its most extreme form amounts to a blueprint for presidential supremacy, Barr served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 in the administration of George H.W. Bush. Barr is widely credited with using his position as attorney general at the time to secure pardons for six criminal defendants accused of breaking federal law in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.
Two of the Iran-Contra pardons—granted to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and former CIA officer Duane Clarridge—were issued "preemptively," prior to conviction, in a fashion reminiscent of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and those Trump is reportedly contemplating for himself and members of his family and inner circle. For his work procuring the Iran-Contra pardons, Barr earned himself the nickname of the "Coverup-General."
After Trump nominated Barr to serve a second stint as attorney general, the ACLU issued a scathing report, asserting:
"During his time in government as well as in the private sector, Barr amassed a record of advancing policies that advocated dragnet government surveillance, mass incarceration, and discriminatory profiling while pushing an aggressive theory of expansive executive power that sidelines Congress' constitutional role in checking the president."
Since resuming the reins as attorney general, Barr has proven to be everything the ACLU feared, and more. From publicly mischaracterizing the findings of the Mueller report to defying congressional subpoenas, intervening in the sentencing of Roger Stone, forcing Geoffrey Berman to step down as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and allegedly giving the order to assault peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters outside the White House, Barr has strived to transform the Justice Department into a neofascist ministry of the interior dedicated to advancing the personal interests of the president rather than those of the nation.
And don't be misled by Barr's recent revelation, made in an interview with the Associated Press, that the DOJ has found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Barr may have incurred Trump's ire with the disclosure and he may even be considering resignation as tensions with Trump mount, but as the multiple litigation debacles of Rudy Giuliani have shown, Barr simply stated the obvious to the AP—that there is no credible case of voter fraud to be made.
In the same interview, Barr disclosed that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel to continue an ongoing probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigations conducted by both Mueller and the FBI. Unless Biden's new attorney general rescinds Barr's order, Durham will be in a position to perpetuate the corrosive right-wing myth that agents of the "deep state" had conspired to "stab [Trump] in the back" and cripple his presidency.
Durham's appointment is Barr's cynical parting gift to the country, illustrating once again that there is no honor or redemption to be found in the public works of Bill Barr. Not now, and, absent the unforeseeable, not ever.


alternet--2020-12-08--U.S. Supreme Court flat-out denies GOP request to block Biden's Pennsylvania win

On Tuesday , the United States Supreme Court rejected a GOP request to block Pennsylvania 's certification of President Joe Biden 's victory in the state , with not a single justice registering a dissent .
The decision reflected the absolute absurdity of the request , which had been widely panned by election law experts , and the fundamental futility of President Donald Trump 's hopes of overturning the 2020 election in the courts .
It also came on Dec. 8 , which federal law designated as `` safe harbor day , '' the point at which states can choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be accepted by Congress .
`` The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied , '' the single-sentence order said .
Not even Justices Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas , the most conservative and Trump-sympathetic of the court 's members , piped up in the defense of the petition .
Rick Hasen , a prominent election law scholar , noted that he had previously dismissed the request from GOP state Sen. Mike Kelly as transparently ridiculous .
He called it `` perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court . ''
Nevertheless , the case has excited some Republicans still hoping that Trump could remain president .
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas offered to argue the issue before the court , even though that opportunity did n't present itself in this case .
Trump himself has repeatedly expressed the hope that the Supreme Court will somehow hand him victory in the 2020 election .
He even expressed this wish prior to the election , suggesting that he needed to get Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure his win .
And on Tuesday afternoon , Trump even retweeted a post suggesting that Barrett would be on his side at the Supreme Court : More studious observers of the court , however , have argued Trump had no viable path to get the justices to overturn the election .
There are other election cases that Trump allies are trying to take before the court , but few serious commentators expect them to gain any traction either .
Had the result been closer , and had disputes over the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of election law , the conservative-dominated court might have been willing to weigh in on Trump 's behalf .
But what Trump is hoping for at this point is much more than that .
He wants the court 's conservatives to throw out any fundamental principles they believe in that would get in the way of his victory .
He just wants to be declared the winner .
Doing so without any plausible justification could potentially tear the country apart .
But there 's no reason to think the justices are even interested @ @ @ @

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court rejected a GOP request to block Pennsylvania's certification of President Joe Biden's victory in the state, with not a single justice registering a dissent.
The decision reflected the absolute absurdity of the request, which had been widely panned by election law experts, and the fundamental futility of President Donald Trump's hopes of overturning the 2020 election in the courts. It also came on Dec. 8, which federal law designated as "safe harbor day," the point at which states can choose their presidential electors and they have to be accepted by Congress.
"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," the single-sentence order said.
Not even Justices Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, the most conservative and Trump-sympathetic of the court's members, piped up in the defense of the petition.
Rick Hasen, a prominent election law scholar, noted that he had previously dismissed the request from GOP state Sen. Mike Kelly as transparently ridiculous. He called it "perhaps the dumbest argument ever made in emergency petition to the Supreme Court."
Nevertheless, the case has excited some Republicans still hoping that Trump could remain president. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas offered to argue the issue before the court, even though that opportunity didn't present itself in this case.
Trump himself has repeatedly expressed the hope that the Supreme Court will somehow hand him victory in the 2020 election. He even expressed this wish prior to the election, suggesting that he needed to get Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court so that she could be in place to ensure his win. And on Tuesday afternoon, Trump even retweeted a post suggesting that Barrett would be on his side at the Supreme Court:
More studious observers of the court, however, have argued Trump had no viable path to get the justices to overturn the election. There are other election cases that Trump allies are trying to take before the court, but few serious commentators expect them to gain any traction either. Had the result been closer, and had disputes over the vote counting rested on some more contentious issue of election law, the conservative-dominated court might have been willing to weigh in on Trump's behalf. But what Trump is hoping for at this point is much more than that. He wants the court's conservatives to throw out any fundamental principles they believe in that would get in the way of his victory. He just wants to be declared the winner. Doing so without any plausible justification could potentially tear the country apart. But there's no reason to think the justices are even interested in trying it.


alternet--2020-12-08--Here are 5 wild moments from Trump's speech on vaccines

During the 2020 presidential election , Democratic nominee Joe Biden repeatedly slammed President Donald Trump 's response to the coronavirus pandemic — and Biden 's messaging worked .
Trump has been voted out of office , President-elect Biden won 306 electoral votes , and the former vice president defeated the incumbent by more than 7 million in the popular vote .
Close to 300,000 American deaths have been reported due to COVID-19 , though the real number is likely much higher and growing rapidly every day .
Regardless , Trump claimed , during a White House news conference on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of the greatest successes of his presidency .
Here are five of the wildest moments from that event .
1 .
Trump claimed that the 'numbers should skyrocket downward' Trump , throughout the pandemic , has predicted that the number of Americans infected with COVID-19 would dramatically plummet .
He was making that prediction back in March and April , and he once again made that prediction during his speech on Tuesday — insisting , `` The numbers should skyrocket downward . ''
It 's quite possible that if the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are widely available in 2021 and huge numbers of Americans are vaccinated , the number of Americans being infected will go way down .
But in the meantime , health experts warn , the pandemic is entering its worst period yet .
According to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore , the pandemic has killed more than 285,000 people in the U.S. so far .
And hospitals are being overwhelmed all over the country .
On Tuesday , Trump implied that the U.S. is achieving herd immunity with COVID-19 , telling reporters , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develop an immunity over a period of time .
I hear we 're close to 15 % . ''
The idea with `` herd immunity '' is that if enough people are infected with a disease , it will be neutralized .
But in fact , COVID-19 infections have been surging all over the U.S. in recent weeks .
The pandemic has been getting worse in the U.S. , not better .
The New York Times has reported record numbers of deaths and infections .
And the fact is , achieving immunity by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of avoidable suffering and death , all of which could be prevented with a better approach to fighting the disease .
3 .
Trump reiterated his claim that the U.S. has robust COVID-19 testing One of Trump 's bogus talking points has been that the U.S. has so many people testing positive for COVID-19 because it has such robust and widely available testing — and he reiterated that talking point on Tuesday , saying , `` Tremendous progress has been made . ''
But NPR 's Rob Stein recently reported that testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Stein , `` There are lots of different kinds of tests out there , and new ones getting authorized all the time .
All that said , the U.S. still really does n't have nearly enough tests .
U.S. really needs millions of tests every day to get ahead of this virus .
And this massive surge of infections that 's going on right now is making things worse again .
Long lines have started forming again around the country .
Supplies are running short .
And it 's taking longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump implied that parties violating CDC guidelines are OK because 'they 're Christmas parties' During the news conference , a reporter noted that at the White House , crowded parties are being held despite the fact that they are violating the social distancing guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
And Trump told the reporter , `` Well , they 're Christmas parties . ''
But CDC officials have n't said that Christmas parties are OK simply because they 're Christmas parties — and the CDC has discouraged such gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators and judges to have the 'courage ' to defy the election results As decisive as Biden 's election victory was , Trump continues to insist that he is the real winner — and at Tuesday 's news conference , he argued that the U.S. could have a second term if enough Republican legislators and judges are brave him to reject the election results .
Trump told reporters , `` All you have to do is turn on your local television set , and you 'll see what happened — with thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all of the terrible things you saw…..
If somebody has the courage , I know who the next administration will be .
And I 'll tell you what , life will be much easier for this country because of what we 've done ( during the pandemic ) . ''

During the 2020 presidential election, Democratic nominee Joe Biden repeatedly slammed President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic — and Biden's messaging worked. Trump has been voted out of office, President-elect Biden won 306 electoral votes, and the former vice president defeated the incumbent by more than 7 million in the popular vote. Close to 300,000 American deaths have been reported due to COVID-19, though the real number is likely much higher and growing rapidly every day.
Regardless, Trump claimed, during a White House news conference on Tuesday, that his response to the pandemic was one of the greatest successes of his presidency.
Here are five of the wildest moments from that event.
1. Trump claimed that the 'numbers should skyrocket downward'
Trump, throughout the pandemic, has predicted that the number of Americans infected with COVID-19 would dramatically plummet. He was making that prediction back in March and April, and he once again made that prediction during his speech on Tuesday — insisting, "The numbers should skyrocket downward." It's quite possible that if the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and others are widely available in 2021 and huge numbers of Americans are vaccinated, the number of Americans being infected will go way down. But in the meantime, health experts warn, the pandemic is entering its worst period yet. According to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, the pandemic has killed more than 285,000 people in the U.S. so far. And hospitals are being overwhelmed all over the country.
2. Trump made a herd immunity argument
On Tuesday, Trump implied that the U.S. is achieving herd immunity with COVID-19, telling reporters, "You do have an immunity. You develop an immunity over a period of time. I hear we're close to 15%."
The idea with "herd immunity" is that if enough people are infected with a disease, it will be neutralized. But in fact, COVID-19 infections have been surging all over the U.S. in recent weeks. The pandemic has been getting worse in the U.S., not better. The New York Times has reported record numbers of deaths and infections. And the fact is, achieving immunity by widespread infection of the virus means extreme levels of avoidable suffering and death, all of which could be prevented with a better approach to fighting the disease.
3. Trump reiterated his claim that the U.S. has robust COVID-19 testing
One of Trump's bogus talking points has been that the U.S. has so many people testing positive for COVID-19 because it has such robust and widely available testing — and he reiterated that talking point on Tuesday, saying, "Tremendous progress has been made." But NPR's Rob Stein recently reported that testing is still inadequate in the U.S. According to Stein, "There are lots of different kinds of tests out there, and new ones getting authorized all the time. All that said, the U.S. still really doesn't have nearly enough tests. U.S. really needs millions of tests every day to get ahead of this virus. And this massive surge of infections that's going on right now is making things worse again. Long lines have started forming again around the country. Supplies are running short. And it's taking longer to get results."
4. Trump implied that parties violating CDC guidelines are OK because 'they're Christmas parties'
During the news conference, a reporter noted that at the White House, crowded parties are being held despite the fact that they are violating the social distancing guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And Trump told the reporter, "Well, they're Christmas parties." But CDC officials haven't said that Christmas parties are OK simply because they're Christmas parties — and the CDC has discouraged such gatherings.
5. Trump called for GOP legislators and judges to have the 'courage' to defy the election results
As decisive as Biden's election victory was, Trump continues to insist that he is the real winner — and at Tuesday's news conference, he argued that the U.S. could have a second term if enough Republican legislators and judges are brave him to reject the election results. Trump told reporters, "All you have to do is turn on your local television set, and you'll see what happened — with thousands of ballots coming out from under tables, with all of the terrible things you saw….. If somebody has the courage, I know who the next administration will be. And I'll tell you what, life will be much easier for this country because of what we've done (during the pandemic)."


alternet--2020-12-08--Trump says it’s 'terrific' that 15 percent of Americans may have contracted COVID-19

According to the president about one in every eight Americans , or around 15 percent of the nation , has contracted COVID-19 .
More than 290,000 Americans have been killed by the deadly virus and coronavirus cases are surging .
More than 15 million Americans in the U.S , have been diagnosed with COVID-19 , although the CDC months ago said it believes the real numbers could be ten times higher .
As of Tuesday the average infection rate is now more than 200,000 people each and every day .
But Trump has been pushing herd immunity , which medically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a statistic to determine at what point a virus can no longer successfully spread widely among a population .
`` I hear we 're close to 15 percent .
I 'm hearing that , and that 's terrific , '' Trump told reporters on Tuesday , when asked what words of advice he had as the country enters the Christmas holiday season .
`` I think that the vaccine was our goal , '' Trump also told reporters .
`` That was number one because that was the way it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an immunity , develop immunity over a period of time and I hear we 're close to 15 % I 'm hearing that and that is terrific , '' he said in random , babbling remarks .
Trump went on to lie about the huge number of cases , once again suggesting there are so many coronavirus cases because of all the tests that have been performed .
The Daily Beast 's Sam Stein reports the President `` meant that as a suggestion we 're getting towards herd immunity , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly , not close and very much not terrific . ''

President Donald Trump is celebrating Americans' high coronavirus infection rate.
According to the president about one in every eight Americans, or around 15 percent of the nation, has contracted COVID-19. More than 290,000 Americans have been killed by the deadly virus and coronavirus cases are surging. More than 15 million Americans in the U.S, have been diagnosed with COVID-19, although the CDC months ago said it believes the real numbers could be ten times higher.
As of Tuesday the average infection rate is now more than 200,000 people each and every day.
But Trump has been pushing herd immunity, which medically is not a goal or a strategy but a statistic to determine at what point a virus can no longer successfully spread widely among a population.
"I hear we're close to 15 percent. I'm hearing that, and that's terrific," Trump told reporters on Tuesday, when asked what words of advice he had as the country enters the Christmas holiday season.
"I think that the vaccine was our goal," Trump also told reporters. "That was number one because that was the way it was the way it ends, plus you do have an immunity, develop immunity over a period of time and I hear we're close to 15% I'm hearing that and that is terrific," he said in random, babbling remarks.
Trump went on to lie about the huge number of cases, once again suggesting there are so many coronavirus cases because of all the tests that have been performed.
The Daily Beast's Sam Stein reports the President "meant that as a suggestion we're getting towards herd immunity, which would be around 70%. So, clearly, not close and very much not terrific."