alternet--2020-11-23--Here's the uncomfortable truth about Biden's forthcoming foreign policy agenda

In this mystifying moment , the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up either as `` Ding dong !
The witch is dead ! ''
or `` We got robbed ! ''
Both are problematic , not because the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent , but because each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption : that President Donald Trump 's demise would provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster .
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such a belief -- race relations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mind -- in others , it was distinctly ( to use a dangerous phrase ) overkill .
Nowhere was that more true than with America 's expeditionary version of militarism , its forever wars of this century , and the venal system that continues to feed it .
For nearly two years , We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would mean everything , that November 3rd would be democracy 's ultimate judgment day .
What if , however , when it comes to issues of war , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 '' proves barely meaningful ?
After all , in the election campaign just past , Donald Trump 's sweeping war-peace rhetoric and Joe Biden 's hedging aside , neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America 's uniquely intrusive global role .
Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America 's posture and policy `` over there , '' nor challenge the essence of the war-state , a sacred cow if ever there was one .
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet ; garrison the globe ; carry out aerial assassinations ; and unilaterally implement starvation sanctions .
Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such rogue-state behavior are never questioned , especially the existence of a sprawling military-industrial complex that has infiltrated every aspect of public life , while stealing money that might have improved America 's infrastructure or wellbeing .
It has engorged itself at the taxpayer 's expense , while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd foreign adventures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupted nearly every prominent public paymaster and policymaker .
This election season , neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components justifying the great game , which is evidence of one thing : empires come home , folks , even if the troops never seem to .
The Company He Keeps As the election neared , it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism 's coal mine or risk raising Biden 's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and peace .
After all , his opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holes in Biden 's block of Swiss cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to Trump 's reelection .
Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find yourself permanently uninvited to the coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV .
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such `` intellectual cowardice '' more than 70 years ago in a proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm .
`` At any given moment , '' he wrote , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-thinking people will accept without question .
It is not exactly forbidden to say this , that or the other , but it is 'not done ' to say it ...
Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness . ''
And that 's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago after his man , Senator Bernie Sanders -- briefly , the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a dead candidate walking .
`` Vote for Biden , but do n't lie about who he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems just enough Americans did the former ( phew ! )
, but mainstream media makers and consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment .
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness ( and the policing that goes with it ) will fade away , ushering in a renaissance of fourth estate oppositional truth-telling .
In that way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe Biden down dovish alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an executive branch that now drives foreign policy ( though , if I 'm honest , I 'm hardly hopeful on either count ) .
One look at Uncle Joe 's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop 's fabled moral : `` You are judged by the company you keep . ''
One thing is already far too clear : Biden 's shadow national security team will be a distinctly status-quo squad .
To know where future policymakers might head , it always helps to know where they came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's foreign policy crew , including a striking number of women and a fair number of Obama administration and Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and hawkish think tanking .
In fact , the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro ( or sis ) would go something like this : she ( he ) sprang from an Ivy League school , became a congressional staffer , got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama 's national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking tech firms and the Department of Defense ) , was a fellow at the Center for New American Security ( CNAS ) , had some defense contractor ties , and married someone who 's also in the game .
It helps as well to follow the money .
In other words , how did the Biden bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years ?
None of this is a secret : their two most common think-tank homes -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Studies ( CSIS ) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients , respectively , of U.S. government and defense-contractor funding .
The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman , Boeing , and the Department of Defense .
Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman , Lockheed Martin , Boeing , and Raytheon .
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed .
To take just one example , in 2016 , Michèle Flournoy , CNAS co-founder , ex-Pentagon official , and `` odds-on favorite '' to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails with the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) ambassador in Washington .
She pitched a project whereby CNAS analysts would , well , analyze whether Washington should maintain drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral `` missile technology control '' agreement .
The UAE 's autocratic government then paid CNAS $ 250,000 to draft a report that ( you wo n't be surprised to learn ) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country to purchase American-manufactured drones .
Which is just what Flournoy and company 's supposed nemeses in the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Again , no surprise .
American drones seem to have a way of ending up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians .
If it 's too much to claim that a future defense secretary Flournoy would be the UAE 's ( wo ) man in Washington , you at least have to wonder .
Worse still , with those think-tank , security-consulting , and defense-industry ties of hers , she 's anything but alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider a few other abridged resumes : • Tony Blinken , frontrunner for national security adviser : CSIS ; WestExec ( which he co-founded with Flournoy ) ; and CNN analyst .
• Jake Sullivan , a shoo-in for a `` senior post in a potential administration '' : the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ( `` peace , '' in this case , being funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors ) and Macro Advisory Partners , a strategic consultancy run by former British spy chiefs .
• Avril Haines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of national intelligence : CNAS-the Brookings Institution ; WestExec ; and Palantir Technologies , a controversial , CIA-seeded , NSA-linked data-mining firm .
• Kathleen Hicks , probable deputy secretary of defense : CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation , a federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues .
An extra note about Hicks : she 's the head of Biden 's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at CSIS .
There , she hosts that think tank 's `` Defense 2020 '' podcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where CSIS 's bread is buttered , here 's how Hicks opens each episode : '' This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems , Lockheed Martin , Northrop Grumman , and the Thales Group . ''
In other words , given what we already know about Joe Biden 's previous gut-driven policies that pass for `` middle of the road '' in this anything but middling country of ours , the experiences and affiliations of his `` A-Team '' do n't bode well for systemic-change seekers .
Remember , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that `` nothing would fundamentally change '' if he were elected .
Should he indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd , consider America 's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved .
Biden 's outfit is headed for office , it seems , to right the Titanic , not rock the boat .
In this context , join me in thinking about what wo n't be on the next presidential menu when it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy .
Do n't expect major changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Israel that enables permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East .
Tony Blinken put it this way : as president , Joe Biden `` would not tie military assistance to Israel to things like annexation [ of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank ] or other decisions by the Israeli government with which we might disagree . ''
• Unapologetic support for various Gulf State autocracies and theocracies that , as they cynically collude with Israel , will only continue to heighten tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war crimes in Yemen .
Beyond Michèle Flournoy 's professional connections with the UAE , Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many Biden prospects have populated .
Saudi Arabia , for example , offers annual donations to Brookings and the Rand Corporation ; the UAE , $ 1 million for a new CSIS office building ; and Qatar , $ 14.8 million to Brookings .
• America 's historically unprecedented and provocative expeditionary military posture globally , including at least 800 bases in 80 countries , seems likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Jake Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview : `` I 'm not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East .
There is a military posture dimension to this as a reduced footprint . ''
Above all , it 's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down , no less halt , the `` revolving door '' that connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in the defense industry .
The same goes for the think tanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify the whole circus .
In such a context , count on this : the militarization of American society and the `` thank-you-for-your-service '' fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive , exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech with `` May God protect our troops . ''
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man 's coming administration .
Still , consider it a version of truth in advertising .
Joe and company are likely to continue to be who they 've @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they are .
After all , transformational presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically rare phenomena .
Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees disappointment .
Do n't misunderstand me : a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the margins of national security strategy .
Think nuclear treaties with the Russians ( which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing up ) and the possible thawing of at least some of the tensions with Tehran .
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to alternative energy sources as quickly as possible .
Noam Chomsky 's bold assertion that the human species could n't endure a second Trump term , thanks to the environmental catastrophe , nuclear brinksmanship , and pandemic negligence he represents , was anything but hyperbole .
Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need `` for an organized public '' to demand change and `` impose pressures '' on the new administration the moment the new president is inaugurated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an imperial presidency ( when it comes to foreign policy ) will actually escalate a two-front New Cold War with China and Russia .
And there 's always the worry that the ascension of a more genteel emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers , including the vets of this country 's forever wars who are increasingly dressing in antiwar clothing .
What seems certain is that , as ever , salvation wo n't spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington 's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national security team to topple the golden calves of American empire .
In fact , the defense industry seems bullish on Biden .
As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it , `` Obviously , there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden administration , but frankly I think that 's ridiculous . ''
Or consider retired Marine Corps major general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the industry will have , when it comes to national security , a very positive view . ''
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years , perhaps it 's time to take that advice from Cornel West , absorb the truth about Biden 's future national security squad , and act accordingly .
There 's no top-down salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders .
Pressure and change will flow from the grassroots or it wo n't come at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

In this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up either as "Ding dong! The witch is dead!" or "We got robbed!" Both are problematic, not because the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump's demise would provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such a belief -- race relations, climate change, and the courts come to mind -- in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was that more true than with America's expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.
For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would mean everything, that November 3rd would be democracy's ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, "Decision 2020" proves barely meaningful? After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump's sweeping war-peace rhetoric and Joe Biden's hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America's uniquely intrusive global role. Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America's posture and policy "over there," nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge: Uncle Sam's right and duty to forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet; garrison the globe; carry out aerial assassinations; and unilaterally implement starvation sanctions. Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such rogue-state behavior are never questioned, especially the existence of a sprawling military-industrial complex that has infiltrated every aspect of public life, while stealing money that might have improved America's infrastructure or wellbeing. It has engorged itself at the taxpayer's expense, while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd foreign adventures and autocratic allies, even as it corrupted nearly every prominent public paymaster and policymaker.
This election season, neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components justifying the great game, which is evidence of one thing: empires come home, folks, even if the troops never seem to.
The Company He Keeps
As the election neared, it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism's coal mine or risk raising Biden's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and peace. After all, his opponent was a monster, so noting the holes in Biden's block of Swiss cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to Trump's reelection. Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find yourself permanently uninvited to the coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such "intellectual cowardice" more than 70 years ago in a proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm. "At any given moment," he wrote, "there is an orthodoxy... that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
And that's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago after his man, Senator Bernie Sanders -- briefly, the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a dead candidate walking. "Vote for Biden, but don't lie about who he really is," the stalwart scholar suggested. It seems just enough Americans did the former (phew!), but mainstream media makers and consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment.
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness (and the policing that goes with it) will fade away, ushering in a renaissance of fourth estate oppositional truth-telling. In that way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe Biden down dovish alternative avenues, perhaps even landing some appointments in an executive branch that now drives foreign policy (though, if I'm honest, I'm hardly hopeful on either count).
One look at Uncle Joe's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop's fabled moral: "You are judged by the company you keep."
Think-Tank Imperialists
One thing is already far too clear: Biden's shadow national security team will be a distinctly status-quo squad. To know where future policymakers might head, it always helps to know where they came from. And when it comes to Biden's foreign policy crew, including a striking number of women and a fair number of Obama administration and Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and hawkish think tanking.
In fact, the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro (or sis) would go something like this: she (he) sprang from an Ivy League school, became a congressional staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security council, consulted for WestExec Advisors (an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking tech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American Security (CNAS), had some defense contractor ties, and married someone who's also in the game.
It helps as well to follow the money. In other words, how did the Biden bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years? None of this is a secret: their two most common think-tank homes -- CNAS and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients, respectively, of U.S. government and defense-contractor funding. The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and the Department of Defense. Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed. To take just one example, in 2016, Michèle Flournoy, CNAS co-founder, ex-Pentagon official, and "odds-on favorite" to become Biden's secretary of defense, exchanged emails with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ambassador in Washington. She pitched a project whereby CNAS analysts would, well, analyze whether Washington should maintain drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral "missile technology control" agreement. The UAE's autocratic government then paid CNAS $250,000 to draft a report that (you won't be surprised to learn) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country to purchase American-manufactured drones.
Which is just what Flournoy and company's supposed nemeses in the Trump administration then did this very July past. Again, no surprise. American drones seem to have a way of ending up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians.
If it's too much to claim that a future defense secretary Flournoy would be the UAE's (wo)man in Washington, you at least have to wonder. Worse still, with those think-tank, security-consulting, and defense-industry ties of hers, she's anything but alone among Biden's top prospects. Just consider a few other abridged resumes:
• Tony Blinken, frontrunner for national security adviser: CSIS; WestExec (which he co-founded with Flournoy); and CNN analyst.
• Jake Sullivan, a shoo-in for a "senior post in a potential administration": the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ("peace," in this case, being funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors) and Macro Advisory Partners, a strategic consultancy run by former British spy chiefs.
• Avril Haines, a top contender for CIA director or director of national intelligence: CNAS-the Brookings Institution; WestExec; and Palantir Technologies, a controversial, CIA-seeded, NSA-linked data-mining firm.
• Kathleen Hicks, probable deputy secretary of defense: CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues.
An extra note about Hicks: she's the head of Biden's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at CSIS. There, she hosts that think tank's "Defense 2020" podcast. In case anyone's still wondering where CSIS's bread is buttered, here's how Hicks opens each episode:
"This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and the Thales Group."
In other words, given what we already know about Joe Biden's previous gut-driven policies that pass for "middle of the road" in this anything but middling country of ours, the experiences and affiliations of his "A-Team" don't bode well for systemic-change seekers. Remember, this is a president-elect who assured rich donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he were elected. Should he indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd, consider America's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved.
Biden's outfit is headed for office, it seems, to right the Titanic, not rock the boat.
Off The Table: A Paradigm Shift
In this context, join me in thinking about what won't be on the next presidential menu when it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy.
Don't expect major changes when it comes to:
• One-sided support for Israel that enables permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East. Tony Blinken put it this way: as president, Joe Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to things like annexation [of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank] or other decisions by the Israeli government with which we might disagree."
• Unapologetic support for various Gulf State autocracies and theocracies that, as they cynically collude with Israel, will only continue to heighten tensions with Iran and facilitate yet more grim war crimes in Yemen. Beyond Michèle Flournoy's professional connections with the UAE, Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many Biden prospects have populated. Saudi Arabia, for example, offers annual donations to Brookings and the Rand Corporation; the UAE, $1 million for a new CSIS office building; and Qatar, $14.8 million to Brookings.
• America's historically unprecedented and provocative expeditionary military posture globally, including at least 800 bases in 80 countries, seems likely to be altered only in marginal ways. As Jake Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview: "I'm not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East. There is a military posture dimension to this as a reduced footprint."
Above all, it's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down, no less halt, the "revolving door" that connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in the defense industry. The same goes for the think tanks that the arms producers amply fund to justify the whole circus.
In such a context, count on this: the militarization of American society and the "thank-you-for-your-service" fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive, exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech with "May God protect our troops."
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man's coming administration. Still, consider it a version of truth in advertising. Joe and company are likely to continue to be who they've always been and who they continue to say they are. After all, transformational presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically rare phenomena. Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees disappointment.
Obama Encore or Worse?
Don't misunderstand me: a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the margins of national security strategy. Think nuclear treaties with the Russians (which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing up) and the possible thawing of at least some of the tensions with Tehran.
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the significance of having a president who actually accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Noam Chomsky's bold assertion that the human species couldn't endure a second Trump term, thanks to the environmental catastrophe, nuclear brinksmanship, and pandemic negligence he represents, was anything but hyperbole. Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need "for an organized public" to demand change and "impose pressures" on the new administration the moment the new president is inaugurated.
Yet, in the coming Biden years, there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an imperial presidency (when it comes to foreign policy) will actually escalate a two-front New Cold War with China and Russia. And there's always the worry that the ascension of a more genteel emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers, including the vets of this country's forever wars who are increasingly dressing in antiwar clothing.
What seems certain is that, as ever, salvation won't spring from the top. Don't count on Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national security team to topple the golden calves of American empire. In fact, the defense industry seems bullish on Biden. As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it, "Obviously, there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden administration, but frankly I think that's ridiculous." Or consider retired Marine Corps major general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said of Biden's coming tenure, "I think the industry will have, when it comes to national security, a very positive view."
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years, perhaps it's time to take that advice from Cornel West, absorb the truth about Biden's future national security squad, and act accordingly. There's no top-down salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders. Pressure and change will flow from the grassroots or it won't come at all.
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.
Copyright 2020 Danny Sjursen


alternet--2020-11-23--Trump official blocking Biden's transition refuses Congress's demand for her testimony

Add General Services Administration administrator Emily Murphy to the long list of Trump administration officials who have decided respectfully honoring a lawful congressional request is optional .
Many Americans on Monday were excited to see Congresswoman Katie Porter ( D-CA ) question the GSA head , but it was not to be .
Tweets like this one went wild on Monday morning : But Murphy did not show despite a letter demanding she brief Congress .
Instead , the GSA told Congress that next week – next Monday – deputy GSA administrator Allison Brigati will brief congressional committee chairs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , The Hill reports .
Not GSA administrator Emily Murphy .
It 's been more than two weeks since Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election by every major news organization , including Trump-supporting Fox News .
Experts warn that every hour that goes by without the Trump administration formally recognizing the Joe Biden is the `` likely '' winner of the 2020 presidential election , puts more Americans – and American national security – at risk .
Murphy does n't even have to be certain that Biden won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : her job is merely to `` ascertain '' the `` likely '' winner – and then release the millions of congressionally-appropriated funds to support the transition to a Biden presidency .
The outrage has been palpable .

Add General Services Administration administrator Emily Murphy to the long list of Trump administration officials who have decided respectfully honoring a lawful congressional request is optional.
Many Americans on Monday were excited to see Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-CA) question the GSA head, but it was not to be. Tweets like this one went wild on Monday morning:
But Murphy did not show despite a letter demanding she brief Congress.
Instead, the GSA told Congress that next week – next Monday – deputy GSA administrator Allison Brigati will brief congressional committee chairs and ranking members, for just 30 minutes, The Hill reports. Not GSA administrator Emily Murphy.
It's been more than two weeks since Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election by every major news organization, including Trump-supporting Fox News.
Experts warn that every hour that goes by without the Trump administration formally recognizing the Joe Biden is the "likely" winner of the 2020 presidential election, puts more Americans – and American national security – at risk. Murphy doesn't even have to be certain that Biden won the election. The law is clear: her job is merely to "ascertain" the "likely" winner – and then release the millions of congressionally-appropriated funds to support the transition to a Biden presidency.
The outrage has been palpable.


alternet--2020-11-23--Trump's ability to pardon himself may hinge on the arcane meaning of a single word: constitutional e

Trump's ability to pardon himself may hinge on the arcane meaning of a single word: constitutional expert

President Donald Trump 's authority to pardon himself may hinge on the arcane meaning of a single word .
The Constitution grants wide powers to a president to pardon , but the verb conferring those powers has a specific meaning that may render it impossible for Trump to issue one for his own crimes , according to constitutional law expert Eric Muller in a new column for The Atlantic .
`` Article II of the Constitution says that the president 'shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States , except in Cases of Impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Did you catch that ?
The president has the power not to pardon people , but 'to grant … Pardons ' ( emphasis added ) .
So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself .
It 's whether he can grant himself a pardon . ''
That seemingly small detail is important , he writes .
`` Some actions ca n't be reflexive — you ca n't do them to yourself , '' Muller writes .
`` Think of surrendering , relinquishing , or handing over something .
These verbs entail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor ca n't also be the recipient . ''
`` On the other hand , countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning , '' he adds .
`` If , for example , the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon , one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient . ''
The verb `` grant '' is used multiple times in the Constitution , and each time describes the transfer of some power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , '' for example — to another .
`` Based solely on other uses of grant in the Constitution , a person could reasonably determine that a president can not grant himself a pardon , '' Muller writes .
`` But in evaluating the meaning of the Constitution 's words , the text of the Constitution is n't all that counts .
The most common interpretive method these days — championed by Justice Antonin Scalia and now broadly popular among conservatives — is to look for evidence of a term 's 'original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictionaries from the founding era defined `` granting '' as an interpersonal transfer , and the Google Books Ngram Viewer , which analyzes all written material scanned into the search engine 's database , shows no reflexive uses of that word at all until the 20th Century .
`` Can Donald Trump pardon himself ? ''
Muller write .
`` Perhaps , but that 's not the question the Constitution requires us to ask .
Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon ?
The evidence , at least according to the text of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says no . ''

President Donald Trump's authority to pardon himself may hinge on the arcane meaning of a single word.
The Constitution grants wide powers to a president to pardon, but the verb conferring those powers has a specific meaning that may render it impossible for Trump to issue one for his own crimes, according to constitutional law expert Eric Muller in a new column for The Atlantic.
"Article II of the Constitution says that the president 'shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,'" Muller writes. "Did you catch that? The president has the power not to pardon people, but 'to grant … Pardons' (emphasis added). So the question is not whether Trump can pardon himself. It's whether he can grant himself a pardon."
That seemingly small detail is important, he writes.
"Some actions can't be reflexive — you can't do them to yourself," Muller writes. "Think of surrendering, relinquishing, or handing over something. These verbs entail a transfer to someone else; the actor can't also be the recipient."
"On the other hand, countless verbs do leave open the possibility of reflexive meaning," he adds. "If, for example, the Constitution had empowered the president not to grant a pardon but to announce a pardon, one would be hard-pressed to insist that the president could not announce himself as a recipient."
The verb "grant" is used multiple times in the Constitution, and each time describes the transfer of some power from one entity — "we the people," for example — to another.
"Based solely on other uses of grant in the Constitution, a person could reasonably determine that a president cannot grant himself a pardon," Muller writes. "But in evaluating the meaning of the Constitution's words, the text of the Constitution isn't all that counts. The most common interpretive method these days — championed by Justice Antonin Scalia and now broadly popular among conservatives — is to look for evidence of a term's 'original public meaning.'"
Popular contemporaneous dictionaries from the founding era defined "granting" as an interpersonal transfer, and the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which analyzes all written material scanned into the search engine's database, shows no reflexive uses of that word at all until the 20th Century.
"Can Donald Trump pardon himself?" Muller write. "Perhaps, but that's not the question the Constitution requires us to ask. Can Donald Trump grant himself a pardon? The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no."


alternet--2020-11-23--'Maliciously incompetent': Ted Cruz slammed for posting ‘war on Thanksgiving’ tweet as COVID-19 rava

'Maliciously incompetent': Ted Cruz slammed for posting ‘war on Thanksgiving’ tweet as COVID-19 ravages his state

While the COVID-19 pandemic raging in the United States and health officials warning Americans to practice social distancing on Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ claiming that a `` war on Thanksgiving '' is underway .
Sen. Ted Cruz of @ @ @ @ @ , tweeted his own version of the `` war on Thanksgiving '' theme by posting @ @ @ @ @ with the words , `` Come and take it . ''
And he is being @ @ @ @ @ to take the pandemic seriously .
Philadelphia-based attorney Max Kennerly reminded Cruz that El Paso @ @ @ @ @ hotspot : And El Paso-based journalist Keenan Willard tweeted video of the horrors that COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ Texas city : Here are some other responses to Cruz ' tweet :

While the COVID-19 pandemic raging in the United States and health officials warning Americans to practice social distancing on Thanksgiving, many far-right extremists are claiming that a "war on Thanksgiving" is underway. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, on November 21, tweeted his own version of the "war on Thanksgiving" theme by posting an illustration of a turkey with the words, "Come and take it." And he is being slammed on Twitter for failing to take the pandemic seriously.
Philadelphia-based attorney Max Kennerly reminded Cruz that El Paso has become a major coronavirus hotspot:
And El Paso-based journalist Keenan Willard tweeted video of the horrors that COVID-19 is inflicting in that West Texas city:
Here are some other responses to Cruz' tweet:


alternet--2020-11-23--Trump's lasting legacy is the right's open embrace of terrorism

In any sensible society , Kyle Rittenhouse would be shunned across the political spectrum .
The 17-year-old Illinois resident stands accused of shooting three people , killing two of them , during an August Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha , Wisconsin .
Whatever the specific facts of that incident , the larger truth is that Rittenhouse is lying in the bed he made for himself .
If he had done the right thing , by simply staying at home and leaving the protesters alone , two men would be alive and he would not face homicide charges .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of armed confrontation with anti-racists , Rittenhouse picked up a gun , drove across state lines and got exactly what he was looking for .
The results were tragic .
In the past , Rittenhouse would have been largely abandoned , even by right-wingers who might otherwise be generally sympathetic to insecure white men playing dress-up with camo and guns .
We 've seen this pattern from Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s right through the Trump years .
Conservatives certainly did n't embrace Patrick Crusius , the 21-year-old white nationalist accused of murdering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , Walmart store last year .
The mainstream conservative movement often flirts with right-wing extremists , but when the bullets fly or the bombs go off , conservative leaders prefer to pretend that they had nothing to do with the violence .
But Rittenhouse is free now , on $ 2 million bail , thanks to the conservative leaders who broke this pattern and rallied to the young man 's side .
Rittenhouse was aided by Christian websites fundraising for his defense , and according to his lawyer , Lin Wood — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's efforts to overturn the 2020 election — assistance was also offered by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell and '80s-era child actor Ricky Schroder .
Schroder even posted a picture of himself celebrating with Rittenhouse , encouraging people to move to social media platforms like Parler that do n't ban people for misinformation or hate speech .
( Schroder had his own run-in with the law last year , when he was arrested on domestic violence charges that were later dropped . )
Rittenhouse has Trump to thank for the hero 's treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Along with undermining the social prohibitions against blatant racism , overt misogyny and openly trying to steal elections , Trump spent the past five years dismantling the taboo against shamelessly encouraging domestic terrorism .
Trump 's incitement of violence started shortly after he announced his first presidential campaign , when he fantasized out loud about physical violence against Black Lives Matter protesters in August 2015 .
He has continued at a steady and intensifying clip over the last five years .
By the time Rittenhouse rolled into Kenosha with a gun , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openly support political violence .
That 's exactly what happened in the case of Rittenhouse .
In the days after the shooting , Tucker Carlson of Fox News painted Rittenhouse as a hero , rather than a kid who was looking for trouble and found it .
Soon , much of the conservative media followed .
Then Trump himself got involved , insisting that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting protesters .
Trump 's administration even pressured the Department of Homeland Security to depict Rittenhouse as a hero , even though there was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun to the Kenosha protest in the first place .
Trump mostly encourages right-wing violence for the same reason he does anything : He thinks it may benefit him personally .
It boosted his ego to believe people would risk injury , death or prison out of loyalty to him , and he obviously hoped a right-wing army would rise up to keep him in office after the voters threw him out .
( That did n't happen , thankfully , probably because most Trump supporters are too old and comfortable to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of would-be terrorists plotted to kidnap Michigan 's Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , and likely to murder her , Trump made sure to express his delight in public , seeing the plot as a personal tribute .
This newfound enthusiasm for violence is bound to outlast Trump , whose impotent coup attempt wo n't prevent his eviction from the White House on Jan. 20 .
That 's because none of this was ever about him , no matter what his ego tells him .
He enabled it , of course , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for some of the uglier urges on the right to burble up to the surface .
FBI statistics released last week show that hate crimes have risen to their highest level in over a decade , fueled — as in the El Paso shooting — by Trump 's hateful and violent rhetoric .
To make this even more disturbing , as journalist David Neiwert noted at Daily Kos last week , `` this floodtide has been accompanied by a notable decline among law-enforcement agencies who take hate crimes seriously . ''
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are refusing to report their hate-crime data , which Neiwert says is `` exacerbated by an increasingly partisan conservativism in police cultures , manifested by the open hostility of many officers to civil-rights groups such as Black Lives Matter . ''
It 's yet another sign that , under Trump , the American right has become a lot more comfortable with domestic terrorism — so much so that many police departments , which tend to be be incredibly conservative , refuse to treat it as a serious threat .
This gels with reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups who are targeting progressives for harassment , as well as fist-bumping and partying with groups who celebrate violence against the left .
Trump himself has been hiding out at the golf course since his electoral defeat , but his followers continue to promote violence against anyone who opposes their fascistic fantasies .
Rittenhouse 's lawyer , Wood , went on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon 's radio show over the weekend and suggested that Trump supporters back his anti-democratic coup the way `` our Founding Fathers did in 1776 . ''
Unicorn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communications of neofascists , has reported an uptick in violent rhetoric among the Oath Keepers , a far right militia group whose leader , Stewart Rhodes , has openly begged Trump for some kind of order to inflict violence on his opponents .
Unicorn Riot tracked Oath Keepers on social media calling for `` executing lefties openly and violently '' and `` killing the news media live on air . ''
It continues to be unlikely that anything resembling a trained and organized militia will rise up to inflict violence on Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can lead directly to acts domestic terrorism , as angry young men , start taking it upon themselves to `` do something '' rather than simply fantasize about violence online .
Even when Trump is out of office , the grievances that fuel this rhetoric — the racism , the misogyny , the paranoid delusions about the `` deep state '' — will continue to fester .
Trump was merely the manure spread on the ground .
Now the ground is thoroughly fertilized , and the violent shoots are beginning to grow .

In any sensible society, Kyle Rittenhouse would be shunned across the political spectrum.
The 17-year-old Illinois resident stands accused of shooting three people, killing two of them, during an August Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Whatever the specific facts of that incident, the larger truth is that Rittenhouse is lying in the bed he made for himself. If he had done the right thing, by simply staying at home and leaving the protesters alone, two men would be alive and he would not face homicide charges. But because he got enraptured by violent fantasies of armed confrontation with anti-racists, Rittenhouse picked up a gun, drove across state lines and got exactly what he was looking for. The results were tragic.
In the past, Rittenhouse would have been largely abandoned, even by right-wingers who might otherwise be generally sympathetic to insecure white men playing dress-up with camo and guns. We've seen this pattern from Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s right through the Trump years. Conservatives certainly didn't embrace Patrick Crusius , the 21-year-old white nationalist accused of murdering 23 people in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart store last year. The mainstream conservative movement often flirts with right-wing extremists, but when the bullets fly or the bombs go off, conservative leaders prefer to pretend that they had nothing to do with the violence.
But Rittenhouse is free now, on $2 million bail, thanks to the conservative leaders who broke this pattern and rallied to the young man's side. Rittenhouse was aided by Christian websites fundraising for his defense, and according to his lawyer, Lin Wood — who is also involved in Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election — assistance was also offered by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell and '80s-era child actor Ricky Schroder. Schroder even posted a picture of himself celebrating with Rittenhouse, encouraging people to move to social media platforms like Parler that don't ban people for misinformation or hate speech. (Schroder had his own run-in with the law last year, when he was arrested on domestic violence charges that were later dropped.)
Rittenhouse has Trump to thank for the hero's treatment he's getting on the right. Along with undermining the social prohibitions against blatant racism, overt misogyny and openly trying to steal elections, Trump spent the past five years dismantling the taboo against shamelessly encouraging domestic terrorism. Trump's incitement of violence started shortly after he announced his first presidential campaign, when he fantasized out loud about physical violence against Black Lives Matter protesters in August 2015. He has continued at a steady and intensifying clip over the last five years. By the time Rittenhouse rolled into Kenosha with a gun, Trump had made it safe for conservatives to openly support political violence.
That's exactly what happened in the case of Rittenhouse. In the days after the shooting, Tucker Carlson of Fox News painted Rittenhouse as a hero, rather than a kid who was looking for trouble and found it. Soon, much of the conservative media followed. Then Trump himself got involved, insisting that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting protesters. Trump's administration even pressured the Department of Homeland Security to depict Rittenhouse as a hero, even though there was no reason whatsoever for him to bring a gun to the Kenosha protest in the first place.
Trump mostly encourages right-wing violence for the same reason he does anything: He thinks it may benefit him personally. It boosted his ego to believe people would risk injury, death or prison out of loyalty to him, and he obviously hoped a right-wing army would rise up to keep him in office after the voters threw him out. (That didn't happen, thankfully, probably because most Trump supporters are too old and comfortable to go full Rittenhouse.) When a group of would-be terrorists plotted to kidnap Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and likely to murder her, Trump made sure to express his delight in public, seeing the plot as a personal tribute.
This newfound enthusiasm for violence is bound to outlast Trump, whose impotent coup attempt won't prevent his eviction from the White House on Jan. 20. That's because none of this was ever about him, no matter what his ego tells him. He enabled it, of course, by using the presidential pulpit to give permission for some of the uglier urges on the right to burble up to the surface.
FBI statistics released last week show that hate crimes have risen to their highest level in over a decade, fueled — as in the El Paso shooting — by Trump's hateful and violent rhetoric.
To make this even more disturbing, as journalist David Neiwert noted at Daily Kos last week, "this floodtide has been accompanied by a notable decline among law-enforcement agencies who take hate crimes seriously."
In other words, police departments around the country are refusing to report their hate-crime data, which Neiwert says is "exacerbated by an increasingly partisan conservativism in police cultures, manifested by the open hostility of many officers to civil-rights groups such as Black Lives Matter."
It's yet another sign that, under Trump, the American right has become a lot more comfortable with domestic terrorism — so much so that many police departments, which tend to be be incredibly conservative, refuse to treat it as a serious threat. This gels with reports of police encouraging or cooperating with far-right groups who are targeting progressives for harassment, as well as fist-bumping and partying with groups who celebrate violence against the left.
Trump himself has been hiding out at the golf course since his electoral defeat, but his followers continue to promote violence against anyone who opposes their fascistic fantasies.
Rittenhouse's lawyer, Wood, went on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's radio show over the weekend and suggested that Trump supporters back his anti-democratic coup the way "our Founding Fathers did in 1776."
Unicorn Riot, a group that tracks the communications of neofascists, has reported an uptick in violent rhetoric among the Oath Keepers, a far right militia group whose leader, Stewart Rhodes, has openly begged Trump for some kind of order to inflict violence on his opponents. Unicorn Riot tracked Oath Keepers on social media calling for "executing lefties openly and violently" and "killing the news media live on air."
It continues to be unlikely that anything resembling a trained and organized militia will rise up to inflict violence on Trump's behalf. But this kind of rhetoric can lead directly to acts domestic terrorism, as angry young men, start taking it upon themselves to "do something" rather than simply fantasize about violence online. Even when Trump is out of office, the grievances that fuel this rhetoric — the racism, the misogyny, the paranoid delusions about the "deep state" — will continue to fester.
Trump was merely the manure spread on the ground. Now the ground is thoroughly fertilized, and the violent shoots are beginning to grow.


alternet--2020-11-23--'So much privilege': Epidemiologist blasts Ben Carson's access to $650,0 COVID treatment pre-FDA app

'So much privilege': Epidemiologist blasts Ben Carson's access to $650,0 COVID treatment pre-FDA approval

One of the numerous White House and Republican officials to contract the COVID-19 virus is HUD director Ben Carson .
With the Trump administration news cycle adding years to every day , Carson 's condition was kept out of public .
On Friday , Carson wrote on his Facebook page that his experience became very dire .
Carson wrote : `` Thank you everyone for your support and prayers as Candy and I battled COVID-19 .
I was extremely sick and initially took Oleander 4X with dramatic improvement .
However , I have several co-morbidities and after a brief period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the symptoms accelerated and I became desperately ill. President Trump was following my condition and cleared me for the monoclonal antibody therapy that he had previously received , which I am convinced saved my life . ''
As epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding tweeted , `` He survived after using monoclonal antibody drugs—*before* it was FDA approved .
So much privilege—250k Americans were n't so lucky . ''
Estimates on what this treatment would have cost any of the 250,000 Americans who have died after contracting the virus range from well above $ 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current system .
Whether or not this combination of drugs helped save Carson 's life is not entirely proven .
Carson was able to receive the treatment well before the FDA approved it , on Saturday—the day after Carson 's Facebook post .
The drug , according to the Washington Post , made by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals , is the second monoclonal antibody therapy cleared for treating COVID-19 .
It works by imitating an immune response from the patient 's body .
In cases where the patient 's body is not creating an adequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigate how severe someone 's illness becomes .
Research has suggested that what works for some people will not work for others .
However , the very real public health problem here is that our country can not provide even a few hundred people with these treatments every day , let alone thousands every day .
Part of that is our country 's medical infrastructure and the costs of producing the drug itself .
The Trump administration has so far bought 300,000 doses `` with an option to buy hundreds of thousands more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1,500 a dose , that is around half a billion .
Right now the U.S. is averaging more than 171,000 new cases every day .
Without public health interventions that number will increase exponentially .
And while Ben Carson mentions the need for people to `` stop playing politics , '' there is literally only one group of people playing the dangerous political games that has led to more than a quarter million dead Americans .

One of the numerous White House and Republican officials to contract the COVID-19 virus is HUD director Ben Carson. With the Trump administration news cycle adding years to every day, Carson's condition was kept out of public. On Friday, Carson wrote on his Facebook page that his experience became very dire.
Carson wrote: "Thank you everyone for your support and prayers as Candy and I battled COVID-19. I was extremely sick and initially took Oleander 4X with dramatic improvement. However, I have several co-morbidities and after a brief period when I only experienced minor discomfort, the symptoms accelerated and I became desperately ill. President Trump was following my condition and cleared me for the monoclonal antibody therapy that he had previously received, which I am convinced saved my life." As epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding tweeted, "He survived after using monoclonal antibody drugs—*before* it was FDA approved. So much privilege—250k Americans weren't so lucky."
Estimates on what this treatment would have cost any of the 250,000 Americans who have died after contracting the virus range from well above $100,000 to about $650,000, in our current system. Whether or not this combination of drugs helped save Carson's life is not entirely proven. Carson was able to receive the treatment well before the FDA approved it, on Saturday—the day after Carson's Facebook post.
The drug, according to the Washington Post, made by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, is the second monoclonal antibody therapy cleared for treating COVID-19. It works by imitating an immune response from the patient's body. In cases where the patient's body is not creating an adequate immune response, this drug can help mitigate how severe someone's illness becomes.
Research has suggested that what works for some people will not work for others. However, the very real public health problem here is that our country cannot provide even a few hundred people with these treatments every day, let alone thousands every day. Part of that is our country's medical infrastructure and the costs of producing the drug itself.
Unlike conventional pills, these drugs are synthesized by living organisms in specialized reactors, at a biological pace that can't be rushed. A worldwide scramble to find capacity to make the drugs is underway, with companies striking deals with competitors to increase their manufacturing capabilities.
The Trump administration has so far bought 300,000 doses "with an option to buy hundreds of thousands more." At between $1,250 and $1,500 a dose, that is around half a billion. Right now the U.S. is averaging more than 171,000 new cases every day. Without public health interventions that number will increase exponentially. And while Ben Carson mentions the need for people to "stop playing politics," there is literally only one group of people playing the dangerous political games that has led to more than a quarter million dead Americans.


alternet--2020-11-23--More than 100 GOP security experts warn Trump's refusal to concede ‘poses significant risks to natio

More than 100 GOP security experts warn Trump's refusal to concede ‘poses significant risks to national security'

With President-elect Joe Biden having won 306 electoral votes in addition to defeating President Donald Trump by over 6 million in the popular vote , there is no question that Biden 's victory was decisive .
Regardless , Trump is still refusing to concede the election and vowing to fight Biden in court until the bitter end .
But some Republican national security experts , journalists Tom Hamburger and Ellen Nakashima report in the Washington Post , are urging Trump to concede for the good of the United States .
In a joint statement , more than 100 Republicans with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for Trump 's concession — and those Republicans range from former CIA Director Michael Hayden to Tom Ridge , the former two-term Pennsylvania governor who went on to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush .
Ordinarily , a president-elect would have access to the highly classified President 's Daily Briefing .
But Biden , so far , has been denied access to it — which the Republicans who signed that letter view as a threat to the United States ' national security .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump 's refusal to permit the presidential transition poses significant risks to our national security at a time when the U.S. confronts a global pandemic and faces serious threats from global adversaries , terrorist groups and other forces . ''
The statement also called for `` Republican leaders , especially those in Congress , to publicly demand that President Trump cease his anti-democratic assault on the integrity of the presidential election . ''
Moreover , they urged Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to `` strongly oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to threaten and intimidate state officials in order to prevent a vote by the Electoral College . ''
John B. Bellinger III , who served as a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council under the Bush Administration , told the Post , `` It is shocking to me and other senior national security officials , who have dedicated much of our careers to protecting the country , that congressional Republicans are allowing Trump to impugn the integrity of our elections… .
( Elections are ) the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another Bush Administration alumni who signed the statement , former U.S. Attorney Ken Wainstein , told the Post he feels a `` sense of both alarm ( and ) disappointment '' that `` the president of the United States is trying to undermine our election '' and `` that so many Republican leaders are abetting that effort either with active support or with their silence . ''
John D. Negroponte , who served as national intelligence director as well as deputy secretary of state under Bush , told the Post that Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss and therefore , not allowing the transition to go forward… .
Every day that 's lost is not only unfair to the new administration , it 's harmful to the country and our national security . ''

With President-elect Joe Biden having won 306 electoral votes in addition to defeating President Donald Trump by over 6 million in the popular vote, there is no question that Biden's victory was decisive. Regardless, Trump is still refusing to concede the election and vowing to fight Biden in court until the bitter end. But some Republican national security experts, journalists Tom Hamburger and Ellen Nakashima report in the Washington Post, are urging Trump to concede for the good of the United States.
In a joint statement, more than 100 Republicans with national security backgrounds signed a joint statement calling for Trump's concession — and those Republicans range from former CIA Director Michael Hayden to Tom Ridge, the former two-term Pennsylvania governor who went on to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.
Ordinarily, a president-elect would have access to the highly classified President's Daily Briefing. But Biden, so far, has been denied access to it — which the Republicans who signed that letter view as a threat to the United States' national security. In their statement, they warned, "President Trump's refusal to permit the presidential transition poses significant risks to our national security at a time when the U.S. confronts a global pandemic and faces serious threats from global adversaries, terrorist groups and other forces."
The statement also called for "Republican leaders, especially those in Congress, to publicly demand that President Trump cease his anti-democratic assault on the integrity of the presidential election." Moreover, they urged Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to "strongly oppose" Trump's "dangerous and extra-legal efforts to threaten and intimidate state officials in order to prevent a vote by the Electoral College."
John B. Bellinger III, who served as a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council under the Bush Administration, told the Post, "It is shocking to me and other senior national security officials, who have dedicated much of our careers to protecting the country, that congressional Republicans are allowing Trump to impugn the integrity of our elections…. (Elections are) the very core of American democracy."
Another Bush Administration alumni who signed the statement, former U.S. Attorney Ken Wainstein, told the Post he feels a "sense of both alarm (and) disappointment" that "the president of the United States is trying to undermine our election" and "that so many Republican leaders are abetting that effort either with active support or with their silence."
John D. Negroponte, who served as national intelligence director as well as deputy secretary of state under Bush, told the Post that Trump's allies are "in denial about the loss and therefore, not allowing the transition to go forward…. Every day that's lost is not only unfair to the new administration, it's harmful to the country and our national security."


alternet--2020-11-23--The pernicious aspects of military madness are personified in Biden favorite to be Defense Secretary

By all accounts , the frontrunner to be Joe Biden 's pick for Secretary of Defense is Michèle Flournoy .
It 's a prospect that should do more than set off alarm bells—it should be understood as a scenario for the president-elect to stick his middle fingers in the eyes of Americans who are fed up with endless war and ongoing militarism .
Warning and petitioning Biden to dissuade him from a Flournoy nomination probably have scant chances of success .
But if Biden puts her name forward , activists should quickly launch an all-out effort to block Senate confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , progressives have an opportunity to affirm and amplify the position that Martin Luther King Jr. boldly articulated when he insisted that `` I never intend to adjust myself to the madness of militarism . ''
In the present day , the pernicious and lucrative aspects of that madness are personified in the favorite to be Biden 's Defense Secretary .
Days ago , the Project On Government Oversight ( POGO ) published a detained analysis under the headline `` Should Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense ? ''
The well-documented answer : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties , '' POGO provided an overview of Flournoy 's revolving-door career .
When she was n't oiling the war machine in the Clinton and Obama administrations , Flournoy was profiteering from servicing that machine : • `` In 2002 she went from positions in the Pentagon and the National Defense University to the mainstream but hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies , which is largely funded by industry and Pentagon contributions . ''
• `` Five years later , she co-founded the second-most heavily contractor-funded think tank in Washington , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security .
That became a stepping stone to her role as under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration . ''
• `` From there she rotated to the Boston Consulting Group , after which the firm 's military contracts expanded from $ 1.6 million to $ 32 million in three years .
She also joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton , a consulting firm laden with defense contracts .
In 2017 she co-founded WestExec Advisors , helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicts of interest was her long record of advocacy for military conflicts .
`` Flournoy was widely considered to have been one of Obama 's more hawkish advisers and helped mastermind the escalation of the disastrous war in Afghanistan , '' Arwa Mahdawi pointed out in a Nov. 21 Guardian piece .
`` She has called for increased defense spending , arguing in a 2017 Washington Post op-ed that Trump was 'right to raise the need for more defense dollars . '
She has complained that Obama did n't use military force enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wars in Iraq and Libya .
.
. ''
The president-elect is hardly in a position to hold such a record against prospective appointees .
He has never fully acknowledged , much less renounced , his own roles in advocating for disastrous U.S. wars -- most notably and tragically , the war in Iraq .
Biden has n't gotten his story straight or come clean about supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 .
His specious claims that he did n't really support the invasion have been gross misrepresentations of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrat in the Senate who exerted the most leverage in support of the Iraq invasion , and he did so with public enthusiasm .
The foreseeable dangers of picking Flournoy to run the Pentagon are compounded by Biden 's selection of Antony Blinken to be Secretary of State .
It was Blinken who , 18 years ago , served as staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while its chairman , Joe Biden , oversaw the pivotal and badly skewed two-day hearing in summer 2002 that greased the congressional skids for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with Flournoy , co-founded WestExec Advisors , which the Washington Post 's breaking-news coverage of the Blinken nomination gingerly described as `` a political strategy firm . ''
It was a nice euphemism , in contrast to how POGO describes the WestExec Advisors mission -- `` helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies . ''
The term `` war profiteering '' would be even more apt .
If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior , there are ample reasons for apprehension about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden has begun to install for his presidency .
But realism should not lead to fatalism or passivity .
Extricating the United States from the grip of the military-industrial complex will require massive and sustained organizing .
With that goal in mind , a grassroots campaign to prevent Michèle Flournoy from becoming Secretary of Defense would be wise .

By all accounts, the frontrunner to be Joe Biden's pick for Secretary of Defense is Michèle Flournoy. It's a prospect that should do more than set off alarm bells—it should be understood as a scenario for the president-elect to stick his middle fingers in the eyes of Americans who are fed up with endless war and ongoing militarism.
Warning and petitioning Biden to dissuade him from a Flournoy nomination probably have scant chances of success. But if Biden puts her name forward, activists should quickly launch an all-out effort to block Senate confirmation.
As the Biden administration takes office, progressives have an opportunity to affirm and amplify the position that Martin Luther King Jr. boldly articulated when he insisted that "I never intend to adjust myself to the madness of militarism." In the present day, the pernicious and lucrative aspects of that madness are personified in the favorite to be Biden's Defense Secretary.
Days ago, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) published a detained analysis under the headline "Should Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense?" The well-documented answer: No.
Citing "extensive defense industry ties," POGO provided an overview of Flournoy's revolving-door career. When she wasn't oiling the war machine in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Flournoy was profiteering from servicing that machine:
Running parallel to Flournoy's financial conflicts of interest was her long record of advocacy for military conflicts.
"Flournoy was widely considered to have been one of Obama's more hawkish advisers and helped mastermind the escalation of the disastrous war in Afghanistan," Arwa Mahdawi pointed out in a Nov. 21 Guardian piece. "She has called for increased defense spending, arguing in a 2017 Washington Post op-ed that Trump was 'right to raise the need for more defense dollars.' She has complained that Obama didn't use military force enough, particularly in Syria. She supported the wars in Iraq and Libya. . ."
The president-elect is hardly in a position to hold such a record against prospective appointees. He has never fully acknowledged, much less renounced, his own roles in advocating for disastrous U.S. wars -- most notably and tragically, the war in Iraq.
Biden hasn't gotten his story straight or come clean about supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His specious claims that he didn't really support the invasion have been gross misrepresentations of the historical record. Actually, Biden was the Democrat in the Senate who exerted the most leverage in support of the Iraq invasion, and he did so with public enthusiasm.
The foreseeable dangers of picking Flournoy to run the Pentagon are compounded by Biden's selection of Antony Blinken to be Secretary of State. It was Blinken who, 18 years ago, served as staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while its chairman, Joe Biden, oversaw the pivotal and badly skewed two-day hearing in summer 2002 that greased the congressional skids for approving an invasion of Iraq.
Blinken, along with Flournoy, co-founded WestExec Advisors, which the Washington Post's breaking-news coverage of the Blinken nomination gingerly described as "a political strategy firm." It was a nice euphemism, in contrast to how POGO describes the WestExec Advisors mission -- "helping defense corporations market their products to the Pentagon and other agencies." The term "war profiteering" would be even more apt.
If past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, there are ample reasons for apprehension about the top of the military and foreign-policy team that Biden has begun to install for his presidency. But realism should not lead to fatalism or passivity.
Extricating the United States from the grip of the military-industrial complex will require massive and sustained organizing. With that goal in mind, a grassroots campaign to prevent Michèle Flournoy from becoming Secretary of Defense would be wise.


alternet--2020-11-23--Here's what the rift between Trump and Fox News means for Democrats: report

In recent weeks , President Donald Trump has been angrily railing against Fox News and Fox Business , urging his supporters to watch Newsmax TV or One American News instead .
And a Daily Beast article by journalists Sam Stein and Maxwell Tani , published on November 21 , contemplates what the bad blood between Trump and Fox News could mean for Democrats going forward .
It was n't a good sign for the Fox News/Trump alliance when head honcho Rupert Murdoch predicted that former Vice President Joe Biden would win the 2020 presidential election , and Trump was furious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona for Biden on Election Night — even when many other media outlets were still declining to do so .
Fox News ' decision desk , like the Associated Press , believed that the math was insurmountable for Trump in Arizona ; others took a wait-and-see approach .
Stein and Tani explain , `` The cable news behemoth has vexed prior Democratic administrations , darting between acting as the voice of the opposition and a legitimate news outlet with the nation 's largest audience .
But a series of recent developments — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the more straight-faced personalities at Fox News — has changed the dynamics of this particular political-media nexus .
And it has sparked a renewed argument among Biden allies and White House veterans about how and whether he should engage the network more fully . ''
Biden has a history of interacting with parts of Fox News .
Wallace interviewed him during the Democratic presidential primary and went on to moderate the first presidential debate between the former vice president and Trump .
Some pundits believed that interacting with Wallace was good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to answer tough questions from someone who is conservative-leaning but not an extremist .
And former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg stressed that Biden should n't try to pretend that conservatives do n't exist .
Buttigieg told the Beast , `` Everyone on our side wonders how 70 million people could have voted for this president with their eyes open .
If they believe these 70 million people are evil , then our country is not going to make it .
If , on the other hand , you believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or so-called information , than the rest of us , then the real problem is not the character of the voters as it is the nature of the information that 's getting to them .
Then we have a responsibility to try and change the information they receive . ''
The former South Bend mayor , in fact , has been willing to appear on parts of Fox News .
`` The train has very much left the station as to whether Fox News will be perceived as legitimate by tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Beast .
`` That 's over .
And it happened without us .
The time for starving it of oxygen is long gone . ''
But Tommy Veitor , a former spokesman for President Barack Obama , warns that extremism often prevails at Fox News .
Veitor told the Daily Beast , `` You go in there knowing it is not a news network and that it 's a Republican propaganda channel .
They might play nice in the dayside programming .
Chris Wallace might do a decent interview once every few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election , you need to realize it will be wall-to-wall 'ISIS is coming , the caravan is down the street , and they 're going to kill your family . '
'' With Trump angrily railing against Fox News , Stein and Tani stress , the question for Democrats is : how should the Democratic Party handle the cable news outlet going forward ?
Buttigieg told the Beast , `` It just shows you how far through the looking glass we 've come if Fox News is too reasonable and moderate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Stein and Tani point out , Trump still has plenty of strident supporters at Fox .
Stein and Tani explain , `` If an editorial course correction is coming at Fox , it 's not yet readily apparent… .
Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have fully touted Trump 's recount efforts , even as the preponderance of evidence shows it to be an abject failure… .
And last week , Maria Bartiromo , one of Trump 's top allies in the financial media world , gave airtime to a bogus voter-fraud conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims about election integrity regularly on her show . ''

In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has been angrily railing against Fox News and Fox Business, urging his supporters to watch Newsmax TV or One American News instead. And a Daily Beast article by journalists Sam Stein and Maxwell Tani, published on November 21, contemplates what the bad blood between Trump and Fox News could mean for Democrats going forward.
It wasn't a good sign for the Fox News/Trump alliance when head honcho Rupert Murdoch predicted that former Vice President Joe Biden would win the 2020 presidential election, and Trump was furious when Fox News' decision desk called Arizona for Biden on Election Night — even when many other media outlets were still declining to do so. Fox News' decision desk, like the Associated Press, believed that the math was insurmountable for Trump in Arizona; others took a wait-and-see approach.
Stein and Tani explain, "The cable news behemoth has vexed prior Democratic administrations, darting between acting as the voice of the opposition and a legitimate news outlet with the nation's largest audience. But a series of recent developments — including growing animosity between President Donald Trump and some of the more straight-faced personalities at Fox News — has changed the dynamics of this particular political-media nexus. And it has sparked a renewed argument among Biden allies and White House veterans about how and whether he should engage the network more fully."
Biden has a history of interacting with parts of Fox News. Wallace interviewed him during the Democratic presidential primary and went on to moderate the first presidential debate between the former vice president and Trump. Some pundits believed that interacting with Wallace was good for Biden's campaign, as he needed to answer tough questions from someone who is conservative-leaning but not an extremist. And former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg stressed that Biden shouldn't try to pretend that conservatives don't exist.
Buttigieg told the Beast, "Everyone on our side wonders how 70 million people could have voted for this president with their eyes open. If they believe these 70 million people are evil, then our country is not going to make it. If, on the other hand, you believe they're largely working from different information, or so-called information, than the rest of us, then the real problem is not the character of the voters as it is the nature of the information that's getting to them. Then we have a responsibility to try and change the information they receive."
The former South Bend mayor, in fact, has been willing to appear on parts of Fox News.
"The train has very much left the station as to whether Fox News will be perceived as legitimate by tens of millions of Americans," Buttigieg told the Beast. "That's over. And it happened without us. The time for starving it of oxygen is long gone."
But Tommy Veitor, a former spokesman for President Barack Obama, warns that extremism often prevails at Fox News.
Veitor told the Daily Beast, "You go in there knowing it is not a news network and that it's a Republican propaganda channel. They might play nice in the dayside programming. Chris Wallace might do a decent interview once every few years. But three weeks out from an election, you need to realize it will be wall-to-wall 'ISIS is coming, the caravan is down the street, and they're going to kill your family.'"
With Trump angrily railing against Fox News, Stein and Tani stress, the question for Democrats is: how should the Democratic Party handle the cable news outlet going forward? Buttigieg told the Beast, "It just shows you how far through the looking glass we've come if Fox News is too reasonable and moderate for today's Republican Party." But as Stein and Tani point out, Trump still has plenty of strident supporters at Fox.
Stein and Tani explain, "If an editorial course correction is coming at Fox, it's not yet readily apparent…. Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity have fully touted Trump's recount efforts, even as the preponderance of evidence shows it to be an abject failure…. And last week, Maria Bartiromo, one of Trump's top allies in the financial media world, gave airtime to a bogus voter-fraud conspiracy theory, and continues to promote debunked claims about election integrity regularly on her show."


alternet--2020-11-23--Reports of secret meeting between Netanyahu, MbS and Pompeo 'extremely alarming': foreign policy ana

Reports of secret meeting between Netanyahu, MbS and Pompeo 'extremely alarming': foreign policy analyst

The alarming possibility of a military attack on Iran—a nation that has long been in the sights of war hawks in the United States , Saudi Arabia , and Israel—was immediately invoked by foreign policy analysts Monday following reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in secret late Sunday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
First divulged by unnamed Israeli officials and publicly denied Monday morning by the Saudi foreign minister , the reported covert meeting in Neom , Saudi Arabia comes on the heels of news last week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisers for options to bomb Iran 's primary nuclear energy site , prompting Iran to vow a `` crushing response '' to any attack .
Trump 's request for military strike options came days after he lost the presidential election to Joe Biden , who has pledged to act quickly to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump violated in May of 2018 .
Contrary to baseless and ongoing allegations by the U.S. and Israel , Iran says it is not developing and has no plans to develop nuclear weapons—a claim U.N. inspectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The context of the Trump administration 's aggressive posturing and militaristic threats against Iran fueled critics ' concerns following word of the secret meeting between MbS , Netanyahu , and Pompeo , which was also reportedly attended by Yossi Cohen , director of the Israeli spy agency Mossad .
`` It is extremely alarming that the warmongers most reliant on Trump 's blank checks are secretly meeting in the middle of the night as the clock nearly runs out on the Trump administration , '' tweeted foreign policy analyst Omar Baddar .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
Trita Parsi , executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , echoed Baddar 's fears and raised the additional concern that the `` actual target '' of the meeting was `` the incoming Biden team , with the aim of deterring the U.S. from seeking diplomacy with Tehran . ''
Despite the public denial by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan—who tweeted early Monday that `` the only officials present '' at the meeting `` were American and Saudi '' —unnamed Saudi officials told the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo and MbS .
Among the topics discussed at the hours-long meeting , according to the Journal , were Iran and normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia .
Both Netanyahu and Pompeo refused to comment on the meeting , but neither denied that it took place .
Joe Cirincione , a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute , warned in an op-ed last week that while unlikely , an attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel is a possibility worth taking seriously and guarding against .
`` A member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tzahi Hanegbi , flatly predicted in early November that Israel will attack Iran if Joe Biden is elected president , '' Cirincione pointed out .
`` Ominously , the U.S. Central Command announced ... that it moved a detachment of F-16 fighter-bombers from Germany to the UAE , across the Gulf from Iran . ''
Returning the U.S. to compliance with the Iran nuclear agreement , argued Cirincione , `` would allow the United States to establish a more robust relationship with Iran with regular contacts—as was the case during the Obama administration—that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could escalate , intended or unintended , into a war that would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look trivial in comparison . ''

The alarming possibility of a military attack on Iran—a nation that has long been in the sights of war hawks in the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—was immediately invoked by foreign policy analysts Monday following reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in secret late Sunday with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
First divulged by unnamed Israeli officials and publicly denied Monday morning by the Saudi foreign minister, the reported covert meeting in Neom, Saudi Arabia comes on the heels of news last week that U.S. President Donald Trump asked his senior advisers for options to bomb Iran's primary nuclear energy site, prompting Iran to vow a "crushing response" to any attack.
Trump's request for military strike options came days after he lost the presidential election to Joe Biden, who has pledged to act quickly to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump violated in May of 2018. Contrary to baseless and ongoing allegations by the U.S. and Israel, Iran says it is not developing and has no plans to develop nuclear weapons—a claim U.N. inspectors have repeatedly verified in recent years.
The context of the Trump administration's aggressive posturing and militaristic threats against Iran fueled critics' concerns following word of the secret meeting between MbS, Netanyahu, and Pompeo, which was also reportedly attended by Yossi Cohen, director of the Israeli spy agency Mossad.
"It is extremely alarming that the warmongers most reliant on Trump's blank checks are secretly meeting in the middle of the night as the clock nearly runs out on the Trump administration," tweeted foreign policy analyst Omar Baddar. "Do they have Iran in the crosshairs?"
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, echoed Baddar's fears and raised the additional concern that the "actual target" of the meeting was "the incoming Biden team, with the aim of deterring the U.S. from seeking diplomacy with Tehran."
Despite the public denial by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan—who tweeted early Monday that "the only officials present" at the meeting "were American and Saudi"—unnamed Saudi officials told the Wall Street Journal that Netanyahu attended the meeting with Pompeo and MbS.
Among the topics discussed at the hours-long meeting, according to the Journal, were Iran and normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Both Netanyahu and Pompeo refused to comment on the meeting, but neither denied that it took place.
Joe Cirincione, a distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute, warned in an op-ed last week that while unlikely, an attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel is a possibility worth taking seriously and guarding against.
"A member of Netanyahu's cabinet, Settlements Minister Tzahi Hanegbi, flatly predicted in early November that Israel will attack Iran if Joe Biden is elected president," Cirincione pointed out. "Ominously, the U.S. Central Command announced... that it moved a detachment of F-16 fighter-bombers from Germany to the UAE, across the Gulf from Iran."
Returning the U.S. to compliance with the Iran nuclear agreement, argued Cirincione, "would allow the United States to establish a more robust relationship with Iran with regular contacts—as was the case during the Obama administration—that would reduce the risks of conflicts that could escalate, intended or unintended, into a war that would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look trivial in comparison."


alternet--2020-11-23--Fed-up GOP donors may withhold money from Georgia senate races if party doesn’t make Trump concede:

Fed-up GOP donors may withhold money from Georgia senate races if party doesn’t make Trump concede: report

President Donald Trump 's refusal to concede the 2020 presidential election is now causing even more potential headaches for the Republican Party .
The New York Times reports that some wealthy business leaders are getting tired of Trump refusing to even allow the presidential transition process to begin and mulling a variety of ways to force the GOP to tell the president that it 's time to accept reality .
`` As a way of gaining leverage over the G.O.P.
, some of the executives have also discussed withholding campaign donations from the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential transition , '' the Times ' sources claim .
In addition to potentially withholding donations , the business leaders are sending a letter to General Services Administration chief Emily Murphy which demands that she recognize President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris as the winners of the 2020 race .
`` Every day that an orderly presidential transition process is delayed , our democracy grows weaker in the eyes of our own citizens and the nation 's stature on the global stage is diminished , '' the executives ' letter states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an incoming administration puts the public and economic health and security of America at risk . ''

President Donald Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 presidential election is now causing even more potential headaches for the Republican Party.
The New York Times reports that some wealthy business leaders are getting tired of Trump refusing to even allow the presidential transition process to begin and mulling a variety of ways to force the GOP to tell the president that it's time to accept reality.
"As a way of gaining leverage over the G.O.P., some of the executives have also discussed withholding campaign donations from the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia unless party leaders agree to push for a presidential transition," the Times' sources claim.
In addition to potentially withholding donations, the business leaders are sending a letter to General Services Administration chief Emily Murphy which demands that she recognize President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris as the winners of the 2020 race.
"Every day that an orderly presidential transition process is delayed, our democracy grows weaker in the eyes of our own citizens and the nation's stature on the global stage is diminished," the executives' letter states. "Withholding resources and vital information from an incoming administration puts the public and economic health and security of America at risk."