Today's edition of quick hits:
* Pressuring Syria: "Leaders of more than 60 nations and international organizations called on Syria's government on Friday to halt its attacks on rebellious cities to allow in humanitarian supplies and asked the United Nations to begin planning for a peacekeeper force, even as some evacuations began from a hard-hit neighborhood in the besieged city of Homs."
* Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile, called Russian and Chinese opposition to action on Syria "despicable."
* In an unexpected twist, a Hamas leader spoke out against Assad and threw his support behind the opposition.
* Here's a report from Syria from NBC News' Richard Engel this afternoon:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
* IAEA reports on Tehran: "Iran has significantly ramped up production of a purer form of enriched uranium, U.N. nuclear officials said in a new report Friday, a finding certain to exacerbate worries about the country's march toward nuclear-weapons capability."
* Deadly Afghan protests: "At least nine Afghans were killed Friday during demonstrations that began four days ago, after U.S. military personnel burned a pile of Korans, and spread across the country."
* Americans' consumer confidence continues to improve. That's no small development.
* In the wake of Rick Santorum accusing Dutch officials of routinely killing the elderly to save money, some politicians in the Netherlands are not at all pleased. A leading member of the Dutch Parliament said, "This cannot be allowed to rest."
* Just a few days after getting into trouble for editing a newspaper editorial endorsement, the Romney campaign edited another newspaper editorial endorsement.
* Legal trouble for Shepard Fairey: "The creator of the Barack Obama "HOPE" poster pleaded guilty Friday to criminal contempt, saying he made a 'terrible decision' in 2009 to destroy some documents and fabricate others in a civil lawsuit pertaining to The Associated Press photograph he relied upon to make the poster."
* Great piece from Jonathan Cohn: "The controversy over the Catholic Church and health care goes beyond birth control." (It's a subscriber-only piece, but this link will give you, Maddow Blog readers, complete access to the article.)
* And Jeb Bush is watching the Republican debates, and has noticed that the candidates "are appealing to people's fears and emotion." You don't say.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
Now would be a good time for Republicans to stop saying they are going to attack Iran as soon as they get elected.
Reports on Iran makes it clear that they are going to have sufficient radioactive material to make nuclear weapons in a few years. They are using underground bunkers to protect their processing facilities.
Iran has long range missile capability and they have said they are going to strike first. It's pretty obvious they have a delivery system.
It's pretty obvious Iran isn't going to respond positively to threats, and they are going to be armed well enough to strike back.
If there is a war with Iran, and if the US underestimates their capabilities, it is likely Iran will use that as an excuse to capture and cut off oil export from Saudi Arabia.
It would be wise to remember Iran fought Iraq to a standoff while the US was providing weapons to Sadam Insane.
Excellent Points...these republican hawks are not stupid nor do they need advice on the grave error of provoking more stress in the Middle East. They want to provoke more anti-American aggression. (sadly I predicted this a year ago when I posted a blog advising the Hawks would hope and pray for something like this to occur before the Elections) Troops peeing on Dead Muslims and Burning Religious Literature is not just some rouges acting out. These troops are well aware of what can and will happen when you provoke a religious extremeist. I served and would have never blamed PTSD as an excuse knowing that would put my fellow warriors and Countrymen in jeopardy. Our national security depends on Professional Soldiers. Our Poiliticians need to back off, unless they Personally intend to "Put their boots and their Kids on the ground".....Extending the conflict or insighting attacks is Treasonous.
Freedom of Speach....is not the same as insighting foreign aggression. (and look who's doing all the "Hawking"?...they didnt served nor do their children)
I'm sorry but after reading the first linked article I wonder even worser now.. What do John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham do, other than dabble in potential bloodshed and war crimes? I think we should arm the American people against those 3 in particular.
Ditto.
First why am I creating an account for Newsvine instead of MSNBC as I intended? That's just not cool and that practice should immediately be banned! It is completely and totally unacceptable!
We are at a very serious crossroads with both Syria and Iran. The problem with Syria is that this Assad guy is not the bumbling idiot Khadafi was and he has the military doing it's dirty deeds in total loyalty. The Syrian people can't mount an effective offense against this guy and are suffering horribly! As we have now seen foreign journalists trying to get the news out are at extreme risk too! So how does the United States of America handle this when we possess the only military in the world capable of dealing with it? Diplomatic solutions just don't work here! The United Nations doesn't have enough "teeth", they're extraordinarily weak! Can we stay out of it, or are we inevitably involved?
The situation in Iran is equally terrifying! In WWII, the Germans developed several methods of effective nuclear bomb delivery but didn't get the bomb! If Iran gets the bomb, recent military excersizes they conducted show clearly that they have several very effective short to medium range delivery systems already operational! They just got to put the warhead on! Not only is Israel directly affected but all of the Arab nations within range of these weapons systems! All shipping and military ships in the Straits of Jormuz are at risk too! Iran getting the bomb would tip the balance of power very seriously in the Middle East! Then you have to worry about terrorists being supplied with a small nuke to take out an American city! Unlike the Russians and us, who knew very well the consequences of pushing the button down, Iran just doesn't care. If they get it, they'll be very tempted to use it regardless of consequences! They would quantify the use of these weapons by saying "We did it for Allah! We killed the infidel!". How are we going to respond to this? That is the big question!
So, can we risk not getting into these frays or will it hurt us and the world to not get involved? These are the horrific decisions the Administration has to make in these times of total dissarray in America right now! We can't afford it right now but can we just stand by idily by and let things happen?...I think not! Let's trust the President and the State Department to make the correct decisions. That's about all we can do right now!
Germany was using heavy water fission with unenriched uranium to breed plutonium for nuclear weapons. This process is currently used in Canada. This is much faster and less expensive than the uranium enrichment process currently used in the US.
Germany might have produced a nuclear weapon at the same time we did if things did not go the way they did.
It is highly likely Iran switched to this process after our computer virus destroyed their uranium enrichment facilities.
One difficulty is that unrefined uranium requires a gigantic reactor that is difficult to pressurize. Pressurized water is used for safety. Unpressurized reactors can explode, like the event at Chernobyl.
That may be the reason a mountain was hollowed out to hold the new nuclear processing facility. It looks allot like the Iranians know what they are doing.
The blog is hosted by Newsvine. Newsvine is used for the comments system on MSBC sites. So put your fur down. Nothing hinky is going on at all.
Newsvine is a subcontractor.
Kind of like how MacDonalds subcontracts lettuce and beef.
Well said. We can bomb people to doomsday and not change their ideology. If the people there accept their radical leaders, there is nothing we can do short of killing all of them. They are seemingly much more willing than the rest of the world to meet their maker, so how do you scare them? We can not compromise in our own congress, how are we to negotiate with people who truly believe? The best hope we have is their more rational neighbors possibly having some influence.
All the Iranians want is for the US and UK to stop threatening to attack them.
They want to sell their oil and be left alone.
The problem is that so many people are easily cowed by fear. Any perceived change can be used as a red flag by a person that wants to use them as their personal army.As the far right has proven, we are not immune to these tactics. Toss in religious differences and wham the perfect storm.
Does anyone think that Bush never intended to create all this chaos in the middle east? Iran was a primary target to begin with.The case was being made as he repeated that we would not leave Iraq as long as he was president.
A nuclear weapon gets lost in flight then the Russians have a military exercise near the Aleutians? I submit that said weapon was on its way to Iraq until someone told dumbo he better clear it with Russia or they might think we had other intentions. When Russia objected the plane was "found" and returned to base.
so, how exactly how many people must be bombed and maimed before the international community calls it "genocide" and then we decide that it is appropriate for a regime change by doing what we did in Libya?
We've been told that: 1) the Iranians don't care about being nuked. 2) soon they'll have their own bomb. 3) they have a delivery system that reaches Israel and Europe. 4) their priority is to get the Jews out of Israel. Conclusion: once they get the bomb, it would be not inconceivable that they would give an ultimatum that all Jews have to leave Israel in 1 year of be bombed. How would the world respond? How would Israel respond? How would the US respond? How would Europe respond? Nato? Middle East? It is frightening, isn't it? So, why are we letting them go on and on, getting closer and closer to getting a bomb? A war with Iran now is not good, but the alternative is worse, don't you think?
It doesn't have to be war. War always represents political and diplomatic failure. Economic sanctions are hitting Iran hard, and there are covert activities against its nuclear program. Also, Iran is not well-liked among Arabs, and Iran's militant brand of Shi'ism is not well-liked among Sunnis. Iran knows this, and although the Iranian government is going to push the envelope for all it's worth, it has to be aware that it can only push so hard before provoking an even stronger response. The regime's top priority is its own survival. How it calculates what's best for its own survival will depend on how rational it is (and we can't judge the rationality of the regime by the current president of the Iranian state). We don't need to rush headlong into war because I don't believe that the Iranian government has an interest in making war inevitable. But we'll see.
Building on the Affordable Care Act the Obama administration implemented a new $77 million dollar high tech initiative to combat Medicare fraud. Since it's implementation the government has made about $200 billion dollars in Medicare payments, an estimated $30 billion of that fraudulent. With the new system the Obama administration was able to stop...wait, here it comes...$7,591.00 in fraudulent payments! Tada!
Yep, 77 million dollars (well, in all fairness, only about 23 million has been spent so far) to stop 60 billion in fraud every year and in six months time the Obama administration has stopped less than $7,600.
Why isn't TRMS covering this? Hmmm.
There's plenty of sources, here's one:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/anti-fraud-medicare-software-disappointing-1.3553514
Okay, I am not saying the President Administration is all "bad" or that the Republicans are any better. I am saying we are not looking at BOTH sides and that NO ONE (for the most part) is proposing a real solution.
In reading this afternoon I found where the Secretary of the Treasury in essence said, "The President's proposed budget, if Congress enacted all of it, would leave us with unsustainable financial obligations, mainly debt interest."
He went on to imply that the President did not have the political will to make any changes and we were now waiting to see if anyone in Congress has the political courage needed.
Wow, just wow!
Here's the video in case you doubt me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdcQGJF_jmY