Watch this interview (that dances around the issues):
Here's my brief take on it.
Tom Cotton is completely wrong that a free press doesn't have the legal right to disclose any classified information. He specifically mentioned what Edward Snowden did. The press most certainly had a right to divulge the classified information. In fact, they, as did Edward Snowden, had a duty to disclose it. That's because what was classified was illegal activity on the part of the US government, unconstitutionally illegal activity. Absolutely zero classification is legal when it masks unconstitutionality by the government, period.
Concerning Iraq, the discussion in the video doesn't start with the Bush-43 policy toward Iraq leading up to the invasion and occupation. That's telling and of course, expected because the decision to attack was based upon a pack of proven lies, lies which were being called lies before the attack including being call such by yours truly.
On Ukraine, the discussion is based upon the false meme that Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine. In addition, the interviewer, Peter Robinson, makes the false claim that Merkel and Hollande were directed to go negotiate with Putin. They made the decision themselves and acted upon their decision over the objections of Washington. Then Cotton totally mischaracterizes the deal Merkel, Hollande, and Putin concluded. In no way were the Donbass forces not required to pull back from the frontline. They were definitely required and did so well before the Kiev forces pulled back on that side.
Tom Cotton referred to Russian violations of earlier nuclear-arms deals with Washington. What violations? The US violated the ABM Treaty.
You'll notice that there is no discussion about the quite large and extreme right-wing fascist element in Kiev. Poroshenko is busily trying to mask over that, but he isn't going to alter the hearts and minds of the Bandera forces who worked directly with the Nazis. We also have Yatsenyuk having said that Russia invaded Germany when it was, in fact, Germany that invaded Russia. We also have Poroshenko claiming that the Nazis and Bolsheviks conspired to start WWII to divide up Europe. That's an utterly ridiculous revisionist, PSYOP tactic. There was no such conspiracy. The Nazis were bent upon destroying the Bolsheviks, and Stalin was stupid not to have known that rather than signing an agreement with Hitler that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Once Russia was invaded by Germany and once Stalin came out of his severe depression at having been completely duped by Hitler, Russia resolved to fight the Nazis until the Nazis were totally crushed, which they were.
Now, what's wrong with Tom Cotton's ideology is that he doesn't understand that US imperialism has ginned up much more violent conflict in the world than the US would otherwise have seen. Terrible US foreign policy has caused the rift between Russia and the US, not Russian foreign policy. Russia and the US could be and should be the best of friends. We had a golden opportunity for just that, but George H. W. Bush (Bush-41), lacking the "vision thing," sat on his hands after the fall of the USSR rather than rushing to the aid of the post-Soviet peoples' humanitarian needs (including the ethnic Russians').
Let me point out that Tom Cotton knows these things. He's not ignorant of them. What he is, is "clever" enough to ignore them. I put clever in quotation marks because ignoring them is actually stupid. His kind of clever is the proverbial Satan's kind of clever, and Satan lost before he started.
On Iran, it doesn't have, and hasn't had since the revolution, and doesn't want, a nuclear-weapons program. Iran is being extremely transparent on this. It has agreed to highly invasive real-time inspections and oversight. It wasn't too long ago that the Bush-43 administration neocons (Cotton is a neocon) were lying through their teeth when repeatedly saying "Iran nuclear-weapons program." Even Cotton can't repeat that now because anti-neocons hammered with the truth.
The US should immediately lift all sanctions against Iran the moment the final deal is inked. There should be no incremental lifting of such sanctions. If Iran cheats. Sanctions could be reestablished and would be. Iran could even be bombed (into the stone age) if that decision were taken. It won't ever come to that so long as the US stops lying about Iran, stops spewing the neocon/Zionist garbage, etc.
As for the "death to America" chanting, John McCain sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."
Cotton keeps calling Iran the greatest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, but I have never seen a shred of evidence of such massive sponsorship or any, for that matter. Tom Cotton is just spreading false propaganda, making emphatic statements that he hasn't and can't substantiate with any hard evidence. What are US predator drones firing Hellfire missiles but terror, turning non-enemies into sworn enemies?
And what does Tom Cotton know about the Houthis? The Houthis have wanted a secular, democratic state, not a Islamic theocracy. Perhaps that will change on account of US backing for the Saudi dictatorship that is bombarding Yemen.
Cotton mentions Guantanamo but doesn't mention that a large number of those being held should never have been there (not that the place should have been created) and were cleared for release a long time ago.
Furthermore on Iran, where's Cotton's concern that the Iranians had a legitimate case against the US because the US had overthrown Iran's duly elected Prime Minister and installed a brutal dictatorship?
Then on economics, not a surprise, he lauds Hayek, the libertarian-capitalists economics demigod, who wasn't as "Libertarian" as his followers make out but who also was simply ignorant about economics to the extent that following his prescriptions is proven by the data to fail long after proper applications of governmental fiscal policies would fix the problems and keep them from arising in the first place and all while causing greater sustainable growth and technological innovation. (See: Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States)He did mention Abraham Lincoln, which was a surprise. He said that he is a Federalist. That's a feather in his cap. He also talks about serving the country, which came across as genuinely felt. He's just wrong about what's best for the people as a whole and the world.
What he also sounds like is terribly naive about American economic and militant, imperial history.
Finally, the anti-war movement isn't going to beat Tom Cotton and his neocon ilk by making false claims about Cotton, such as that he didn't know Tehran is the capital of Iran. We have to confront his ideology, his dangerous, misled, and misleading ideology.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)