SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A New York Times investigative piece "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will" reports today: "Beside the president at every step is his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective, tracking terrorists from his cavelike office in the White House basement, or a priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr.
A New York Times investigative piece "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will" reports today: "Beside the president at every step is his counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective, tracking terrorists from his cavelike office in the White House basement, or a priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the president's attempt to apply the 'just war' theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict. ...
"In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama's trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the 'single digits' -- and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
"But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The CIA accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it 'guilt by association' that has led to 'deceptive' estimates of civilian casualties. 'It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,' the official said. 'They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are.' ...
"It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government's sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects' biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die. ... David Axelrod, the president's closest political adviser, began showing up at the 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone understood: a successful attack would overwhelm the president's other aspirations and achievements. ...
"In fact, in a 2007 campaign speech in which he vowed to pull the United States out of Iraq and refocus on Al Qaeda, Mr. Obama had trumpeted his plan to go after terrorist bases in Pakistan -- even if Pakistani leaders objected. His rivals at the time, including Mitt Romney, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Mrs. Clinton, had all pounced on what they considered a greenhorn's campaign bluster. (Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had become 'Dr. Strangelove.') ...
"Mr. Obama has avoided the complications of detention by deciding, in effect, to take no prisoners alive. ...
"Some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the CIA for identifying a terrorist 'signature' were too lax. The joke was that when the CIA sees 'three guys doing jumping jacks,' the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers -- but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.
"Now, in the wake of the bad first strike in Yemen, Mr. Obama overruled military and intelligence commanders who were pushing to use signature strikes there as well. 'We are not going to war with Yemen,' he admonished in one meeting, according to participants. ... Mr. Obama had drawn a line. But within two years, he stepped across it. Signature strikes in Pakistan were killing a large number of terrorist suspects, even when CIA analysts were not certain beforehand of their presence. And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was seizing territory. ...
"Moreover, Mr. Obama's record has not drawn anything like the sweeping criticism from allies that his predecessor faced. John B. Bellinger III, a top national security lawyer under the Bush administration, said that was because Mr. Obama's liberal reputation and 'softer packaging' have protected him. 'After the global outrage over Guantanamo, it's remarkable that the rest of the world has looked the other way while the Obama administration has conducted hundreds of drone strikes in several different countries, including killing at least some civilians,' said Mr. Bellinger, who supports the strikes."
COLEEN ROWLEY, rowleyclan at earthlink.net
Rowley, a former FBI Special Agent and Division Counsel whose May 2002 memo described some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of Time Magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She said today: "These New York Times reporters do a good job explaining how Obama's political calculations and desire to show toughness in the 'war on terror' has led him to his role as judge, jury and executioner. Whereas Bush detained and tortured, Obama impresses the former Bush officials with his taking of no prisoners, thus avoiding all the messy legal questions that tend to arise in court. This, however, is the only little bit of transparency that exists so far showing how this new type of 'due process' functions. Hopefully there will be judges asking to see the secret memo inventing the new 'due process' (written by the same Office of Legal Counsel that OK'd waterboarding). How have they decided that CIA and Pentagon Power point presentations can fully substitute for the entire body of law governing American judicial process?"
RAY McGOVERN, rrmcgovern at gmail.com
McGovern, who was a U.S. army officer and CIA analyst for 30 years, now works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He said today: "So THAT'S it. New York Times writers Jo Becker and Scott Shane today provide insight into how President Obama is helped to resolve the 'moral and legal conundrum' of ordering 'kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical.' Counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, is 'beside the president at every step.' Colleagues compare Brennan's role to that of a 'priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the president's attempt to apply "just war" theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.'
"So that's why Brennan's alma mater, Fordham University, last week conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, and asked him to deliver the commencement address. Many graduates had greeted the honoring of Brennan with astonishment, and strongly criticized him for his key role in 'justifying' things like drone killing and 'mosque crawling' (infiltrating mosques with pretend-Muslims from NYPD/CIA). A few of the Fordham's justice-oriented graduating students faced into the prevailing winds with exceptional courage, and a few days later wrote about it." McGovern cited the just-published student pieces:
"White House 'Assassination Czar' Confronted at Fordham" by Ayca Bahce
"Counterterrorism Adviser Non-Transparent at Fordham" by Michael Pappas
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
"Extreme heatwaves like the one impacting the Western US this month are one of the catastrophic disasters these companies predicted their conduct would bring about," said Public Citizen.
Spring has not yet even begun, but as science journalist Rebecca Boyle wrote Thursday for The Atlantic, "it feels like we skipped right to summer" across the Western United States, which is facing record temperatures this week.
As of Monday, 39 million people across California, Nevada, and Arizona were under heat alerts. Temperatures in Los Angeles are reaching "25-35 degrees above normal," records are being "rewritten" in Las Vegas, and Phoenix is facing temperatures of 105°F two months earlier than usual, according to warnings issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) this week.
"This is not normal. Or at least it wasn’t normal in the past," said Boyle, who explained that it was the result of hot air being trapped by "a bizarrely strong ridge of high pressure in Earth’s atmosphere," the kind that would be uncommonly strong even in the summer.
Citing a model created by the nonprofit group Climate Central, she said that human-caused climate change had made these extreme temperatures five times more likely.
The NWS warned that a heatwave in March is "very dangerous, particularly for those not acclimated to the heat and/or traveling from cooler climates.”
Counts by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1,600-2,400 Americans die each year from heat-related causes, and they've more than doubled since 1999.
Meanwhile, a report from the Federation of American Scientists last year found that "the combined effects of extreme heat cost [the US] over $162 billion in 2024—equivalent to nearly 1% of the US GDP."
The Western United States has recently experienced its warmest winter on in recorded history, leading to a record snow drought. Scientists say this has depleted water supplies and will make the region more vulnerable to wildfires and drought later this year.
Climate scientist Daniel Swain told ABC News 10 of Northern California that this is only the beginning of how the climate crisis will impact the state in the coming decades.
"The hottest hots are already getting hotter, and they will continue to get hotter. We haven't seen the hottest temperatures that we're going to see in the next 20 or 30 years," Swain said. "We'll see an increasing number of years with severe wildfire conditions... We will also see increased risk of major flood events, either as snowmelt becomes more rapid in the spring or as winter storms drop even more rainfall more quickly."
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said heatwaves like this one are unfolding "just as Big Oil predicted."
"A relatively small number of major fossil fuel companies are responsible for the majority of all greenhouse gas emissions generated by humanity. Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of all global greenhouse gas emissions generated since 1854, and just 57 companies are responsible for 80% of the emissions generated since 2016," explained a report published by the group Thursday.
"These companies didn’t just contribute to this heatwave—they did so knowingly," the report said. "For decades, Big Oil companies were internally forecasting exactly these kinds of climate disasters."
However, the report explains, the industry "developed and orchestrated a multidecade, coordinated campaign to defraud the public about the dangers of climate change, and blocked solutions that could have prevented these disasters."
A study published earlier this month by Geophysical Research Letters showed that as more carbon has been pumped into the atmosphere over the past 10 years, the rate at which the climate is warming has doubled.
Following this trend, it may be as soon as 2030 that the globe surpasses 1.5°C above preindustrial averages, at which point many climate risks, such as heatwaves, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity, are expected to be dramatically amplified, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Big Oil companies have, indeed, cost this country and the world," Public Citizen said. "Extreme heatwaves like the one impacting the Western US this month are one of the catastrophic disasters these companies predicted their conduct would bring about. They should be made to pay."
"This is some of the most insane, tone-deaf messaging ever from a political party," said one Democratic strategist.
A Republican candidate for the US Senate thinks Americans should be "patriots" by driving less during President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran.
Michele Tafoya, a right-wing media personality running for an open US Senate seat in Minnesota, acknowledged during a Thursday interview on local radio station KWAM that the Iran war was causing painful spikes in gas prices, while encouraging US drivers to suck it up in the name of helping Trump succeed.
"I know it's frustrating, and I know it's hard for people," Tafoya said. "It used to be during past wars, especially World War II, Americans got behind our service men and women, and we did little things to show our support for them. We collected metal, we recycled stuff, aluminum, so that we could help in the war effort. I think right now, at least just keeping a stiff upper lip, maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks, so that gas goes a little further, until this thing is over."
Oh my god.
On the radio, NRSC-endorsed Michele Tafoya says that gas prices are spiking because of the Iran war that she supports and that people should “take one less trip to Starbuck’s” and to “just try to be patriots” about it.#mnsen pic.twitter.com/GOvkgZTqV7
— danny (@dabbs346) March 19, 2026
Tafoya then told Americans to "try to be patriots" about a war that was started early on a Saturday morning with no approval from the US Congress.
"Whether you agree with it or not, we're there," she concluded. "And we've got to support our men and women in uniform. That's a big one."
Fred Wellman, a Democrat running for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, said that Tafoya's comments made her look incredibly out of touch.
"Working people can’t get to their second job and pay for gas," Wellman wrote in a social media post. "Uber drivers are losing money doing the job. Small business are in the red for overhead. Prices are spiking because of insane diesel fuel costs. But when you’re a rich lady it’s patriotic to skip coffee. The other 80% wonder how they will eat at all."
Democratic strategist Matt McDermott expressed shock that Tafoya thought it would be a good idea to tell Americans to drive less to support a war that polls show is historically unpopular.
"The average person scrolling social media for the past few weeks has to be thinking that Republicans have absolutely lost their minds," McDermott wrote. "This is some of the most insane, tone-deaf messaging ever from a political party."
"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people, and it is time for a new chapter," said the head of the IMEU Policy Project.
As US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be requesting $200 billion to wage his war of choice on Iran, a Thursday poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the war is benefiting Israel more than the United States.
The polling, conducted by Data for Progress for the groups Demand Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, shows that 56% of likely US voters across the ideological spectrum believe that launching a war against Iran generally benefits Israel more than the United States. Just 29% said it benefits the US more, while 15% said they didn't know.
"The American public does not want another war in the Middle East," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian in a statement. "People see billions of taxpayer dollars being poured into a war while prices at home keep rising, and the risks of escalation continue to grow."
"US service members are being killed and injured, and civilian harm is mounting, including strikes that have hit an Iranian school and killed scores of children," Kharrazian continued, pointing to the apparent US attack on a girls' school in Minab. "There is no justification for this open-ended war of choice."

Those surveyed were divided over whether the Israeli government has too much or too little influence over US foreign policy, and whether the United States is providing too much or too little support to Israel. However, a majority of respondents, 53%, said that they disapprove of recent military strikes against Iran, which Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began on February 28.
That share dropped only slightly, to 51%, when people were asked their opinion of the strikes once informed that "Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the US had to launch the war against Iran now because Israel was going to attack Iran anyway, which would cause Iran to respond by attacking US forces in the region."

Shortly after Rubio made those remarks to reporters on Capitol Hill, he and the White House attempted to walk them back. Trump himself publicly pushed back against the suggestion that Israeli officials convinced him to launch a new war in the Middle East with no end in sight, even claiming that "I might have forced their hand."
The new polling also suggests that continuing the war could have an impact at the ballot box in November, when Trump's Republican Party will try to retain its narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress. The survey shows respondents are less likely to vote for pro-war candidates or those prioritizing support for Israel.

According to Kharrazian: "The main issue before us now isn't whether the administration has explained its strategy clearly enough. Calls for more hearings or a clearer 'plan' miss the bigger picture; the war must end, full stop."
"The strategy we can all plainly see is bombing Iran into submission despite little indication that such a goal is achievable, while destroying infrastructure and killing more civilians across the country on an indefinite timeline," he said. "Members of Congress should listen to the public, clearly demand an end to this war now, assert their constitutional authority, and ensure not one penny more is spent on this disaster."
In early March, a short list of Democrats voted with nearly all Republicans in the US Senate and House of Representatives to reject war powers resolutions intended to halt Trump's assault on Iran. The upper chamber blocked another measure Wednesday evening.
Lawmakers have done so despite polling that has repeatedly made clear the US public is not thrilled with the war on Iran, whatever ultimately motivated it. Another Data for Progress survey published Thursday shows that 68% of Americans oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran. Additionally, 52% of those surveyed agreed that “going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members."
The war has already killed 13 US service members plus thousands of people across the Middle East, mostly in Iran and Lebanon—the latter of which Israel has returned to bombing, allegedly targeting Hezbollah, despite a November 2024 ceasefire related to the genocidal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who previously tried to cut off some US weapons to Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, on Thursday introduced joint resolutions of disapproval for arms sales to Netanyahu's government following its recent escalation of attacks against Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine.
Objections to US contributions to bloodshed in the region have been met with hostility from the Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued Thursday that "the world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump: 'Thank you.'"
Meanwhile, even a significant majority of Americans who voted for Trump in 2024—79%—want a swift end to the US-Israeli war in Iran, according to a Wednesday poll commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative.
"The American people have paid tens of billions to fund Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and now they are paying tens of billions more for a war that Netanyahu has lobbied for going back decades. The blank checks for Israel were a significant reason why Democrats lost the election in 2024, and Republicans are on the path to suffer the same fate," said Margaret DeReus, executive director of IMEU Policy Project.
"The so-called 'alliance' with Israel does not benefit the American people," DeReus added, "and it is time for a new chapter where our nation's leaders hold Israel accountable for its genocidal expansionism and endless aggression."