US Politics

Donald TrumpTrump White House tried to play down US injuries in attack by Iran, says ex-officialAlyssa Farah says she was pressured to delay reporting of injuries to more than 100 US troops in Iraq from attack avenging Qassem Suleimani Julian Borger in WashingtonThu 9 Sep 2021 00.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 9 Sep 2021 00.22 EDTDonald Trump’s White House asked the Pentagon to play down and delay reports of brain injuries suffered by US troops from an Iranian missile attack on Iraq last year, according to a former defense spokeswoman.Alyssa Farah said she fended off the pressure from the White House, which came after Trump had first claimed there had been no casualties and then dismissed the injuries as “headaches” and “not very serious”.More than 100 US troops were ultimately diagnosed as having suffered traumatic brain injuries in the missile attack on two bases in Iraq housing US troops on 8 January 2020, launched by Tehran in retaliation for the US drone killing of Revolutionary Guard general Qassem Suleimani five days earlier.Roughly 80% of the American casualties from the missile attack were able to return to duty within days, but dozens had to be evacuated to Germany and then the US for treatment.Iran steps up nuclear plans as tensions rise on anniversary of Suleimani’s killingRead moreFarah described the attack as the “heaviest several hours of my life” in an interview with a new podcast, One Decision, hosted by former CNN journalist Michelle Kosinski and the former head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence agency, Sir Richard Dearlove.Farah, who went on to work in the White House, said that when Trump claimed there had been no casualties in the wake of the attack it was “true at the time that we gave those facts to the president”.But she added: “I think where things got shaky was there was an effort from the White House to want to say, this was not successful – the Iranians were not successful in harming our targets in response. And I think that went too far.“And I think that it ended up glossing over what ended up being very significant injuries on US troops after the fact,” Farah told the podcast, due to air on Thursday.She said it was Pentagon policy to release the facts as they arrived and were verified, and as a result the total reported number of casualties climbed throughout January 2020, irritating the White House.“We did get pushback from the White House of, ‘Can you guys report this differently? Can it be every 10 days or two weeks, or we do a wrap-up after the fact?’” Farah said. “The White House would prefer if we did not give regular updates on it. It was this drip, drip of quote unquote bad news.”Farah said she did not give in to the pressure, saying: “My feeling was, if my experience had taught me anything, transparency is always going to be your best friend in that field.”The killing of Suleimani, as his car was leaving Baghdad airport on his arrival in Iraq on 3 January 2020, was highly controversial. The UN’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings at the time, Agnes Callamard, deemed it an “unlawful killing” because Washington had not provided sufficient evidence of an imminent threat from Suleimani.Four days before the air strike a mob of Shia militiamen and their supporters breached the compound of the US embassy in Baghdad before being persuaded to withdraw. After Suleimani was killed the then US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, claimed there was evidence Suleimani was planning an “imminent” attack against US embassies and bases, and Trump said later there was a plot “to blow up our embassy”. But members of Congress said there was no such claim in their intelligence briefing on the drone strike. Pompeo later said the strike was aimed at “deterrence”.Farah insisted there was “extremely credible, thoroughly planned potential to harm US and coalition partners”.“The ‘imminence’ is really the word that I think folks would get hung up on how immediate it was,” she added. Farah said she advised the top officials at the Pentagon not to base the justification solely on the claim of imminent attacks but because “we had a terrorist on the battlefield in Iraq and an extremely bold thing for this leader to be doing, watching the Green Zone be attacked from the ground in Iraq”.US legal opinion is divided on the Suleimani strike. Some scholars said it was justified by the Iranian general’s role across the region of orchestrating attacks on the US and its allies. Others argue that does not provide sufficient cause under international law, because there was no declared state of war between the US and Iran.“I believe that it was in violation of international law because we were not at war with Iran,” said Gary Solis, a retired marine, former adjunct professor at West Point military academy, and author of 2006 book the Law of Armed Conflict. “Not only were we not at war with Iran, but where we killed him was in a state with which we are not at war. So what authority did we have to kill him?”TopicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsIrannewsReuse this content More

Joe BidenBiden asks Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway to quit military academy boardsWhite House confirms that 11 Trump appointees were asked to step down – or be fired – including Conway and Spicer01:07Martin Pengelly@ More

US taxationUS’s wealthiest 1% are failing to pay $160bn a year in taxes, report findsThis amounts to 28% of the ‘tax gap’, treasury report says, which Biden proposes closing by empowering IRS to pursue aggressively Martin Pengelly@ More

AbortionAOC on Texas governor’s ‘disgusting’ abortion remarks: ‘He is not familiar with a female body’Congresswoman explains basic biology to Greg Abbott after he claimed six weeks was ample time to get an abortion Maya YangWed 8 Sep 2021 11.40 EDTLast modified on Wed 8 Sep 2021 16.47 EDTDemocrats including New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have decried Greg Abbott’s “deep ignorance” after the Texas governor inaccurately defended his state’s new anti-abortion law, saying that it does not require victims of rape and incest to carry pregnancies to term because it provides ample time for a person to get an abortion.The law, which took effect on 1 September, is the most extreme anti-abortion measure in the US and essentially bans most abortions, offering no exceptions for rape or incest.Asked by a reporter on Tuesday why he would “force a rape or incest to carry a pregnancy to term,” Abbott denied that was the case, saying the law “doesn’t require that at all because, obviously, it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion”.Ocasio-Cortez called Abbott’s remarks “disgusting,” adding: “I do know that he is not familiar with a female or menstruating person’s body because if he [was], he would know you don’t have six weeks.”Cortez went on to explain the basic biology surrounding pregnancies, and that many pregnancies are often undetected at six weeks. She said: “In case no one has informed him before in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late on your period. And two weeks late on your period, for any person with a menstrual cycle, can happen if you’re stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. So you don’t have six weeks.”Cortez added: “He speaks from such a place of deep ignorance, and it’s not just ignorance. It’s ignorance that’s hurting people.”Julián Castro, former Democratic presidential candidate and mayor of San Antonio, tweeted: “Greg Abbott is lying. Many women don’t even know they’re pregnant by the six-week mark when abortion is outlawed in this bill. Rape and incest victims would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term at that point – or face civil lawsuits for getting an abortion.”While defending the radical new law and its lack of exemptions for victims of sexual violence, the governor also vowed to purge the state of all rape and sexual assault.Abbott said: “Rape is a crime and Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting off the streets.”In 2019, the Texas Department of Public Safety reported more than 14,650 cases of rape, constituting nearly a quarter of all violent crimes across the state. Fewer than 3,900 people were arrested for rape and other sexual offenses.Ocasio-Cortez fired back at Abbott’s comments about eradicating rapists, saying: “The majority of people who are raped or are sexually assaulted are assaulted by someone that they know. These aren’t just predators that are walking around the streets at night.”Ocasio-Cortez, who in February revealed that she is a sexual assault survivor, went on to say: “When something like that happens, it takes a very long time … for any victim to come forward. Second of all, when a victim comes forward, they don’t necessarily want to bring their case into the carceral system. They don’t want to re-traumatize themselves by going to court.“They don’t necessarily want to report a family friend to a police precinct, let alone in the immediate aftermath of the trauma of sexual assault.”Texas state representative Gene Wu mocked Abbott’s answers, tweeting, “Governor Abbott had a solution to end all rape and he sat on it until now? Does it involve a horse dewormer?”, referring to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug mostly used on animals that has been falsely promoted by rightwing figures worldwide for treating Covid-19.As the US’s most radical abortion law continue to face backlash, the Department of Justice on Monday vowed to “protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons, including access to an abortion”.TopicsAbortionTexasGreg AbbottAlexandria Ocasio-CortezUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

US politicsBiden vowed to make racial justice the heart of his agenda – is it still beating? The president named one of the most diverse cabinets ever but efforts to reform voting rights and other priorities are bogged down by legislative and legal obstaclesLauren Gambino in Washington@ More

US newsFar-right terror poses bigger threat to US than Islamist extremism post-9/11 Since the 9/11 attack, far-right extremists killed more people in the US than did American-based Islamist fundamentalistsJoanna Walters in New York@ More