Is the Far Right in the USA supporting the Taliban?

That is the question.

There is history, ideology and strategy, and now there is opportunity that makes you wonder what the hell is happening in Afghanistan.

Fact number 1: In the mid-1980s, a covert operation was set up by individuals in the Reagan administration to sell and supply arms to Iran. Profits from the transactions were used to fund the Contras (anti-socialists) movement in Nicaragua.

Fact number 2: In the late 1980s, Congressman Charlie Wilson, a fiercely anti-Soviet Democrat, became the go-between that far right Republicans needed on the appropriations committee to ensure that Afghan mujahedeen forces would be provided with arms. Hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers' money and private sources secretly paid for the US manufactured military weapons supplied to the 'freedom fighters'.

Fact number 3: During the 2008 presidential election, Republicans directed attacks on Obama, stating that he is a socialist. They ran a campaign that fuelled these accusations, fabricating information or playing up aspects of Obama they claimed to be un-American. They still believe these claims.

Fact number 4: Former vice-president Dick Cheney has considerable connections to the US arms industry and to the many private corporations that flourished under the Bush administration and received billion dollar contracts in Iraq to supplement US defense with mercenaries.

Fact number 5: Something has shifted in Afghanistan since Obama was elected president and has re-directed military resources there. The Taliban's mujahedeen forces are stronger and are being supplied with increasingly effective offensive weapons.

Some observers are speculating that Afghanistan may become Obama's Viet Nam. All of this makes me wonder whether politically far right Republicans are secretly funding the Taliban in Afghanistan to undermine the Democrats.

Are Canadian troops and Afghan civilians also being slaughtered in order to advance the political goals of far right US Republicans? There may be more facts and arguments that Dr Dawg's readers would like to present for consideration. Please do.

UPDATE: (August 27) Welcome, NaPo readers! Here's some further reading for those unfamiliar with the way Terry Glavin operates.

John McCain also can.

Last night John McCain delivered the best speech of his campaign. It wasn't about loss. For a brief moment he rose above the odious web of incitation, fabrication, innuendo, attack, smear and dirty tricks that is now the standard Republican political campaign operation mode.

What I know about John McCain could probably fit on a 3x5 index card. I don't really know that much about Barack Obama, either. I have been at times, an enthusiastic observer of US politics but I lost my taste for it around the time the Republicans used September 11 to cement their hold on government. But there are elements to this campaign that have caught my attention.

Earlier in the evening, a comment from two unidentified Republican war-room peons was posted amidst the busy patchwork of information bits and bites that CNN favours in its broadcasts:

No path to victory.

John McCain probably figured that out a few weeks ago. He certainly did not seem surprised, angry or unprepared.

What I sensed about John McCain is that he was not a bitter or defeated man as he stood in front of a well-tailored and blue-blooded Republican crowd at a glitzy Arizona resort. He seemed quite relieved and even relaxed. It was over. He spoke firmly, with grace and honour. The best of John McCain was on view. He did not provide his supporters with the catharsis they wanted, but that is no longer his duty.

There will surely be a litany of naming, blaming and shaming in private and public conversations between Republicans. The acrimony, the mendacity and the rapacity that the party has promoted within and outside its ranks may continue; John McCain has left the building.

Sarah Palin and the rape kit issue.

As progressives, we advance and defend ideas, perspectives and opinions. We need to be thorough when doing research, especially in cases where far-ranging information is available to us.

When I first heard about Sarah Palin and the rape kit issue, I was outraged. It turns out that I was right to be angry that sexual assault victims should have to bear the cost of gathering evidence so that criminal charges and legal proceedings can move forward against their rapist. However, Governor Palin is not the only elected official willfully indifferent to this issue.

As it turns out, this is a serious problem in many U.S. states, and not only in Alaska. Michelle Andrews is a blogger for U.S. News. In February 2008, she wrote:

"It's been a problem for a long time," says Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them." In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are
called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC, "[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.

The rape kit itself generally contains bags to collect clothing, test tubes for collecting blood, swabs for fluid, and a comb to collect pubic hair. Small-change stuff. But exams also involve administering tests for pregnancy, HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis, and that's where the costs add up, says Randall Brown, medical director for the Baton Rouge Rape Crisis Center in Louisiana.

How forensic exam costs are handled varies. In some locations, hospitals bill patients' insurance and absorb whatever the insurers don't pay or bill patients for the balance. Some states have special funds to cover a portion of the costs. Others require convicted offenders to pay into a fund to reimburse the costs of the exams.

Of course, it's the health care portion that makes the cost of forensic medical exams a political hot potato in the U.S.; will that be - insurance, Medicaid, cash or credit card?

Ironically, the nature of rape may actually make it more likely that victims will be billed for the evidence-gathering exam. Unlike a break-in, where police gather forensic evidence at the victim's home and send it directly to the crime lab, in rape the victim's body is the scene of the crime. In these cases, "there's a crossover between medical care and forensic care," says Brown.

In September, Michelle Andrews blogged about this again, and reminded her readers that other elected officials in other jurisdictions have done nothing to ensure that rape victims are not financially burdened with procedures that are required as a consequence of a crime committed against them.

If on her watch Sarah Palin allowed women to be charged for rape kits, she has some serious explaining to do. But while she's undoubtedly the most visible offender, if the story is true, she's unfortunately not the only one to have permitted this reprehensible practice.

Regardless, it should prove reassuring to Republicans that Sarah Palin did not intervene in any manner to indicate that issues related to justice for women, or their physical and legal well-being, are important to her. In fact, Palin is the very embodiment of a phenomenon that was named and documented in the 70's: the Queen Bee syndrome. As long as she can enjoy the privileges of admission into a sacrosanct men's club, other women can pretty much fend for themselves.

(Merci to Dr Dawg who raised the question.)

September 18 / Update: In the comments, buckets mentions contraception. In a new development just emerging, it would seem that factor may indeed be a critical element and, this may as well be somehow connected to Troopergate. I will dedicate another blog post to this issue as soon as more facts are available.